Thread: Stanley #29 Transitional Plane

On another note......



Jenny 1.jpegJenny 2.jpeg Jenny 3.jpeg Jenny 6.jpeg Jenny 7.jpeg Jenny 4.jpegJenny 10.jpegJenny 8.jpeg

































.......I've found my Jenny !!! (said in a Forrest Gump voice in my head as I type this )

don't get in too deep with transitionals. There's a notion that you can get something for nothing, but they generally excel in softwoods and excel in a way that's not better than an all wooden plane.

Quite a few of them have weak connections handle to casting/body or odd cramped bits, as well as cap irons that are not compatible with all metal planes and very thin irons that can be soft on the early ones.

The draw for the originals was that they were cheap and that you get the adjuster, but the reality planing wood is either an all wood or all metal plane will excel based on what you're doing and how hard the wood.

Originally Posted by D.W.

don't get in too deep with transitionals. There's a notion that you can get something for nothing, but they generally excel in softwoods and excel in a way that's not better than an all wooden plane.

Quite a few of them have weak connections handle to casting/body or odd cramped bits, as well as cap irons that are not compatible with all metal planes and very thin irons that can be soft on the early ones.

The draw for the originals was that they were cheap and that you get the adjuster, but the reality planing wood is either an all wood or all metal plane will excel based on what you're doing and how hard the wood.

Too late! I'm already in deep.

You seem to have a habit of expressing your opinions without explanations or reasoning behind them as if they are indisputable facts (e.g. “they generally excel in softwoods and excel in a way that's not better than an all wooden plane” and “reality planing wood is either an all wood or all metal plane will excel based on what you're doing and how hard the wood”). Logically, I do not understand why transitionals would not be any better than all wooden planes when it comes to softwoods, or any other woods for that matter. You may be correct, and there may be valid arguments to back your assertion, but you need to list them and not just expect me to believe the emperor has new clothes.

Whilst I cannot comment on how it performs in softwoods in comparison to all wooden planes, I do have one Woodie……

20220621_133341.jpg20220621_133415.jpg20220621_133427.jpg20220621_091249.jpg



























……a Mathieson Badger Jack Plane. I restored this one at the same time as the #29 and the blade was sharpened with the same equipment and obviously with the same level of skill. Confirmation bias is not a factor because I own both planes, invested the same amount in time and energy in their restoration, and I simply have no reason why I would want to excel more than the other. I’m sorry to report that I’m not so enamoured with the Badger as I am with the #29. Firstly, it’s not cutting as well as I would like but I’ve only tried it on plantation-grown Tassie Oak. There’s obviously a steep learning curve when it comes to fettling these old woodies and I’ve yet to master it. I haven’t given up on the plane just yet, and there’s still some fettling to be done – the skew of the chip-breaker is not the same as the blade and I’m unsure at what angle to re-grind it because the blade assembly is skewed on 2 axis resulting in a compound angle that I don’t have the maths skills to figure out. I think the angle on the blade is correct and I’ll probably change the CB to mimic it.

The second reason I’m not such a fan of the Badger is harder to fix. The problem is one of ergonomics. The plane is unwieldy partly because the tote is 35mm higher than the #29 (It may explain why the workbenches of the era were so low). This is further exacerbated by the weight of the plane and its balance. Most would probably expect both planes to weigh the same or possibly that the #29 would be the heavier of the two because of its length and cast iron pieces. AFAIK, the wood used on both planes is Beech. I don’t have a suitable scale to measure the planes, but the Badger is noticeably heavier of the two. It’s also front-heavy and the fact it doesn’t have a front knob does not help. I’ll probably add one down the track.


TBC......

......continuing on....


I do agree with you regarding the weak connection of the tote to the frame. There’s only one bolt/screw/rod securing the tote and it seems to rely only on the ridges on the sides of the cast iron frame to resist the twisting forces the tote would no doubt experience. I’ve seen some transitionals from other makers with a secondary screw on the toe of the tote. I dunno if it was a customisation or if some models from other manufacturers addressed this issue. I may do likewise if it proves to be a problem in the future. At this stage the tote on the #29 is rock solid.


Your comment about the thin iron puzzles me. As IanW, Bushmiller, and others have mentioned, the transitionals were introduced after the all-metal Baileys. And the blades were/are identical and interchangeable with their metal counterparts. In other words, they wouldn’t be any thinner or softer than the ones in metal planes of the same vintage. And just in case I didn’t make myself clear, I will be upgrading the original blades with PMV11 versions.


I'm not sure if you've read the entire thread, particularly the results of my field tests, but I have to disagree when you said “the reality planing wood is either an all wood or all metal plane will excel based on what you're doing and how hard the wood”. The results that I got in my testing contradicts your assertion. At the very least I can say that my particular #29 outperforms my modern metal-bodied planes. The results speak for themselves. Yes, it’s a sample size of exactly one, and my incoming transitionals may not fare as well, but it does show that transitional planes aren’t necessarily a compromise and they have their place. I’m not saying they are for everyone, but they may surprise many people who hadn’t even considered them.

