Thread: More on the Modern vs. Historically Guided Plane Use

interestingly, fidgen doesn't know in the bottom of the comments why he gets planes wandering away from rabbets. The likely cause is trying to line the blade and the nicker up in an identical line, which either results in a rubbing blade or one accidentally set out further than the nicker.

For a rabbet plane with a nicker to work properly, the nicker has to be proud of the iron a little bit so that it's cutting the side wall (it also needs to be sharp to cut like a knife (but it doesn't need to be razor sharp), but that's not going to be a problem on a new plane for certain). The iron doesn't cut the side of the cut or "clean" it, it stays just back and excavates the bottom tearing just a fraction out of the corner (like a fraction of a mm).

This ends up actually being easier because there's a whole range of set backs for the iron ( from the tiniest amount to probably half a mm) that will easily work fine depending on shaving thickness.

These are the kinds of little mechanics things that you run into.

Not sure if the LV plane can have the nicker set proud of the side a little bit, and the same for the iron, but if both can't be with the nicker a little more proud than the iron, it'll never work right unless you go really slow, and even then, the wandering will still probably occur.

What happens in real life if you miss this cut? presumably you've marked the rabbet with a gauge before cutting it, so you get a rabbet plane out and square up the mistake (no fence, no nicker, etc, just knock the bits off that are high and finish to the mark).

Here is a picture of the moving fillister plane that I generally use. Note that the nicker is proud of the side, and the iron is proud of the side, but just less than the nicker. The nicker knifes the side of the cut and the iron removes the waste. The side of the plane may rub the cut ahead of or behind the nicker and iron, but not all the way along.

https://i.imgur.com/0rpN0zG.jpg

I'm sure some have wondered how these "inaccurate" screw tightened fences could have ever done accurate work because there's no micro adjust or alignment system. It's simple, the fence doesn't have to be perfect. It needs to be good by eye - the nicker to the fence lateral to it defines the width of cut and the iron just needs to be in the ballpark to work with it. there is no need for the fence to be within a sheet of paper front to back even though you will probably get good enough to set it that close by eye, anyway. Not the first time, but maybe the 10th and after that it'll just look right.

The experience that you get using the plane will let you know that all of the what-ifs are gone because you'll soon work to a mark quickly and forget that you ever worried about checking the plane side with a straight edge other than the first time you get a disused plane and set it up.

This is a Hields-nottingham plane with a dovetailed boxwood edge. I would easily pay $200 for a plane like this, but it's not necessary (there's one boutique maker in the US, but his plane looks funny and the last time I checked, he said he was redesigning it - I have no idea why he didn't have the sense to just copy an English plane's proportions and function, but even some of the boutique makers "know too much" and freelance). This plane was 49 pounds from england plus shipping. I've had it 5 or 6 years and it's endured the typical annual variation in dewpoint here (the range is about 100F from the coldest week in winter to several humid weeks in summer). I've never had to refit or adjust anything since the relatively little effort put into at the outset. A new woodworker might be inclined to check it for square over and over or sand bits on it or do whatever - all of that goes away when you understand how it's actually supposed to be set up and why they often come with a nicker proud of the side (most people assume the nicker is too wide and needs to be ground back - not a great assumption)

Knowing how it's supposed to be set up is priceless - far beyond any stability or accuracy claims from factory grinding. one edge of waxed boxwood is generally in the cut and from the heel, you get a good orientation to push the plane diagonally (no tall benches for this, it's counterproductive). Taking off huge stripes of wood per pass is about as hard as walking - it's certainly far less of a strain than playing catch with the kids in the back yard (after all, you'll get stuck doing things like bending down when you do that).

You can't assume that, for example, the LV Or LN staff is going to understand these types of nuances when they make a new plane as they may not have people on staff who have ever actually used them in context. Certainly, the internal message at LV seems to be that cap irons aren't practical (LN has said the same thing in live presentations - get the high frog because the cap iron works but it's too fiddly to set). That's about as limiting as you could be from the start.

An interesting read. I have over time moved to using old wooden rebate planes for rebates (rabbets) with the final tidyup to the gauge lines being done with a small metal shoulder plane. The reason was simply because they were fast and felt nice to use once I got the skewed blade sharpened correctly. I then sold my Record 778 rebate plane as I noticed I was no longer using it as it felt too heavy and clumsy.
I do have a LV skew block plane that I bought primarily because its skew runs in the opposite direction to that of my wooden rebate planes - it enables me to do the last 1/4 of a rebate in those situations where the first 3/4s are done with a wooden rebate plane going against the grain.

