Toothing Plane Bespoke or Antique?....A Comparative Review

[jimi43]

A little while ago, I did a review of the magnificent toothing plane I received from Stewie Simpson in Australia (TTC Tools).

The recent thread on his beautiful traditional chamfer plane set me thinking....I bet there are quite a few people out there who wonder why anyone would spend their hard earned money on these...or any other bespoke tool, when perfectly serviceable originals are relatively freely available for modest sums.

So I thought I would address this by putting my views forward in the hope that others wondering the same thing can feel a bit more comfortable investing in such masterpieces.

I recently acquired a beautiful Griffiths of Norwich coffin toother armed with a rather nice Moulson Brothers toothing iron....

...so I was in a good position to do a bit of a comparative study and review.

Firstly, let me describe the competition.

Griffiths of Norwich were a very prolific maker 1803-1958 and I have a bit of a soft spot for them as they have documented associations with Christopher Gabriel.....my most favourite maker.

The quality is therefore given and the Moulson Brothers iron is spectacular!

So this example of antipodean craftsmanship stands against no slouch as an opponent!

So let's compare the build quality and differences:

The TTC toother is substantially meatier...not exactly larger but it has more substance, partly owing to the use of beautiful hardwoods but mostly because of clever design. There is a more substantial toe section resulting from the clever throat design and this adds to the weight and positive momentum of the tool.

The Griffiths is a standard quality coffin shape...beautifully executed but a tad less positive when used.

The throat design is the part which has undergone the most development and intensive trial and testing....much of which was discussed and debated on this very forum, and I have to say taken on board. This has lead to some major and significant improvements over the tried and tested coffin throat.

Traditional plane makers have adopted a more generic approach in making the throat. Presumably they mostly made standard coffin smoothers and in making the toothing plane in smaller numbers, merely changed the pitch of the iron, leaving the rest of the design the same.

As can be seen, the mouth clearance on the TTC example is larger and the throat delicately shaped into a sweeping curve, opening out as it approaches the top of the toe. The cheeks are beautifully flared.

The results of these subtle changes are quite substantial and obvious. The Griffiths plane works fine...removing stock freely and evenly but the mouth clogs almost immediately....

....and I got this far with half a dozen strokes before having to clear the shavings which were stuck between the mouth and the leaving edge of the mouth.

Testing the TTC on the same piece of hardwood, I never once had to clear the mouth and the stock removal was far more substantial and the action easier...

...the extra clearance was the reason for this...the fact that the plane was purpose designed from the bottom up.

It is not relevant comparing surface finish, only to say that they both did their job in working difficult woods and making a fine surface for final finishing with a low angle mitre or to use as a great adhesion area when veneering.

But....if I were a furniture maker today and had the two to choose from I would go for the TTC anytime...simply because the work time would be significantly reduced resulting in substantial labour saving and thus paying for itself in no time.

In conclusion....both planes performed as expected but the TTC is a toother proper and the Griffiths a toother in smoother's clothing and that alone is worth choosing the modern version.

I shall be keeping both but I reach for the TTC a lot...they are both gorgeous and the Griffiths will be here in another 100 years but then so will the TTC and it will be worth substantially more, and investment commanding "Norris" prices as one expects from a true heritage piece.

Jimi

 

[Racers]

I agree Jimmi clogging is a problem with traditional toothing planed mine does clog easily, I have a blade that fits my scraper plane which works well as the mouth is about 10mm wide, I should have brought it to MAC Timbers.

Its a nice looking plane Stewie.

Pete

 

[bugbear]

I recently acquired a beautiful Griffiths of Norwich coffin toother armed with a rather nice Moulson Brothers toothing iron....

At the rick of creating a slight tangent, that's a little surprising.

Almost every Griffiths I've seen (and I live near Norwich, I've seen LOADS) has a I. Sorby iron.

BugBear

 

[jimi43]

I agree Jimmi clogging is a problem with traditional toothing planed mine does clog easily, I have a blade that fits my scraper plane which works well as the mouth is about 10mm wide, I should have brought it to MAC Timbers.

