Thread: Anyone Actually Using a Mitre Plane?

Originally Posted by Ratbag

You may very well be right! However, assuming that therefore some tens, of not hundreds of millions of them have been sold it rather begs the question where are they all now?

Presumably such a useful & ubiquitous tool is simply too useful and valuable to sell. The high prices commanded are therefore more a product of demand rather than supply. Trouble is, their limited production runs lends credence to the assertion that they were traditionally never a particularly popular tool, meaning that their high prices are more a product of demand upon a real, not assumed limited supply.

perhaps your estimate of tens or hundreds of millions is a bit off the mark?

the original Stanley was in production for around 73 years, (Hans Brunner suggests 76 years) with production ceasing around the time US industry moved into full war mode. I suggest the length of time in production is a more reliable indicator of the plane's usefulness than wild speculation about the number of planes made. Tens of millions would equate to an annual production exceeding 300,000 units per year. "Hundreds of millions" might equate with the total Stanley metal plane production since 1857.

Interesting the #51/#52 shooting combination (which also ceased in 1943) was in parallel production with the #9 for 34 years.


Look I own a L-N #9.
I don't own or currently have access to a SCMS or drop saw.
My #9 gets used to straighten or clean up nearly every cross cut I make.
Whilst a #6 or #7 will do the same job, if you made your living building drawers, you'd quickly find the funds to purchase a #9.


and I suggest poorly founded assertions about the planning needs of "the vast majority of Stanley's customers" are not particularly helpful to discussions about specialist tools.

Of course these production numbers are wildly exaggerated. It was an attempt at irony that obviously failed miserably.

I don't have a clue of actual production numbers, but would guess that given their expense both then as new production & now as a collector's or poseur's fancy in a similar vein to Bridge City tools that total production numbers would be extremely limited.

One need only look at the production prices and sales of the imitation/replica models being reproduced to see their popularity relative to more versatile conventional alternatives like low angle jacks & the like.

They were the same price in 1850 roughly as a dovetailed Iron smoother . They didn't seem seem to be priced above other metal planes made that way, it was just a choice of low angle or not . Sure , they probably were a lot more than the wooden planes most had , but look at the quality leap in furniture from the mid 18th century . It went through the roof!! The Mitre plane helped, it was there and was used . Top notch crafts people bought them .So what . You sound more like you have a gripe with your purists who you perceive to be having a go at you . None of them give a crap pal! Do you have a gripe just because they cost big money now ? So what ! so do luxury cars . Were talking about a plane that came and went . Whats the point in comparing it to the mass produced .

What an angry little fellow you appear to be!

You're quite correct in your assertion that I possess neither Lagonda nor Hispanio Suiza. I once met somebody who does: a wedding gift from a doting father-in-law. Your point is therefore......?

Perhaps - as you infer that you know my mind much better than I do myself - you could offer some form of helpful or at least less hostile suggestion as to an appropriate response to such appalling behaviour.

Originally Posted by Ratbag

That there WAS a demand is undisputed: the chute board setup remained on the books for some 40 yrs., & the no. 9 somewhat longer. It was probably useful to patternmakers, picture framers & the like, yet obviously not useful enough to tempt the vast majority of their customers it seems.

Even Patrick seems to agree.

It's been a while since I've read up on the view of Patrick Leach on the #9.
He seems to think the #9 "attempted to be too much, when it didn't need to be" : The Superior Works - Patrick's Blood & Gore: Planes #9 - #11 1/2
On the other hand he seems to think that English mitre planes are "among the finest planes ever produced". http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/smitre.htm

Mitre planes are for accurate joints. Not everyone needs that level of accuracy. Certainly not the bulk of the millions around the world who purchased Stanley #5s and their copies.
I think the renewed interest in mitre planes simply reflects the hobby market's increased interest in accurate woodwork with hand tools.

The car comparison is interesting. There were many more Fords and Holdens sold than Mercedes Benz cars in the 60s and 70s. However, more doesn't mean better. I spend a couple of weeks each year driving a 1974 car through the bush raising money for Variety - the children's charity. I, like many of the other 100 cars than enter, now drive an old 1971 Merc because they tend not to break in half when you don't expect. Quality items will always be in demand.

Originally Posted by Ratbag

I don't have a clue of actual production numbers, but would guess that given their expense both then as new production & now as a collector's or poseur's fancy in a similar vein to Bridge City tools that total production numbers would be extremely limited.