>>I then sold my Record 778 rebate plane as I noticed I was no longer using it as it felt too heavy and clumsy.<<


Thanks, Paul - that's a perfect way to put it. It's not an intentional move (and hasn't been on my part), but just noticing over time what's easier and more productive (faster) to use.

Originally Posted by paul.cleary

An interesting read. I have over time moved to using old wooden rebate planes for rebates (rabbets) with the final tidyup to the gauge lines being done with a small metal shoulder plane. The reason was simply because they were fast and felt nice to use once I got the skewed blade sharpened correctly. I then sold my Record 778 rebate plane as I noticed I was no longer using it as it felt too heavy and clumsy.
I do have a LV skew block plane that I bought primarily because its skew runs in the opposite direction to that of my wooden rebate planes - it enables me to do the last 1/4 of a rebate in those situations where the first 3/4s are done with a wooden rebate plane going against the grain.

I don't want to egg you on, but it takes less time than one would imagine to get comfortable planing and sawing with an off hand. The first few tries can be offputting, but it's worth the trouble after that.

I can plane faster with a wooden plane in coarse work with my left hand than I can with a metal plane with my right hand (right dominant). To the point that now when I start to get tired, I just swap hands. crosscutting or sawing fine things left handed is a bit difficult, but those things never come up in volume like ripping by hand or large heavy crosscuts (which are usually done with a rip saw, anyway).

Apparently, this pair failed to get your memo, Dave

Somewhere, there is a metal shoulder plane and a LN rabbet block plane being used



... and a LA Jack !!!

Regards from Perth

Derek

I believe their terms for their furniture are that most of it is hand planed, but the bulk of their dimensioning is done by machine.

Each time I see their videos, it looks like they bought all of their tools at once in the last year. To do the final flattening work on something that large is curious, but maybe they aren't aware that it could be done more easily.

When Brian Holcombe first started, he was using two metal LN planes to do all of that work. I told him I'd like to send him a couple of wooden planes because he'd notice the difference pretty easily. After he got them, he agreed. These guys would, too, but I haven't ever offered to make them a plane (for fear that it would look like product placement).

The LA jack planes are required for some guru teachers in the US, just for admittance to class. That's too bad.



As far as whether or not you can make things more difficult and still make a living, I can only point to my grandfather - he did it all his life. At some point, he got upset with a splitting axe when he retired to cutting, splitting and hauling firewood for a living. He just wanted to work hard, that's what made him happy - and punishing himself a little bit, I think, made him even more satisfied. He replaced the handle that broke twice on his splitting axe with a piece of rectangular bar steel and used the axe for the rest of his life.

I used that axe a couple of times. He knew a wooden handled splitting axe was easier to use (he didn't use an axe as his main splitter, he had a machine for that, but would split pieces he thought too large as he was loading his truck - a once over. I'm sure the axe itself still split many dozen cords of wood over the years itself, though), but that wasn't enough to go back to it.

On the internet now, if he was on video, we'd say "he's a pro - pros use bar steel handles in their axes to prevent wasting time with wooden handles".

Wherever these guys learned, the instructors probably also have never had to use hand tools enough to know how much faster and less effort they'd be for all but the final work. But if they can price their effort into a project and still sell it, then who really cares. I'm not getting paid, and I don't have the power tools to fall back to when I'd choose to as they do, so I do.

I think they make wonderful furniture. I couldn't make better furniture than they do, but I could make what they're doing a little less physically taxing (the fact that they're in maine may also have something to do with all of the LN tools. I can think of little that's more physical work to use in what they're doing - maybe clifton or LV in some cases, or a mild steel infill).

I'd haft axes for my grandfather now if he were still alive, but I doubt he'd accept the help.

Main reference for those not in the US - maine is sort of like a different country. The culture there encourages not using things made outside of maine unless it's necessary (otherwise in the US, it would be fairly rare to see a huge new set of expensive planes like that). They have signs everywhere there "maid in maine", sort of like if WA was completely separate and the residents thought that they wouldn't just buy made in australia, but that they would avoid buying something made in sydney unless it wasn't made in perth.

Maybe more curious to most in the US is how they're able to make solid furniture and pay the bills (the average income in maine is only about 2/3rds of the rest of the US, which is a bit unusual. One of their neighbors, Mass. had a gdp per capita of 75k in 2018, and maine was at 43k, which would include their only normal economic area (portland). When we visited, one of the tavern owners there flatly stated to us that the residents see people from outside of town as worthless and only as a trigger to increase the cost of groceries for them.

Massachusetts probably provides a clue, though - if you make furniture in the "43k" region, you can probably sell it to someone in the "75k" region. I can't remember the name of the person who made the relatively plain $10k cabinet for LN (maybe they still offer it), but he as also from maine.