It was never my intention to become the champion of transitional planes when I embarked on my restoration. As I stated before, initially I was sceptical that I could get my +100yr old plane to perform just as well as my modern planes let alone better them. TBH, my interest in them was initially for aesthetic reasons despite Patrick Leach’s disdain and opinion that they are bland and only suitable for rough work. For some reason the combination of wood, cast iron, steel, and brass appealed to me especially the ones with a Razee step like the #35, #36, and the Jenny. That’s why I got the cheapest one I could find even though the #29 size isn’t normally one that I would use. It wouldn’t bother me one bit if no one becomes interested as I have. That just leaves more for me and less competition on eBay and Facebook MP. I fully realise that they’re not going to be everyone’s cup of tea, but to me they have all of the advantages of all-wood and all-metal planes with very little of their disadvantages.

Regardless of my intentions, I have found myself in the role of defender transitional planes, a role which I've decided to reluctantly embrace. So, let me list for you and for others out there the advantages of transitionals as I see them, some of which may not be so obvious:

1. Lower friction due to the wood sole
2. Blade adjustment similar to modern planes
3. Easier to re-flatten the sole and repair the plane
4. Surprisingly lighter, more nimble and agile than equivalent woodies. Definitely lighter than metal-bodied planes. I'm only going by my comparison with my #29 (a fore plane) and my LN #5½. I've no idea if the metal-bodied Stanleys are any lighter. I imagine they would be but I dunno if they're significantly so.
5. User experience and more controllable – more ergonomic than woodies and you don’t have to maintain the momentum as you do with metal planes so you can vary the speed mid-stroke
6. You can swap blade assemblies between models like you do with metal-bodied planes. If for example I wanted to use the smoothing cambered blade from my Jenny on my jointer, I can easily do that (both have a 2 5/8” blade), or vice versa. I don’t know if you can do that with most woodies. AFAIK, most woodies the blade, cap-irons, and wedges that are custom-fitted to a particular body.
7. Blades can be upgraded to PMV11 or other modern steels. Be careful to stay with the ones with “standard” blade sizes. The #27 and #27½ have 2^1/8” and 2¼” wide blades which don’t have a PMV11 counterpart. Woodies tend to have odd sizes and shapes so it makes it harder to upgrade the blades. My Badger for example has a tapered blade. Even disregarding the skew, it’d be difficult to replace the blade especially with a modern counterpart because the wedge probably wouldn’t work.
8. It’s easy to repair and customise a transitional plane. If the wooden base ever get’s too damaged, you can simply unscrew the whole frame and frog assembly and easily make your own base. You can even tailor the length and width of the sole to suit your individual need (almost impossible on metal-bodied planes). If you wanted to, you could even have multiple spare bases of different sizes and just use one frame/frog/tote assembly between them.

The point about customisability is one that’s lost on most people. Some cars have achieved cult status purely because they are so customisable. Here’s a video by Third Coast Craftsman in which he customises a Jack Plane by adding a Razee cutout and a custom tote. I only came across it after my restoration and it has opened up my eyes to the possibilities and I’ll be attempting something similar. I guess that’s another positive for transitionals: they’re not popular with collectors and very few of the models are considered collectables. As such, most people aren’t “precious” with them lending them to being more customisable.


It's not my intention to convert the masses. Many people, especially the more-experienced woodworkers amongst us, have become set in their ways and that's perfectly fine. I don't expect a relative novice like me to convince anyone let alone such experienced woodworkers. One of the things I like about woodworking is that there are many ways to skin a cat and there are many "right" ways of doing things. Knowing that and accepting what is best for one person, may not necessarily be best for another, will lead to a more stress-free existence. It's perfectly human to develop biases based on our preferences and experiences, but when we close our minds, that's when we stop learning. And I guess that's what my message regarding transitionals - give them a chance. If you haven't tried one, give one a go. Borrow a mate's. Don't let your preconceived ideas prevent you from possibly experiencing what could be a pleasurable woodworking experience. It's hard to express the euphoria I experienced with my #29 as I tested it on ever-increasing challenges but I don't know if I've ever received a greater satisfaction in woodworking when it effortlessly sliced through that piece of Ironbark. It was a combination of confusion/surprise turning into disbelief, followed by slow realisation, a tinge of pride for having done a good job with the restoration, and then culminating in pure joy. I hope to have more experiences like that. The honeymoon may not last long, but AFAIC, it wasn't even one I was expecting to begin with and anything after is a bonus.




Cheers,
Mike

Thanks Mike

It is apparent I need a transitional plane, which, until I read this thread, did not realise I needed. That is if you have not already cornered the market .

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Thanks Mike

It is apparent I need a transitional plane, which, until I read this thread, did not realise I needed. That is if you have not already cornered the market .

