Spokeshave basics - any ideas?

[Vormulac]

Hi all,

I picked up a Stanley No.53 spokeshave (apparently) for a couple of quid the other day because it seemed like a good idea at the time and I've seen lots of posts suggesting they are well-used and much-loved by various more skillful forum members than I. I have never used, nor indeed even *seen* one in use. Does anyone have any particular hints and tips about what to look for in the fettling of an old spokeshave, or indeed how you use one!

Yours cluelessly,

Vormulac.

 

[Alf]

Ah, an easy question. Too bad the answer's not just one easy link... :wink:

First, the Blood & Goore on spokeshaves is worth a read - as well as showing the uninitiated what a #53 is. For your common or garden shave, Bob Smalser's article isn't bad. However the #53's a bit tricky, having the adjustable mouth, springs and so forth. Avoid having to remove the adjustable part, if I was you - I get the impression it could get you in a world of trouble. 8-[ I gave mine the lightest possible clean up, sharpened the blade and it's become a favourite ever since, so I'd go with "less is more" unless it really won't work without further attention. At which point come back with the specifics and we'll go from there.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Scrit]

Did you know that James Krenov mentions the #53 (albeit the porrer Kunz version) and how to tune it in one of his books?

Scrit

 

[Vormulac]

I knew I could rely on you for some nice common-sense advice Alf, thanks!

I have to confess Scrit, I haven't read any of Krenov's books but if it's good enough for him... :wink:

I'll have a read through those links and hopefully play with the thing after work and see how it goes - I'm sure I'll be back with more questions about it!

Cheers!

Vormulac.

 

[woodbloke]

Vormulac wrote:

I haven't read any of Krenov's books

JK's books are a good read in themselves. He writes in a very 'off the cuff' sort of way which makes the books very easy to read and quite hard to put down once started - recommended - Rob

 

[Brent]

You might also try the Brian Boggs video on drawknives and spokeshaves that Lie-Nielsen sells. Actually seeing instead of reading can make it a lot easier.

Brent

 

[Vormulac]

Actually seeing instead of reading can make it a lot easier.

Brent

That's a very good point, I shall try to find one. I've ordered a couple of JK's books and will hopefully get them before the weekend for a good read.

Thanks for all the advice, folks.

V.

 

[bugbear]

Oh, last tip; learn to use a flat soled spokeshave on convex surface before even thinking of trying to use a round bottomed spokeshave on concave surfaces. That's HARDER.

BugBear

 

[Alf]

Oh, last tip; learn to use a flat soled spokeshave on convex surface before even thinking of trying to use a round bottomed spokeshave on concave surfaces. That's HARDER.

Quoted for emphasis... :!:

 

[David C]

I got curious and disassembled one of these for serious tune up.

Not so easy, pins were a bit tricky, and springs easy to loosa as ALF says.

Article was in F&C and will be in new book "when the boat comes in". (Music required....)

David C

 

[Chris Knight]

Unless you want to learn to do the fettling and value your time lightly, I suggest you just buy a better shave (LN, Veritas etc.) These work out of the box (at least my LNs did). You soon appreciate that despite being a very simple tool, a spokeshave needs making well to work well. The LN Boggs shave (and I don't doubt, the Veritas too) are very well made.

 

[Alf]

Now I don't dispute the Veritas shaves are nice. Dunno about the Boggs, but the balance of probability... :wink: However, there's a WORLD of difference between a bog standard Stanley or Record and a #53, IMO. And these pesky modern shaves with their fine mouths are just useless when you want to waste away a lot of wood in a hurry. Anyone wanting to hoick out a #53 or #54 to make room for a fancy new shave, well get in touch for a prompt and friendly disposal service. No charge. :wink:

Cheers, Alf

 

[David C]

Good point.

Important to know what job you wish to do with shave.

Cabimetmaker's chairs may require fine finish on (flat width) curved surfaces and minimum clean up, hence fine mouth.

Country and stick type chairs may require large stock removal before the fine finish. Mouths can be opened with fine file.

1970's Stan & Record suffered from poor blade bedding and horrid thin (1.8mm) blades as did Kunz, which are very poorly made.

Flattening bed and sole, tuning lever cap and addition of Hock or Ray Iles thicker blades, can produce a huge improvement in performance and reduction of chatter.

Or buy a good one, or several, Brian Boggs uses many in his wonderful DVD. Fantastic chairs, I have sat in a couple, and would buy a set if I could afford to!

David C

 

[Vormulac]

It's nice to hear so many people's opinions on this - I have to admit that before I opportunistically bought this old one, I had no particular plans to own any, but now I'm getting rather more interested! Back pain permitting I'll get some time this weekend to do some work on it, cleaning it up and seeing what I can do with the blade.

I wish I could just jump straight in with a high end tool as suggested, but with a new baby in the family, my dear lady would kill me if I spent that much (I think this way, if I don't manage to get to grips with the spokeshave, I'm out of pocket to the tune of about £1.60 :lol: ).

I'll certainly be careful about the fiddly bits if I screw up my courage and try anything more ambitious than just surface-fettling.

Alf, is it possible to accurately date these things? I'm just curious really.

Thanks again for everyone's input.

Vormulac.

 

[Alf]

Alf, is it possible to accurately date these things?

Yeah, a bottle of vintage WD40 and a nice restaurant and they're anybody's... :lol:

Not sure there is - Walter's bible (unobtainable for mere mortals without money to throw away) or possibly Lamond would be the place to look I imagine. Might be able to do something with the mark on the iron, although there'd be zero guarantee of it being the original.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Scrit]

Walter's hasn't got a type study of Stanley spokeshaves, so as Alf says it's down to blade stamps (always assuming, of course, that the blade is original). Patent dates aren't much use either as the #53 and #54 didn't have any attached to trhem.

So what does the stamp on the blade look like?

Scrit

 

[Vormulac]

I know this is rather an old thread, so apologies for cracking it open once more. My reason for doing so is that I finally got to use my little #53 in anger and I wanted to thank everyone whose enthusiasm encouraged me to actually try the thing out - what a terrific tool!
As advised, I resisted the urge to totally dismantle it, I just cleaned it up and as the adjustable mouth mechanism seemed to be working well I left it alone. I lapped and honed the blade in the usual way and it proved to be just the ticket for removing large, and then fine amounts of stock that my rather rubbish block plane was making a meal of.
It's interesting trying to find the right angle isn't it, not like a nice big flat plane that simply tells you where it needs to be, it requires a rather more delicate touch, I find.
Incidentally, the blade has a heart enclosing the letters SH or possibly SW stamped on it, it sharpened up quite nicely, although I have yet to ascertain how well it held that edge.

All in all, the best £1.42 I have ever spent

Anyway, thanks again!

V.

 

[bugbear]

Incidentally, the blade has a heart enclosing the letters SH or possibly SW stamped on it

"incidentally" ... hah!

BugBear

 

[Alf]

Incidentally, the blade has a heart enclosing the letters SH or possibly SW stamped on it

"incidentally" ... hah!

Yeah, like he was gonna get away with that. :roll: :lol: Should you wish to narrow that down a tad, try here. Which I just realised is a duplicate of the link I gave last time... #-o On the other hand times do move on - 'cos now I have a copy of Manufactured and Patented Spokeshaves & Similar Tools and there is a type study. But then as far as I can see chances are it's "new" enough to come down to the iron markings anyway.

Cheers, Alf