Thread: Which shoulder plane?

Col

The answer is a little deceptive.

I would go for a lower blade angle setting in a shoulder plane. If you are cutting end grain, regardless of the timber, you want something that is going to shear the grain rather than scrape it (as the higher blade angle will do). Tear out (as you expect in difficult timber, such as jarrah) is really not an issue here since it will not be seen once the M & T goes together.

Actually, the blade angles of the HNT Gordon and Cliftons are a bit deceptive. While the HNT Gordon has a blade bed of 60 degrees, the blade is bevel down. If the blade is bevelled at 30 degrees, the effective angle then is 30 degrees. The Clifton's blade is bedded at 25 degrees but bevel up. So add to this a cutting bevel of 25 degrees and you get an effective cutting angle of 50 degrees. So the effective blade angle of the HNT Gordon is actually lower than the Clifton!

Which you choose to buy is really personal. Both have a superb reputation.

If it were my money I probably would plump for the Clifton - classic design and the extra heft is useful.

I have a Stanley #93 which is 25mm wide. This is an older plane (not the current production) and I got it from one of the second hand sellers in the UK. Still cheaper (and better quality) than a new version bought locally. The advantage of the #93 is that the nose is removable and it can be used as a chisel plane. Very useful when needing to clean out up to a blind edge. This size is a good all-rounder, but it would be good to go for a 1 1/2" and a 3/4" as a combination. I think you could get close to this in the HNT Gordons for the price of one Clifton.

Let us know what you decide in the end.

Regards

Derek

p.s. give me a call to arrange a BBQ or drink.

Driver,

I have a Lie Nielsen shoulder plane which gets a fair amount of use on tenons and occasionally halving joints. I am very happy with it.

I like Terry’s planes but I am a bit of a wimp when it comes to adjusting blades using a wedge. I know how to do it and I have done it but it is a bit awkward when you want to back off the depth just a small amount. The Lie Nielsen can do this easily as I think the Clifton can also.

Both are excellent planes and you are in a very good position having to make a decision between these two fantastic planes.

Enjoy your BBQ at Derek’s – he is an excellent host.


- Wood Borer

I am going to stick my neck out here and ask why you would need a shoulder plane at all, particularly if you mainly work with jarrah. I find that I can cut perfect shoulders that need no touching up simply by using a mitre gauge on the table saw, with the end of the workpiece butted against the saw's fence. In this way the shoulders are guaranteed to be perfectly level with one another.

You may say that you need one for adjusting the thickness of the tenon, but I would maintain that, with a precision tenoning jig, you should be able to get your tenon within 0.1 mm of the required thickness, and then it is just as easy to use a wide chisel for final delicate paring.

Having said that, the Clifton and Gordon planes are beautiful tools, but IMHO they are more collector's items rather than practical necessities.

Rocker is quite correct, there is no need to have a shoulder plane. Adjustments to tenons can be done with a chisel if necessary.

This however is heading towards the eternal and well aired debate about why people do woodwork and hand tools versus power tools etc. They are all interesting arguments and all have valid points – it comes down to personal preference.

I regularly use my shoulder plane and although Rocker might see it as a collector’s item, I see it as a worthwhile tool that does an excellent job and is a pleasure to use.

It is not a matter of one of us being right and the other wrong, consider all opinions and your final decision will be sound.


- Wood Borer

To Derek, Wood Borer and Rocker

I really appreciate your advice. It's always informative and, backed up as it is with hard experience, it's always practical, too.

I bought a Gordon 3/4" shoulder plane this morning. In the end it was a straightforward decision. The design of the plane is entirely practical and very appealing in its simplicity - form following function to good effect. It's also Australian! I haven't given it a full workout yet but I was impressed with the fact that, straight out of the box, it cuts a transparent shaving with very little effort. I don't think I'm going to be at all disappointed with the choice.

Derek, I'll give you a call next week and try to catch up for a beer. I'm actually on leave for a few days but due to the wonders(!) of modern communications technology, the corporate world is still able to contact me so I have the odd issue still to deal with. (I'd tidy up the grammar in that last sentence but I'm sure it will make sense to you).

Best regards

Col

Enjoy

- Wood Borer

Actually, the blade angles of the HNT Gordon and Cliftons are a bit deceptive. While the HNT Gordon has a blade bed of 60 degrees, the blade is bevel down. If the blade is bevelled at 30 degrees, the effective angle then is 30 degrees. The Clifton's blade is bedded at 25 degrees but bevel up. So add to this a cutting bevel of 25 degrees and you get an effective cutting angle of 50 degrees. So the effective blade angle of the HNT Gordon is actually lower than the Clifton!

