Results 1 to 15 of 15
Thread: One for the Plane Makers
-
4th May 2021, 10:39 PM #1GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Location
- Kew, Vic
- Posts
- 1,071
One for the Plane Makers
I am always impressed and humbled by the level of skill shown by all the forum members involved in the plane making challenge. In my roaming around the web last night I came across this site and thought the plane makers might be interested:
"Holtey Classic Handplanes Homepage."
Makes very interesting reading.
Regards,
Brian
-
4th May 2021 10:39 PM # ADSGoogle Adsense Advertisement
- Join Date
- Always
- Location
- Advertising world
- Posts
- Many
-
4th May 2021, 11:05 PM #2SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
- Location
- Sydney
- Posts
- 471
-
5th May 2021, 07:11 PM #3
Not the sort of plane you would haul around an average building site for sure.......
That thud you heard was my jaw hitting the floor when I saw the pricesThe person who never made a mistake never made anything
Cheers
Ray
-
5th May 2021, 07:49 PM #4SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Newcastle
- Posts
- 549
Not sure where 200 hours of labour are for each plane?
Needs to get processes sorted
-
5th May 2021, 09:40 PM #5
I have seen his planes before so was not surprised at the five figure (A$) cost for some of the larger versions. I don't really tire of looking at his planes. They are works of art.
Regards
PaulBushmiller;
"Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"
-
6th May 2021, 01:18 AM #6Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2019
- Location
- Aus
- Posts
- 118
Do you think anyone actually uses them at the workbench? I find it amazing that he has customers at that price... But maybe they are that good?? Interesting to see that a bunch of it is done with CNC milling too.
-
26th August 2021, 04:53 PM #7Novice
- Join Date
- May 2021
- Location
- Sydney
- Posts
- 24
Must be nice to be rich
-
29th August 2021, 06:50 AM #8GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Location
- US
- Posts
- 3,150
He makes everything in the planes, all the way down to the screws and all of the adjusters, etc, and they're all cosmetically fit and even. You can build an infill plane that looks nice mostly by hand in about 80 hours, but when the rubber hits the road and you try to get every single cosmetic thing perfect, you can't match what karl does (and that's buying the screws from somewhere else).
He's never had trouble selling his planes, but his customers are the people that care that he makes the screws, too. I'm not a customer, but I can appreciate what he does. Wish he had a little bit more classical design background, but nothing is going to please everyone.
-
29th August 2021, 11:18 AM #9
In my opinion, the work of Konrad Sauer is more aesthetically pleasing.
The different between Konrad and Karl Holtey is that Konrad is a trained graphic artist and Karl trained as a machinist. Konrad shapes his planes by hand with files, while Karl predominantly uses mills.
Konrad has sexy curves in his work, creating a feeling of softness, while Karl tends to be more upright and stiff …
Technically, both interestingly favour single bevel designs.
Regards from Perth
DerekVisit www.inthewoodshop.com for tutorials on constructing handtools, handtool reviews, and my trials and tribulations with furniture builds.
-
29th August 2021, 11:39 AM #10
-
29th August 2021, 12:36 PM #11GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Location
- US
- Posts
- 3,150
Definitely more flow in the design, but Konrad has some or all of the metal machining done by someone else and then finishes the job. Karl's a marvel in that he does everything.
Konrad's designs are a bit too modern for my taste, but he makes nice classic designs.
Karl's absolute nuttiness going so far as making all of his own threaded bits to eliminate play, though, I have to admire that kind of "how good can it be made". Design is just something some don't have an eye for. I don't have enough of one to design nice things - I need a George to tell me what to fix when something looks suspicious to me (though I've learned enough from him to limp along with making tools).
Karl and konrad's level of work isn't for "limpers", though.
-
29th August 2021, 12:52 PM #12
David, there can be no right or wrong here in regards to appearance. As you are aware, my furniture has a minimalistic styling, often with subtle curves, or an effort made to emphasise the silhouette or line. I think that you get this with some Shaker, Japanese, and Danish designs. Less is more. By contrast, Bill (on Wood Central), who also posts builds, struggles with my designs. He prefers more ornate, floral inlaid, and rectangular pieces. Solid and well-constructed. There are many who like intricate mouldings or carvings on furniture. When we look at these two plane makers, I think that both put the same energy and thought into their designs. Just execute it differently. Konrad integrates the parts so well that details do not jump out until you look carefully. Karl's design work is all a multitude of exclamation marks. I find it too busy and interrupted.
What I don't get is the insistence on single bevel blades. I think that it is all form for Konrad and all construction integrity for Karl. Neither build furniture.
Regards from Perth
DerekVisit www.inthewoodshop.com for tutorials on constructing handtools, handtool reviews, and my trials and tribulations with furniture builds.
-
30th August 2021, 12:53 AM #13GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Location
- US
- Posts
- 3,150
agree on the design - it's only what I favor or don't favor, not what all should favor. I'm partial to the original classical -design types from norris, holland and holland, spiers, etc. I wonder what they looked like new, actually. Even an unused plane won't tell the story now as shrinking and expansion of the rosewood would eliminate the smooth surface on the original planes (same thing happens on guitars, and will happen to karl and konrad's planes if the finish it thin, crisp and elegant).
