Thread: Importance of Lapping

Did a little more test with the Kunz. What seemed to work best for me was a very light scraping, that allowed the scraper to travel at pace over the surface, and wasn't such a bear to push. Not quite as pleasant as planing a surface, but still a good experience. The defect free surface on a sample of timber that my planes have struggled with, was appreciated .

IF I tried to run a Stanley 80 over as rapidly I am sure I would flip it.

Still interested in thoughts of the Veritas 112 80 style thumbscrew-Is it a plus?


Needed to file down the edges more. When the base was flatten the edges of the plane ended up actually sharp..

Cheers

Originally Posted by MartinCH

Did a little more test with the Kunz. What seemed to work best for me was a very light scraping, that allowed the scraper to travel at pace over the surface, and wasn't such a bear to push. Not quite as pleasant as planing a surface, but still a good experience. The defect free surface on a sample of timber that my planes have struggled with, was appreciated .

IF I tried to run a Stanley 80 over as rapidly I am sure I would flip it.

Still interested in thoughts of the Veritas 112 80 style thumbscrew-Is it a plus?


Needed to file down the edges more. When the base was flatten the edges of the plane ended up actually sharp..

Cheers

I had the veritas plane for a while, but didn't find it worth having compared to a plane and card scraper in actual work.

My thoughts on the thumbscrew is that it's just a way to make work less flat and not address what's actually a burr that needs to be refreshed.

I've always found the 80 to be something that leaves a wavy surface if it does any significant amount of work on a piece of wood, and the thumbscrew just increases the chance that you'll have a narrow deep row of lower quality work than just setting the edge to the right shape and keeping the burr nice.

Originally Posted by D.W.

......My thoughts on the thumbscrew is that it's just a way to make work less flat and not address what's actually a burr that needs to be refreshed.....

? There's a grain of truth in that statement, but I don't think it tells the full story.

Bowing the blade with the thumbscrew does two things, it increases depth of cut in the centre, and at least as importantly, adds tension to the blade to resist chatter. A lightly tensioned blade can chatter like fury on some woods. Having the thumbscrew tensioner makes my Veritas more versatile, like a card scraper. With a card scraper we adjust both angle & bow according to what we are scraping & how we prepared the edge. I can do the same with the Veritas plane, but it's much easier on my thumbs!

Of course the bow introduces a scalloped cut, and so does a cambered smoothing plane blade, but any grooves left are extremely shallow & usually not visible. [LOML has a mahogany table that was made in Indonesia & the top was (very skilfully) finished by hand planing with a very lightly cambered blade. I'd lived with that table for years & thought the top was as flat as glass until one day I happened to walk by with the light coming through a door at just the right angle to make the plane strokes (barely) visible..]

Yes, you can be lazy with the Veritas & crank up the bow to keep a dull or ill-prepared blade cutting (guilty as charged, on occasion), but the decreasing quality of the surface tends to force me to attend to the blade before long. And yes, you can obviously live without that tensioning screw as the 'original' does, but it adds a touch of convenience imo.

I would be first to agree that a scraping plane is not as pleasant to use as a well-tuned plane. There are many woods that scrape poorly or not at all, the blade needs attention much more frequently on a large job, & even the sound of them isn't satisfying like the clean 'whisk' of a sharp plane. It's also slow-going if you have anything more than thousandths of an inch to come off.

However, there are a few woods that defy my best efforts at planing, and a few situations where scraping is the better means to an end, so I'm happy to keep the Veritas in my kit, it earns its keep (just!).

Martin - a #80 is what I began with (got it for about $5 at the time!), & in some ways it was a good thing to start with because the fixed blade angle forced me to learn to be accurate & consistent when preparing the blade (which took a while!). However, it is certainly a 'tippy' thing if used carelessly and caused me grief on more than one occasion! Veritas's version of the 80, as well as having a bowing screw, has a longer toe which they claim makes it less liable to tipping - dunno how true that is 'cos I've never used one, but on paper it seems a more refined tool than the #80. To give it its due, the #80 is capable of fine work, but demands more care in preparation & handling than the 112 & its clones. Mine is pretty much relegated to glue-scraping nowadays......

Cheers,

Ian's statement is accurate - on the 80, there isn't a lot of blade stability and you have to (at least if sensible) at least set the screw to support the blade.

It's been too long since I had the LV large scraping plane to remember it.

The stanley 112 is a "talker" in that if you put thin blades in it, it can make a lot of noise. I find that kind of aggravating, and a poorly fitted wooden plane can do the same thing. I use the term mouthy, but that's a regional thing here- someone who talks in a way that annoys you and does it a lot is "mouthy".

I'd say having the scraping planes was a waste of time, but learning to refine the burr and set a burr to a certain angle by feel probably gave me worlds of usefulness on all kinds of card scrapers - flat and shaped.

Originally Posted by D.W.

...I'd say having the scraping planes was a waste of time, but learning to refine the burr and set a burr to a certain angle by feel probably gave me worlds of usefulness on all kinds of card scrapers - flat and shaped.