Derek,
I'm not sure if I agree about the blade angle (pitch) of a HNT Gordon plane being lower than that of a Clifton. From what I can work out (using an article from Australian Wood Review 39), the blade angle or pitch of the HNT plane is 60deg, this also matches the bed angle because the blade is mounted bevel down the same as normal stanley plane (45deg).
The blade angle (pitch) of the Clifton with a 25deg bevel facing up will be 50deg, 25deg (bed angle) + 25deg (bevel angle).
The cutting angle for each plane is the blade angle or pitch subtracted from 90deg, eg HNT=30deg, Clifton=40deg, scraper=0deg. Like you say, the lower pitch plane should be more suited to end grain work (or really soft woods), which would mean that the Clifton comes out on top. But then I can't complain about the performance of a HNT Gordon plane on end grain either.

Dan

I've been thinking about this and agree with you. The blade pitch for a bevel down blade is the angle of the blade. For the Gordon it will be 60 degrees. However, for the Clifton, with bevel up, the blade pitch is additive, so it is 25 degrees + 25 degrees = 50 degrees.

The question is, "how does the HNT Gordon shoulder plane do such a great job on end grain with such a high blade pitch?!"

Col, we need a review from you cutting jarrah end grain shoulders.

Regards from Perth

Derek

The question is, "how does the HNT Gordon shoulder plane do such a great job on end grain with such a high blade pitch?!"

Don't know Derek.
I didn't realise a one piece shaving could be taken from end grain until I saw the Gordon planes demonstrated at a wood show a few years back. Thats when I decided they were the way to go and I haven't regretted it.
I suppose given that a higher blade angle works better on "curly" grain (a mixture of end grain, straight grain and everything in between), their performance on end grain shouldn't be unexpected. There's always a trade off though, and in this case it will be more effort required to push the plane. In the magazine article I mentioned it says any blade angle from 35-60deg will be ok for end grain work, the important factors being a sharp blade set fine and a bevel of less than 30deg.

Dan

Col we need a review from you cutting jarrah end grain shoulders

Watch this space!

I'll give it a go on the weekend and let you know.

Col

OK – here’s the review of the HNT Gordon ¾ inch Shoulder Plane. (In several separate posts so that I can include some photos).

First, the plane itself. (See photo below). It has an Ironwood body set in a brass sole. As I said in an earlier post, it was honed to a pretty high standard when I unwrapped it and cut a transparent shaving straight out of the box. That initial test was very basic. I just set the blade to cut fine and pushed it across the edge of a piece of 19 mm jarrah – with the grain.

So the first job was to tune the plane. The blade is a spade shape and sits in the plane at a bed angle of 60° (for an explanation of the various angles: I’m using the terminology from Terry Gordon’s excellent article in Issue 39 of AWR – referred to in Dan’s earlier post). The blade is secured in position with a hardwood wedge. To remove the blade, you tap the rear of the plane with a mallet, ease out the wedge and the blade then slides out, through the gap in the sole.

I honed the back of the blade first, using the scary sharp method with sandpaper on glass, working through grits of 280, 400, 600, 800, 1200 and finally 2000 to produce the highly desirable mirror finish.

I then honed the bevel. The blade has a primary bevel of 30°. I decided to give it a micro-bevel at 31°. I did this using a Veritas® Honing Guide – setting the blade at the primary bevel of 30° then adjusting the cam to add 1°. Again I used the scary sharp method – working through the same sequence of grits.

This means that the plane now had a bed angle of 60°; a cutting angle of 30°; a bevel (sharpness) angle of 31° (actually, according to the instructions that came with the honing guide it’s 31¼° but let’s not get too picky); and a clearance angle (between the micro bevel and the horizontal) of 28¾° (call it 29°).

Once I was happy with the result of all the scary sharp activity, I re-set the blade into the plane body. The plane is packaged with a small hardwood setting block and a very simple, clear set of instructions. After a bit of fiddling about (I’m gaining confidence with wooden planes and wedges!), I managed to set it to cut a fine shaving.

Now for the actual testing of the plane’s ability to cut jarrah end grain shoulders. I should say from the start that this is by no means an exhaustive test. My excuse is the weather. It’s bloody hot in Perth this weekend. However, I reckon I’ve done enough to give the shoulder plane a decent workout.

I used jarrah exclusively. Taking a bunch of off-cuts, I cut shoulders into the ends of about 7 or 8 pieces. The thinnest is about 12 mm thick and the thickest about 35 mm. To cut the shoulders, I used a Japanese Z backsaw, cutting a fine kerf. The cuts were made freehand. The photos below show the results of two of the test pieces.

This photo shows the 12 mm piece immediately after the shoulder was cut with the saw. Note in particular the thin line of excess material where the horizontal and vertical cuts intersect.

This photo shows the same piece after a pass across both end-grain and cross-grain with the shoulder plane. The excess material is gone. However, the plane has torn the fibres in the cross-grain cut and caused a bit of tear-out at the end of the cross-grain cut – the end nearest the camera. This was the worst result of all the pieces I tested. It was also the first. I learnt to take it easy when cutting cross-grain.