There are some duds in the early designs, too -some were awkward but made for great planes. the no 13 (that karl refined) is bulky and awkward looking, but a great plane to use. Karl's version looks nicer. I think if Konrad (no insult to karl intended) decided to spice up a no 13 in classic style, it would have a bit more organic feel.
Bill does kind of like one thing - in some cases, I do, too. I love the houses from the 60s, and the cars, but not so much the furniture - so it's not a matter of hard and fast rules. Sprawling two level ranch houses in an L shape became popular here with lots of glass in some spots (not energy efficient for sure) in the 60s - probably my favorite house layout. older houses with lots of classical design elements not register the same thrill as the tools - they just look like maintenance to me.
Konrad's boat planes are lovely and crisp otherwise - it's certainly nothing other than opinion (wish they had a double iron, but since I'm not a customer, it doesn't really matter).
-
8th November 2021, 11:41 PM #14SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- Oct 2019
- Location
- Brisbane, Australia
- Age
- 43
- Posts
- 519
You know Derek I have the same conversation from time to time.
My view is that if you want some sort of intricate pattern on your furniture, put a doily on it.
I think what is often forgotten is that furniture in use has stuff on it and it should be accounted for. A hallway table in actual use will have perhaps a runner and bits and pieces on it. A bar (for example) will have bottles and glassware on it. A bookshelf will be full of books.
That is an argument I have for keeping furniture un-fussy at the micro level.
An example is a work desk I built recently to replace a built-in desk. It looks a bit plain but it is always covered in PC monitors, keyboard, mouse, books, print-outs, etc.
What is noticed and commented on? The wood (rosegum/spotted gum), unusual unsupported width (about 1.8m long - it has thin, vertical, batterns underneath that make it resist flexing), tapered pin legs (instead of those ghastly, turned, thick round legs you see on antiques) and subtle sweeps (I regret now not doing a slight contour around entire thing).
If it had beads, inlays etc you wouldn't see them. It's an office desk in use it's covered constantly.
PXL_20210626_074921242 (1).jpg
-
9th November 2021, 01:56 AM #15GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Location
- US
- Posts
- 3,150
When you're building your own stuff, then you get to make the call, no matter what the circumstances are. I don't build much furniture - if I didn't have a full time job, I'd love to take on the challenge of learning to build something like this:
CMOA Collection
But it's inaccessible without a lot of time. I've seen that piece in person - what's not translated from the pictures is how crisp and clean and full of life it is. It's not just cleanly executing the design that's inaccessible, but rather that it's 200 years old and still has a level of crispness without being rectilinear - that's not on anything I've seen recently.
These kinds of discussions create arguments that aren't necessary (and sometimes I'm the guy in the pillbox not thinking about it) - I've given some tools to a guy who is pretty firm that joinery is dumb in the age of almost any fastener being available. I think he feels the need to defend that. I think it's his choice.
I also think your table looks wonderful. Even the nakashima stuff is interesting. When people get confused about the nakashima work (I like your table better than the nakashima work - there is a bargain in everything and your table holds up its end of the deal. I've seen a lot of nakashima pieces in person and had to have someone tell me if they were the real thing because there's nothing about them that any skilled worker couldn't do. The guy who got me into woodworking is just infatuated with them and thinks the piece I linked is antiquated - but it's inaccessible to him. I'm guessing the real draw to the nakashima stuff is the same as epoxy tables and such - it's something that catches peoples eyes and it's accessible.
My grandfather was a farmer. Farmers love to look at each others' fields and tell others what they did wrong. "I would've sprayed that panicum earlier. you know, you could've done that field without a dead furrow. Your farm roads look a couple of feet too wide, that's money lost".
My grandfather would say "my farm, my field, my money, my crop, my tractor". We don't really have to defend what we do or what we like until or unless we start criticizing the work of others when it wasn't asked for.
(we had a federal table where I worked previously, no clue where it came from - it literally held huge glassware and alcohol on top of it. Not sure what the finish was, but to prevent it from getting banged up, it had a thin glass layer on top of the table. But even something modern would've needed that as the glassware sitting on it was monstrous and heavy and even placed on the table awkwardly would dent most wood. Not all of the old work is prissy or non-functional, and I don't personally think all of it looks great. Some of the line and berry stuff made in my own state with country-ish flourishes on the top and bottom look cheesy to me).
Similar Threads
-
Two Plane makers
By kevjed in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWEREDReplies: 14Last Post: 28th June 2017, 09:29 PM -
Swiss plane-makers
By pmcgee in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWEREDReplies: 4Last Post: 30th January 2016, 03:55 AM -
Plane makers float
By auscab in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWEREDReplies: 13Last Post: 9th January 2013, 08:50 PM -
Marlin and Shaw, Plane makers
By Virgil in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWEREDReplies: 2Last Post: 8th April 2011, 08:19 AM -
Record Carriage Makers Plane 010 1/2
By PEN in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWEREDReplies: 9Last Post: 5th September 2005, 11:15 PM