Not having a clue seems to me where you start, and just go on from there to ridicule the people here who use and collect!! WHY come along like that???.

Originally Posted by Ratbag

One need only look at the production prices and sales of the imitation/replica models being reproduced to see their popularity relative to more versatile conventional alternatives like low angle jacks & the like.

I The reason for their rarity is that..... not many customers in the past found any real practical use for them!

Yep,

Perhaps there were lots of folk in workshops in the 1850s through the early 1900s who thought EXACTLY like you do.

However there was a select group of people who knew how to use good tools, and bought them to execute the best work made at the time.

My belief is your attitude towards high quality work and tools, and the people who own them and use them.... explains exactly why some never get to experience the joy of using anything other than schoolboy tools.


Many years ago, Feb. 2006, I bought these two planes at an Auction of the tools of the famous Melbourne organ maker G. Fincham & Sons, in Richmond Vic.(1862 - 2006)

Left one is a Buck c1838-61, the right is by Nelson c1831-52.

At the Factory before the Auction I met, in the metal room, a very elderly bloke who told me he made organ pipes in that room, and explained how some of the equipment in the room was used.
He left the firm about 20 years earlier.
I organised for him to come to a HTPAA meeting and present a talk to the members about his time at the factory.
I put my tools purchased at the auction on the table, and he brought along some of his.
He picked up the Nelson plane, and said it was the first plane he used when he was an apprentice post WW2, and the other one was another tool from the same room where he worked.
I asked...Metal Work????
YES, The organ pipe is actually "Spotted Metal" basically Lead/Tin Solder, poured onto a steel table to solidify, cut into strips, rolled and soldered into pipes ... AFTER it is planed to thickness using those two planes above.

This is the kind of history, and information about tools I just love. If wasn't for collectors like me, you today would not know the use of those two important planes above.
If you would like, I can give you a list of the places you can see the Organs made by the Fincham Firm, so you can perhaps go look at them, educate yourself a little, and become bit more humble in the presence of absolute genius work.

We are in the HandTool Forum dedicated to (as noted above) "Users, collectors and lovers of good old unpowered hand tools"
So coming along here casting aspersions at users and the collectors of these things is, to me, just breathtakingly ignorant and offensive.

I just cannot get the image out of my brain, where around 1840 an apprentice called "Ratbag" is in a London Organ Making workshop of Henry Bevington with one George Fincham. On the one hand Ratbag was the one who had to carry out the slop buckets from the back of the workshop privy, because he told the workshop foreman what he thought about the tools that poor old "Ratbag" was never going to own ... or use ... EVER!. And on the other hand there was George Fincham, he owned the two planes above and brought them to Melbourne. And he went on to be one of the worlds most notable Organ Makers, and was responsible for a dynasty that lasted over 150 years.

Cheers,
Peter

Peter; it unfortunate, but unless the tool has an LV or LN stamp on it, and is fitted with the latest new generation alloy steel blade, its a totally alien concept to many current woodworkers.

Stewie;

Ian wrote:

Look I own a L-N #9.
I don't own or currently have access to a SCMS or drop saw.
My #9 gets used to straighten or clean up nearly every cross cut I make.

Me too ... well I don't have a #9, but I do have a dedicated shooting plane (#51) set up. It is in constant use.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by Ratbag

What an angry little fellow you appear to be!

You're quite correct in your assertion that I possess neither Lagonda nor Hispanio Suiza. I once met somebody who does: a wedding gift from a doting father-in-law. Your point is therefore......?

Perhaps - as you infer that you know my mind much better than I do myself - you could offer some form of helpful or at least less hostile suggestion as to an appropriate response to such appalling behaviour.

You just come across a fair bit on the opinionated pompous side Ratbag and your talking nonsense about something I'm passionate about .

My verbal behavior gets a lot worse than that .
That was just no 1 on the control knob . They would ban me here at no 3 .

Suggestion . Relax and zip the BS.

Here is the Spiers 1850 price list showing two Mitre planes next to the much more common Improved Smoother. look at the prices.

Edit.
I just checked Nigel Lampert's Book on Spiers and it says ." This Spiers Brochure dating to c1851 - 1858 is the earliest illustrated metal plane advertisement"

Rob

Originally Posted by derekcohen

...well I don't have a #9, but I do have a dedicated shooting plane (#51) set up. It is in constant use.

I think this is a good point...

When was the first dedicated shooting plane released to the masses?