Its a nice looking plane Stewie.

Pete

That's interesting to know Pete...and I should have liked to have seen it being used in this way because clearly you could level a piece and then finish it with your plane and the use of the two irons sequentially.

Maybe next time we meet...there was simply too much to see on Sunday...I had loads of things on my "list of things to see" that dropped off sadly!

Cheers mate

Jimi

 

[Racers]

Rich Arnold was talking of another charity do at his workshop, if it goes ahead I will make sure I bring it.

Pete

 

[condeesteso]

As Jim knows I recently got a toothing plane off the bay for a tenner - a Williams, Boro Road, c1850. Then I got a Matheson by accident also (a fiver). I've seen the TTC and it is beautifully made. I agree about the mouth, they do tend to clog. I may well open mine up a bit as this is a case where a big mouth is a good thing. I question if the fluid sculpting of throat matters as the waste is all very small stuff.
For those on a budget however, get an old woodie toothing plane for a few quid - it's an immensely useful tool. For me the TCC is too nicely made - I use these things as I do a scrub plane - with little respect.

 

[jimi43]

EDITED RESPONSE...further testing below...

 

[jimi43]

I should amend my above post because I felt that the mouth of the Griffiths should have been wide enough to cope with, as you say...tiny shavings.

It is. So that alone is not the reason why it's getting clogged.

So I went out and did some more testing...and both have relatively wide mouths...acceptable for normal shaving ejection. Yet in tests I just performed planing exactly the same piece of wood the same number of times, the Griffiths still clogs and the TTC doesn't.

I think it's as I summised before..the Griffiths is a smoother that was turned into a toothing plane and the TTC isn't.

I'm now sure that it's the "wear" design...that is the part of the toe from the front of the mouth up into the body before it becomes the ""upper front throat".

On Stewie's this is sculptured....

but on the Griffiths...it's as with any other plane...straight up...so that as the sole wears..the mouth does not open on both sides of the mouth at the same time.

(difficult to show because of the darkness of the body).

In the first picture...it can be seen that shavings tend to stick between the teeth of the iron..which obviously doesn't happen on a standard edge.

This accumulation builds up and eventually falls off but if the build-up reaches the front of the mouth before it breaks off...it starts to clog.

This happens on both planes, but on the TTC it doesn't back up...because the front of the throat sweeps away in a gentle curve. In the Griffiths it backs up and builds up solidly in the wear pocket.

I take it Stewie will pipe up shortly and explain all of this...but clearly the care taken in the design of this plane is hidden away and is only evident by the absence of faults.

I guess you really do get what you pay for! :wink:

Jim

 

[bugbear]

This make no sense. I know that (probably) all old toothing planes follow the design showed, and further, that this design was used for at least 150 years, just from the few examples I happen to own.

Surely a faulty design would have been changed - old craftsman were not idiots, neither the users nor the plane makers.

So the question should be - are we using toothing planes for subtly different purposes today, purposes they were not originally made for, or is modern technique in some way wrong?

To be clear - there is no doubt that in the manner of Jimi's usage the old design has issues that are improved upon by the new design.

EDIT to add; even if the makers were creating a faulty design, opening up the mouth of a wooden plane is a pretty easy piece of "user tuning", if that were indeed the true problem, but I've never seen such "tuning".

BugBear

 

[JohnPW]

It looks to me the new plane has a mouth about twice the size of the old plane. I've never used a toothing plane before but IME a small gap like 0.25mm can make all the difference between clogging or not.

 

[swagman]

Hi John. I would suggest to you that the size of the mouth opening is only 1 part of the solution. As you will note from the 4th and 5th photo shown in the opening post the other important difference between the 2 planes is the sizing of wear angle from the front of the mouth. If there is too much given within height and angle that's then directed back towards the face of the iron, you will end up creating a primary congestion point that will rapidly congest itself back to the mouth opening. Every element within an effective hand plane design has within itself a contributing role to play.