There's nothing similar in pittsburgh, though the state I live in is between the two mentioned above, so we're not exactly boiling over with wealth, but commercial industry is definitely easier to find a spot in than it is in maine.

David, you are aware that I put that video up just to tease you?

The fact is, that Doucette and Wolfe make superb furniture. I do not believe that they have ever claimed to build everything "by hand". They certainly make use of machines - but then they are indeed pros, and I do not know many successful pros who do not use machines.










I very much doubt that they make videos for YouTube as an end goal. They have build a great deal of furniture over the years - hundreds of pieces of the highest order (search Google) - enough to recognise that this is what they do full time, and very successfully I have no doubt. Their videos are part of their promotions. However you wish to judge their professionalism, they do well. They might say to you that they are quite happy with their production methods, and how does one argue with these results? Actually, I just think that they like using great hand tools, and this is one of the pleasures they give to themselves.

They are just one of many makers who have developed methods which work for them.

You made some great planes for Brian. But he only used them for a short time, and then invested in machines. I am not sure that he uses hand planes much any more.

So what does this all mean?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Massachusetts probably provides a clue, though - if you make furniture in the "43k" region, you can probably sell it to someone in the "75k" region. I can't remember the name of the person who made the relatively plain $10k cabinet for LN (maybe they still offer it), but he as also from maine.

David, that would be Chris Becksvoort. C.H. Becksvoort - Welcome

Regards from Perth

Derek

Definitely not debating that they make wonderful furniture - nor have they ever claimed to have made it entirely by hand (that's unreasonable, even if I have to say so - you'd have to have some very fascinated very well-heeled customers to bypass that, and I'm thinking like $30k+ pieces of furniture kind of customers with enough other ornamental work to make it worth the cost).

I believe the term that they used is that they hand prepare the surfaces or hand finish surfaces or something like that. Without question, they do great work.

I'm not really stuck in the idea that using only hand tools makes a difference beyond the fact that if someone uses only hand tools, the style of things that they make will probably change to be more fluid, more rounded, more mouldings, etc and fewer things that evolved in the power tool era (exposed tenons and such).

As far as what doucette and wolfe usually shows, it's not a matter of them being misleading showing a lot of hand planing, but rather that's what people will want to see. That's what I'd want to see.

If I were going to try to make my chisels commercially, I probably would show bits and bobs of heating/hammering/quenching and hand shaping rather than turning down billets to dry as handle cylinders, or bench grinding the end of the chisel at the end before I sharpen it, or using a cutoff blade to cut bar stock (Sometimes I do that by hand) - not because I'm trying to hide that an awful lot of making chisels is grinding, but because I think it wouldn't look very interesting unless it's freehand grinding of bevels, etc (I don't use grinding jigs and probably never will, as that turns one from a maker into a machine attendant - it's a wonderful idea in a shop where the help might rather be a machine attendant than a maker on a warm friday afternoon).

--------------------------------------------------------

I think D&W is doing it just the way they should. I could greatly lighten their load on planing large surfaces, but maybe they don't care because it's less as a percentage of the work than it is vs. a percentage of the video.

I didn't appreciate the negative comments made about them on wood central suggesting that they don't know what they're doing. The results speak for themselves. And with the planes, they may just be a whole lot less lazy than I am - I cannot deny that I notice every ounce of effort, which is a strange dynamic given that I can't resist seeking it out.

I'm not 100% my grandfather's grandson - his solid bar stock handle axe that seemed to please him so well was painful to use in so many ways (balance off, mis-strike and it would chatter your teeth, it literally was just a bar of steel in the handle - solid, with the edges slightly broken over with a grinder).

I like the terminology describing things like that as steamrolled by a conscientious workman (that those who are too good at working and not sensitive to effort sometimes don't see things that can be made much easier because they're not looking for ways to get out of the work, so to speak). My grandfather was that guy - a machine.

I literally would make and fit a jack and trying plane for these guys at D&W, but I don't really feel like explaining why to them. I knew Brian already, so it wasn't hard to offer, and I flatly said to him that there was no obligation to use the tools, especially if he found something more stylish, he could just give them away to someone else who might use them and I wouldn't be offended.

By the way, I believe Brian used my planes for somewhere around a solid year, which was longer than I'd have held out with a customer list.

What you're missing here (along with thoughts of what's actually less or more efforts in planes) is what something like that can teach you about using planes elsewhere. It does seem that if one doesn't get into the heavy work to see those things, then transition to easier joinery planes and methods doesn't happen, but what that really tells me is that it doesn't move the needle unless someone is using planes a lot.

When the odd person pops up here or there and says they actually want to work by hand and they ask me for advice and then buy a bevel up plane or something, I know I'm wasting my time. The ones who actually want to work by hand tend to end up going down the same road.