Yeap, I wasted alot time trying to get planes to run smoothly though all timbers, but at least 2 reasonably common timbers the samples I have here would not play ball. But my hand plane setup skills did advance and number of timbers I once struggled with are not an issue at all.
There is a high probability future projects timber selections will also struggle.

Not how much use the 112 clone will be but I think it will earn its keep. In the Blackwood sample there an area in the timber, that doesn't look much different, that breaks into a tessellated look when planed. The 112 cleaned up that region quickly

Originally Posted by D.W.

......I'd say having the scraping planes was a waste of time, but learning to refine the burr and set a burr to a certain angle by feel probably gave me worlds of usefulness on all kinds of card scrapers - flat and shaped.....

Picking up on that statement as well - my experience was the opposite. I'd already come to grips with card scrapers (after a long struggle!) when I stumbled on the 80, so I had a pretty good idea of what it should look like when cutting properly & I had it working reasonably well, reasonably quickly. Had I not had prior experience, it may well have ended up being hurled across the workshop & not retrieved!

I guess the message is, scraping is a bit counter-intuitive to many of us when we first try it, and it takes a while & some persistence to get the parameters right but once you get the 'feel' it makes it easier to go from plane to card or vice versa.

I've had the 80 for more than 30 years now, and the Veritas 112 clone for over 20. Neither gets as much use as they did 20 years ago before I got better at fettling planes, but they are still very handy on occasion. I'd not advise a beginner to rush out & buy a scraping plane unless they have unlimited funds & just want to fill their tool chest as quickly as possible. If you get seriously into any sort of work at which they excell, that's the time to think about a scraping plane or two.

On the other hand, I agree that card scrapers are one of the most useful & versatile tools a woodworker can have. They've become an essential part of my tool repertoire, I use some form of card scraper almost every day I spend in the shed. I reckon learning to use them has saved me hundreds of $$ in sandpaper & given my lungs a deserved break......

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

Picking up on that statement as well - my experience was the opposite. I'd already come to grips with card scrapers (after a long struggle!) when I stumbled on the 80, so I had a pretty good idea of what it should look like when cutting properly & I had it working reasonably well, reasonably quickly. Had I not had prior experience, it may well have ended up being hurled across the workshop & not retrieved!


Cheers,

Ahh, by the time I tried fettling planes, the power of the Internet had allsorts of claims about how to stop tearout,
Short list

• high angle plane
• ultra super sharprning
• High angle plane
• higher angle plane
• ultra super machined plane
• infill plane
• thick blades
• ultra super steel for blades
• close set chipbreaker
• step angle face to close set chipnreaker

This took a bit of time to make sense of. No planes were hurled across the workshop in the process, promise, but it took awhile before I conceded some timbers would tearout, no matter what.

Scrapers were another pain to learn, made sense of them during the lockdown days or semi lockdown for me (critical business apparently). the breakthrough for scrapers was acquiring a carbide burnisher. Couldn't get the tool steels to bend a burr. Suspected that the scraper steel was simply too hard. At the time buying a carbide burnisher was not feasible. My burnisher is made from a carbide planer blade. Rounded the blade at fairly tight radius. Still use the planer blade burnisher..

Originally Posted by MartinCH

Ahh, by the time I tried fettling planes, the power of the Internet had assorts of claims about how to stop tearout,
Short list

• high angle plane
• ultra super sharprning
• High angle plane
• higher angle plane
• ultra super machined plane
• infill plane
• thick blades
• ultra super steel for blades
• close set chipbreaker
• step angle face to close set chipnreaker

Yes Martin, between 45 yrs ago (when I started seriously trying to make pieces of wood look like furniture) and now, there has been a veritable avalanche of information thanks to the interweb. Unfortunately for beginners, so much of the 'information' is not juried, so while some is undoubtedly useful, some is rather dubious!

Apart from the cap-iron, which I long ignored as probably the single most important aspect of a standard-pitch plane, I'd pretty much stumbled through most of your list by trial & error before the mags & internet brought them up. [BTW, you left out low-ange planes, unless you are including LA plus 'blunt' blades under 'high angle'?]. Most have helped one way or another, sharpness is definitely up there in the top three for example, & I had a long flirtation with high angles and still have a 55* infill that is very useful on occasion, but like you, I've decided that sometimes any sort of "cutting" plane is just not worth persisting with.

There was a time when I would turn to sandpaper as soon as the going got tough - even contemplated buying a drum sander for a brief time! But I have always detested sanding & it would have been the wimp's way out, and fortunately for my lungs (& pride), my ability to plane got good enough I could get pretty close with planes & use scrapers to get me home.

Everyone's journey is different, and what you end up deciding suits is your choice. As I keep sayin' as long as you are enjoying your shed time & getting satisfactory results, it's all good in my book...

Cheers,
Ian

Drum sander? - hell I considered an oscillating wide belt sander - a neat compact one appear on on marketplace the other day, open sided, 300mm wide belt so could handle 600mm wide for the grand sum of $600 but unneeded these days, for what I do.