With the wood fibres getting caught between the combs of the cutting edge, you will find this will generally self clear as you continue to work the plane - provided the mouth opening itself remains generally clear.


regards Stewie.

 

[bugbear]

but on the Griffiths...it's as with any other plane...straight up...so that as the sole wears..the mouth does not open on both sides of the mouth at the same time.

(difficult to show because of the darkness of the body).

Jimi - can you attempt to measure the size and angle of the two planes that comprise the "wear" in the Griffiths?

I've looked at a few coffin smoothers, and the 4 toothing planes I own, and I believe that the toothing
plane wears are not simple copies of the smoother design.

BugBear

 

[swagman]

Hi Bugbear. Your inquiry as to the very different nature of the wear angles on both planes is a valid point of research. Its certainly fits within my own understanding as to what need to be considered to achieve a successful toothing plane design outcome. My guess would be that you have already established that basis from your own internal research.

Stewie;

 

[JohnPW]

Hi John. I would suggest to you that the size of the mouth opening is only 1 part of the solution. As you will note from the 4th and 5th photo shown in the opening post the other important difference between the 2 planes is the sizing of wear angle from the front of the mouth. If there is too much given within height and angle that's then directed back towards the face of the iron, you will end up creating a primary congestion point that will rapidly congest itself back to the mouth opening. Every element within an effective hand plane design has within itself a contributing role to play.


With the wood fibres getting caught between the combs of the cutting edge, you will find this will generally self clear as you continue to work the plane - provided the mouth opening itself remains generally clear.


regards Stewie.

Hello,

If we define the "wear" as the backwards slope at the bottom of the front of the throat on a bench plane, which is to stop the mouth getting too wide when the sole is flatten, then I would think the wear on a coffin plane can go straight up ie 90 degrees because the iron is at 90 degrees (maximum wear) or the wear can slope forwards, to have a backwards sloping wear doesn't make sense.

As the size of the mouth on a toothing plane doesn't affect performance (?), you could have a flat throat all the way from the the top to the sole, like on a metal plane. That would also make it easier to make. Zero "wear" is what I see on some user made wooden planes, especially the glued together type. The first plane I made had no "wear".

 

[xy mosian]

Is it worth looking at the surface of the blades at the comb? Are the combings sticking more readily to one surface than the other?
xy

 

[JohnPW]

Two drawings take from a Charles Hayward book to make things clearer.

 

[jimi43]

Ok...now that we have reached Arctic daylight and before it goes again...I have managed to take a picture of what I am trying to describe.

It can be clearly seen that the "wear" face on the leading edge of the mouth goes directly upwards whereas the Stewie's one slopes forwards towards the toe.

Just as an aside the wear face on the Griffiths goes up 18 mm straight upwards...a considerable amount in my opinion and totally unnecessary on this type of plane I should have thought.

I have clearly described my findings....Stewie has confirmed these to the letter and explains why he has designed it this way...so that's a relief at least...I felt sure he wasn't leaving it to serendipity!

Why this...or all the other clogging toothers should be specifically made this way...I can only surmise. I think that my theory that it is just so they can make them all the same way is just as valid as any...and unlike Stewie...Mr Griffiths is sadly not around to ask.

The subject is of interest to further our understanding of these underrated tools...and I welcome further test reports with user's examples...preferably with accompanying photographs so that we can support my theory or propose others.

One thing I do know for sure...for whatever the design reasons Griffiths chose to incorporate a "wear cliff"....it is without doubt the main cause of clogging in this particular example.

Another thing which I also noticed...and again Stewie can confirm..is the design of the wedge tails...

During review testing, I noted that the clogging was worse towards the edges of the mouth. I know this because in trying to free the offending mass of compressed shavings...this blockage was higher and more densely packed near to the sides of the mouth where it meets the tail of the wedge. Indeed I had to remove the wedge and iron to completely clear the remaining debris.