(I still use metal jointing planes for match joints sometimes - it's not like I don't use them, and I don't think a smoother has ever been made in this world that's as practical as a bailey #4, so it's rare that I use a wooden smoother).

David, I agree with you that it is possible to make planes that work more efficiently, and that someone like Warren (a professional who works entirely without power tools) would eschew current metal production planes in favour of your own.

I also believe that Warren is an extremist, and that there are very few like him around; that those amateurs who say they wish to build by hand may only do this for one or two pieces as a lark, or built only a few or very small pieces each year. For most hand tool users, it does not matter if inefficiency creeps into their work. I'll speak for myself: I have no doubt that my technique could be improved, probably a lot, and my choice of hand planes might be criticised as part of this. In reality, I enjoy the heck out of my tools. They are fun to use and do what I need them to do. I am the limiting factor, not my tools.

I listen to your commentaries with interest, since I believe I can learn something from them; but I also believe that they can be overwhelming or esoteric for many. I doubt that you will convince a purchaser of a new LN rabbet block plane that he made a poor choice. For myself, I shut up and say nothing at such times as I do not wish to be a killjoy (and, in any event, I find good uses for mine).

Regards from Perth

Derek

I think sometimes I get lumped in with warren as a bit of his goading convinced me there may be something there to double iron planes. But a lot of what was in the back of my head was also T. Hughes's line about how much more it cost to make a double iron and why did they suddenly appear everywhere when money was so tight? I couldn't explain that one.

Otherwise, there are things that warren asserts from nicholson or whatever, and I don't have nicholson, so I have to go figure out why I don't see them (for example, contouring a cap iron on a plane with a flat sole - I absolutely cannot think of any mechanical reason it would make a difference until the sole shape changes from flat - for most people starting off, just getting the edge of the cap straight and fitted is a chore, and no, the early 1800s cap iron don't easily accommodate any significant radius.

Warren also seems to have resentment about using pumice in french polish because it wasn't mentioned as needed in old texts.

I get lost in that stuff. It works great. The cap iron straight across works great. What I like is to discover something (jack, no scrub) by use or lack thereof and then go see confirmation, and in the case of being pointed back to nicholson on google books, I read in the passage that I should also work a board sectionally with the jack instead of walking the dog with a heavy shaving from one end to another. That latter part wasn't intuitive to me, but I can tell it takes less effort now. So, I did learn from nicholson there.

Things that are measurable, one can see why. I have no intention of giving up my electric lathe, my belt grinder or bench grinders, or my metal stanley smoother to meet an ideal, though. Nor do I want laminated everything tools and believe they're better -the only two chisels I ever broke gave up at the lamination. When the cap irons became all steel in old wood planes, they were proudly stamped - it was a boast.

I'm sure warren does something for pay (I've heard third-hand accounts that he does), but just what it is now or in the past is a mystery....maybe i'm an oversharer (maybe?), but before I take someone's opinion into account, I want to know how they got it and whether or not it's worth considering.

Which is why I often say "if you never want to do more than remove plane chatter, trim shoulders or clean out rebates cut by routers, then bevel up and shoulder planes are fine".

That's perceived as a slap sometimes, but I'm convincing myself out of explaining something that doesn't move the needle when planing is 2% of the job. Why would someone care about a cap iron if they may not even sharpen a plane more than once every several weeks?

I sort of landed here because things that seemed hard on an all hand tools basis suddenly didn't. I had trouble cutting dovetails early on. Then I didn't do it for a while and dimensioned a bunch of wood by hand and the next set of dovetails was pretty easy to do neatly. What happened? I know what happened. I got so much bad advice about what could or couldn't be done by hand (I've cut about 20 linear feet of 1/4" thick steel in the last 2 weeks with a frame saw) that I guess I get kind of huffy about some of it. I like the experimenting - when you experiment with something "you own it" instead of trying to recall it later or where it came from, but going in the right direction a little earlier would've been nice. I can only conclude that of all of the people who say they are working mostly by hand or that they want to, many don't get around to it.

But, if I can't get something from the historical information, I don't care about it.

Just to be clear, also. For someone who is going to seriously work by hand only, going to wooden planes is almost mandatory, just as the double iron is. Steve V. has reminded me sometimes that you can find softwoods that are so clear that it doesn't make a difference, but even with something like 2nd growth cherry, doing the work with single iron wooden planes is agonizing. BTDT. I love the infill panel planes and resolve to take heavy shavings and use as much wax as possible, but I never get through more than one small panel doing that. I can feel the difference. If I were making only guitars, it wouldn't matter much - and one of my infills literally did come right out of service from an English luthier. It would add something like 20 minutes to roughing a guitar billet.