Regarding LAJ's except for the high angled blade in an LAJ even the scurrilous internet was clear that LAJs wasn't going to be tearout nirvana. LAJs for tearout fall under high angled blades.

Originally Posted by MartinCH

..... even the scurrilous internet was clear that LAJs wasn't going to be tearout nirvana....

Not at the very beginning of their resurgence Martin! That was back before the interweb explosion, so the articles promoting them were largely restricted to magazines & manufacturers' catalogues, but they were certainly touted as an answer to tear-out (with high blade bevels). Being a sucker for trying anything that seems like a good tool, I succumbed & ended up with a low angle jack & smoother. The jack (or 62 clone) is actually a very good plane despite its low price & very useful on occasion (not for smoothing!), while the "smoother" is used about once a flood these days. Much as I tried to love it we just never hit it off together, I'm afraid. I thought it would be a versatile tool, good for end-grain shooting as well as a general bench use, but it excels at neither & for me is downright uncomfortable to use for any task.

My mileage obviously varies from the gurus, but there are plenty of folks who said they liked them, so don't let my opinion put anyone off....

Cheers,

The LAJ and my block plane were not seeing much use either until I did the mod to my vise that gave it some mitre jack capabilities. I have noted that I can take rather thicker shavings / and or more likely to slice tough end grains in single pass when the timber locked in the vise.
The LAJ is the most resistant to chatter, when taking a tad enthusiastic shaves. But I tend to reach for the a block plane or the number 4 modded to 40 degrees pitch because both are faster to adjust the LAJ. The Norris adjuster is awkward to reach and has enough backlash that adjustments are annoying..

The modded vise is high up in my agenda to overhaul cause it's proven quite useful. Reduce rack and provide easier setup for mitres across and with the grain, and stops for repeat lengths.

Mildly curious about why the LAJ is more resistant to chatter, now that I can force the issue reliably. There is nothing that is immediately visible. Putting strain gauges on the planes is unlikely to happen. What I suspect is that it not the planes that chatter but possibly me. The number 4 is shorter and perhaps harder to to fully suppress vibration than the longer LAJ. Please note I am taking rather thick end grain shaving, or at least thicker than what I could achieve with a shooting board.

Cheers

Originally Posted by IanW

Not at the very beginning of their resurgence Martin! That was back before the interweb explosion, so the articles promoting them were largely restricted to magazines & manufacturers' catalogues, but they were certainly touted as an answer to tear-out (with high blade bevels). Being a sucker for trying anything that seems like a good tool, I succumbed & ended up with a low angle jack & smoother. The jack (or 62 clone) is actually a very good plane despite its low price & very useful on occasion (not for smoothing!), while the "smoother" is used about once a flood these days. Much as I tried to love it we just never hit it off together, I'm afraid. I thought it would be a versatile tool, good for end-grain shooting as well as a general bench use, but it excels at neither & for me is downright uncomfortable to use for any task.

My mileage obviously varies from the gurus, but there are plenty of folks who said they liked them, so don't let my opinion put anyone off....

Cheers,

I had at least two (the LA jack and BUS). At the same time, there was a (dumb for a hand tooler) big debate going on about what bench height is right, but the high bench thing is driven by the idea you won't do much with hand tools. AT the core of hand tool use is a moderate lean and extension, something you can't do properly with a high bench.

The BU planes seemed to have potential, but they had a whole aggravating group of issues. The O1 irons from LV are too soft, which they still haven't resolved, the handles were just nasty in orientation for anything other than a high bench, the lateral adjustment has to be significant due to the bed angle but the adjuster type isn't very good, and so on.

I pummeled my wrists on them several times before giving up, putting them aside and assuming that a handle remake later would fix them. Cannot remember why that never occurred other than a foray into trying to find and make the best single iron planes I could (50 degrees for heavy work and 55 and a tiny mouth for a smoother).

These things are all fine.....except for someone who wants to work a lot by hand, and then they're no good. You just simply cannot get enough hand work done comfortably enough to ever make hand woodwork viable, and hand work is divine in medium hardwoods and a lot of the exotics (for example, ebony and indian rosewood are just dandy to work by hand, even though a lot of less hard woods are a pain).

I'd figure trade guys talked about the chipbreaker if everyone is being honest about joiner and cabinetmaker trades, and then never actually demonstrated it gainfully in use or made apprentices do it or they'd have remembered. By that, I mean apprentices not in the last 20 years (I hear barnsley and others are moving toward more modern materials and less straight out wood)...but rather apprentices who may have been first taught in the 1950s or 1960s or so.

Someone on reddit a couple of weeks ago informed me that now paul sellers discusses using the chipbreaker for tearout, but I didn't bother to go to his page. Who knows what paul says, it apparently changes, which is a little weird from some guy who touts himself as a lifetime hand tool user who learned "the way things had always been done". Just like his sharpening method that the older texts rail about avoiding.