Again...my theory, and only a theory..is that the shaping of the tails on the TTC one is much higher up and the curves encourage any waste actually reaching that point (of which there was none!)...to further bend inwards and not get caught. Since it doesn't reach up this far...actually doesn't reach anywhere...then this cannot be proven either way.

However, on the Griffiths, the tails of the wedge extend virtually to the mouth and although they bend inwards...years of wear mean that they are not as crisp at the sides and therefore they are a potential trap for shavings...and I believe this to be at least the start of the mouth problem.

I look forward to further responses from actual testing of other planes.....this is after all...just my opinion.

Jim

 

[jimi43]

Hi John. I would suggest to you that the size of the mouth opening is only 1 part of the solution. As you will note from the 4th and 5th photo shown in the opening post the other important difference between the 2 planes is the sizing of wear angle from the front of the mouth. If there is too much given within height and angle that's then directed back towards the face of the iron, you will end up creating a primary congestion point that will rapidly congest itself back to the mouth opening. Every element within an effective hand plane design has within itself a contributing role to play.


With the wood fibres getting caught between the combs of the cutting edge, you will find this will generally self clear as you continue to work the plane - provided the mouth opening itself remains generally clear.


regards Stewie.

Hello,

If we define the "wear" as the backwards slope at the bottom of the front of the throat on a bench plane, which is to stop the mouth getting too wide when the sole is flatten, then I would think the wear on a coffin plane can go straight up ie 90 degrees because the iron is at 90 degrees (maximum wear) or the wear can slope forwards, to have a backwards sloping wear doesn't make sense.

As the size of the mouth on a toothing plane doesn't affect performance (?), you could have a flat throat all the way from the the top to the sole, like on a metal plane. That would also make it easier to make. Zero "wear" is what I see on some user made wooden planes, especially the glued together type. The first plane I made had no "wear".

Hi John

That is my definition of the term "wear"....

...supported by this most excellent drawing from THE NORSE WOODSMITH

Any "wear" on a purpose-made toothing plane is redundant. This is my opinion and I'm no expert. If Philly or Richard Arnold are around perhaps they know far more than me.

I'm just a "I know it doesn't clog if it doesn't have one" merchant...that's the limit of my historical research.

XY..both irons have the same characteristics...in fact..I went out again just for you my friend...and I bet you can guess what I did...

...yes...you got it...I swapped the irons as they are the same size!

But at least that puts pay to any tangential wanderings on the iron front.

Jim

 

[bugbear]

I'll post (repost actually) this report on toothing plane use, ancient and modern,
which seems relevant;

https://anthonyhaycabinetmaker.wordpres ... -our-time/

BugBear

 

[swagman]

Hi John. I would suggest to you that the size of the mouth opening is only 1 part of the solution. As you will note from the 4th and 5th photo shown in the opening post the other important difference between the 2 planes is the sizing of wear angle from the front of the mouth. If there is too much given within height and angle that's then directed back towards the face of the iron, you will end up creating a primary congestion point that will rapidly congest itself back to the mouth opening. Every element within an effective hand plane design has within itself a contributing role to play.


With the wood fibres getting caught between the combs of the cutting edge, you will find this will generally self clear as you continue to work the plane - provided the mouth opening itself remains generally clear.


regards Stewie.

Hello,

If we define the "wear" as the backwards slope at the bottom of the front of the throat on a bench plane, which is to stop the mouth getting too wide when the sole is flatten, then I would think the wear on a coffin plane can go straight up ie 90 degrees because the iron is at 90 degrees (maximum wear) or the wear can slope forwards, to have a backwards sloping wear doesn't make sense.

As the size of the mouth on a toothing plane doesn't affect performance (?), you could have a flat throat all the way from the the top to the sole, like on a metal plane. That would also make it easier to make. Zero "wear" is what I see on some user made wooden planes, especially the glued together type. The first plane I made had no "wear".

Hi John. All I can do is forward my own opinion on the subject of toothing plane design. If your views differ from mine then I really have no desire to try and debate the subject further. I also don't plan to lose any sleep worrying over it. . Good luck to you.

regards Stewie;