Perhaps the mitre plane, even those with the sole proud of the sides, was the first version of a plane that was intended for use on its side in a shooting (at the time "chute") board, and a part of the reason for their decline was the advent of the adjustable handled, heavier, more dedicated shooting board plane?

And then this was further exaggerated by the fact that, during the depression years, many people discovered that a No. 5 or No. 6 would do the job almost as well?

Also, the mitre plane would also have had some competition in the low angle, one handed block plane, so perhaps this also contributed?

Just a thought...

Cheers,
Luke

Luke, the #9 (and similar mitre planes) can do double duty on a shooting board and a mitre jack. I do not (yet) have a mitre jack, but it is on my to do list, when I am next between projects. I believe that there is a place for both fixtures. At present I use shims on a shooting board to fine tune mitres. A mitre jack would likely do a better job as it better at holding the work piece. My shooting plane would not work well on a mitre jack. However I would not purchase a mitre plane and instead simply use a LA Jack or similar.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by auscab

.......Here is the Spiers 1850 price list showing two Mitre planes next to the much more common Improved Smoother. look at the prices.

Interesting. Mind you, we are still looking at BMWs (to borrow the motoring analogy), the less discriminating or less well-funded had to get by with Toyotas, but in that cluster, the mitres are far from the dearest of the bunch. Point made.

And I've just had my own ignorance on another topic enlightened a little. I've always thought the word "rabbet" for "rebate" was a US corruption, but it seems it wasn't foreign to Mr. Spiers. A couple of older English books I have refer to them as 'rebate planes', so was it a Scottish thing, or were these authors just being pedantic with their terminology?

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

Interesting. Mind you, we are still looking at BMWs (to borrow the motoring analogy), the less discriminating or less well-funded had to get by with Toyotas, but in that cluster, the mitres are far from the dearest of the bunch.

To continue the motoring analogy ...
I think with Stanley planes, rather than comparing BMWs with Toyotas we should be looking at a comparison between the Holden sedan and panel van.

From a copy of the 1902 Stanley catalogue posted at Handplane Central Stanley 1902 Catalog - Handplane Central
#5 Sterling 10/5 (that's 10 shillings and 5 pence, and there were 20 shillings to a pound), USD $2.50
#605 (Bedrock version of the #5) -- 12/1, $2.90
#7 -- 15/2-1/2, $3.65
#607 (Bedrock version of the #7) -- 17/6, $4.20
#9 (Cabinetmakers block plane AKA a mitre plane) -- 15/7-1/2, $3.75. i.e. 10 cents more than a standard #7, and 45 cents less than a Bedrock #7.

I'd say right on the money if you regularly used a plane to square components for drawers, etc. or to shute miters.

Originally Posted by Luke Maddux

I think this is a good point...

When was the first dedicated shooting plane released to the masses?

Perhaps the mitre plane, even those with the sole proud of the sides, was the first version of a plane that was intended for use on its side in a shooting (at the time "chute") board, and a part of the reason for their decline was the advent of the adjustable handled, heavier, more dedicated shooting board plane?

And then this was further exaggerated by the fact that, during the depression years, many people discovered that a No. 5 or No. 6 would do the job almost as well?

Also, the mitre plane would also have had some competition in the low angle, one handed block plane, so perhaps this also contributed?

Hi Luke

I think you need to be cautious when referring to "the masses" in the context of pre-Baby-boomer / consumer era tools.

From what I've read, pre-WWI, the "woodworking masses" were overwhelmingly gentlemen woodworkers. That is if you will accept that those who made a living working wood should be classified as "tradespeople" and not part of the faceless "masses" who buy on brand recognition and celebrity endorsement.

I'm not sure of the etymology of the name "mitre plane", but note the 1902 Stanley catalog referes to the #9 as a Cabinetmakers Block plane.
I'm inclined to agree with Chris Schwarz (linked to earlier) and the 1902 Stanley advertising copy that #9 and similar planes were for finishing "hardwoods" or soft metal alloys. As an aside, I've read that the #51/#52 combo was very popular with the printing trades where it was used to trim lead type. I suggest that it was not till the development of the "improved miter" that the plane was regularly used on its side.

I would further suggest that the "demise" of the #9 and similar improved miter planes owes more to table saws with accurate miter gauges or the radial arm saw than to depression era tool substitution.
In particular I note the other Ian's report that a miter plane purchased around 1850 was still in regular industrial use over 100 years later.