Regards
Paul

Thanks Paul.

They're a bit scarce here in Oz but there's plenty to go around in the good ol' US of A. The killer is the shipping. As Mr Leach and IanW pointed out, they're quite abundant. Surely that alone speaks of their merits and not only of their cheap purchase price. I mean, they must have had something else going for them other than their cheapness or otherwise they would never have been so popular. Unless I'm mistaken, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am, it appears that they were never made in any other country including Oz. That's a shame, coz I would have like to seem some vintage examples with our tough Ozzie woods. And it'd be interesting to see how they would have been received here back then. Stay tuned to this channel 'coz I may soon change that with my customised transitional. I've never built a plane before, and I have no idea what wood would be suitable to use, but I have a couple of Sheoak and Blackwood blanks that I'm considering using.



20220621_182459.jpg



















































And as always, I'm open to suggestions on what timbers are good to use for a plane, i.e. which ones are dimensionally stable and durable for the task. I know Terry Gordon uses Gidgee and IIRC, he used Sheoak for one of his limited run planes which is where I got the idea. I'm also considering old-growth Spotted Gum, Blackbutt, Purpleheart, Osage Orange, Huon Pine, Jarrah, laminated Hairy Oak, laminated Beefwood, and laminated Fiddleback Tassie Oak.

Originally Posted by KahoyKutter

......continuing on....


I do agree with you regarding the weak connection of the tote to the frame. There’s only one bolt/screw/rod securing the tote and it seems to rely only on the ridges on the sides of the cast iron frame to resist the twisting forces the tote would no doubt experience. I’ve seen some transitionals from other makers with a secondary screw on the toe of the tote. I dunno if it was a customisation or if some models from other manufacturers addressed this issue. I may do likewise if it proves to be a problem in the future. At this stage the tote on the #29 is rock solid.


Your comment about the thin iron puzzles me. As IanW, Bushmiller, and others have mentioned, the transitionals were introduced after the all-metal Baileys. And the blades were/are identical and interchangeable with their metal counterparts. In other words, they wouldn’t be any thinner or softer than the ones in metal planes of the same vintage. And just in case I didn’t make myself clear, I will be upgrading the original blades with PMV11 versions.


I'm not sure if you've read the entire thread, particularly the results of my field tests, but I have to disagree when you said “the reality planing wood is either an all wood or all metal plane will excel based on what you're doing and how hard the wood”. The results that I got in my testing contradicts your assertion. At the very least I can say that my particular #29 outperforms my modern metal-bodied planes. The results speak for themselves. Yes, it’s a sample size of exactly one, and my incoming transitionals may not fare as well, but it does show that transitional planes aren’t necessarily a compromise and they have their place. I’m not saying they are for everyone, but they may surprise many people who hadn’t even considered them.

It was never my intention to become the champion of transitional planes when I embarked on my restoration. As I stated before, initially I was sceptical that I could get my +100yr old plane to perform just as well as my modern planes let alone better them. TBH, my interest in them was initially for aesthetic reasons despite Patrick Leach’s disdain and opinion that they are bland and only suitable for rough work. For some reason the combination of wood, cast iron, steel, and brass appealed to me especially the ones with a Razee step like the #35, #36, and the Jenny. That’s why I got the cheapest one I could find even though the #29 size isn’t normally one that I would use. It wouldn’t bother me one bit if no one becomes interested as I have. That just leaves more for me and less competition on eBay and Facebook MP. I fully realise that they’re not going to be everyone’s cup of tea, but to me they have all of the advantages of all-wood and all-metal planes with very little of their disadvantages.

Regardless of my intentions, I have found myself in the role of defender transitional planes, a role which I've decided to reluctantly embrace. So, let me list for you and for others out there the advantages of transitionals as I see them, some of which may not be so obvious:

1. Lower friction due to the wood sole
2. Blade adjustment similar to modern planes
3. Easier to re-flatten the sole and repair the plane
4. Surprisingly lighter, more nimble and agile than equivalent woodies. Definitely lighter than metal-bodied planes. I'm only going by my comparison with my #29 (a fore plane) and my LN #5½. I've no idea if the metal-bodied Stanleys are any lighter. I imagine they would be but I dunno if they're significantly so.
5. User experience and more controllable – more ergonomic than woodies and you don’t have to maintain the momentum as you do with metal planes so you can vary the speed mid-stroke
6. You can swap blade assemblies between models like you do with metal-bodied planes. If for example I wanted to use the smoothing cambered blade from my Jenny on my jointer, I can easily do that (both have a 2 5/8” blade), or vice versa. I don’t know if you can do that with most woodies. AFAIK, most woodies the blade, cap-irons, and wedges that are custom-fitted to a particular body.
7. Blades can be upgraded to PMV11 or other modern steels. Be careful to stay with the ones with “standard” blade sizes. The #27 and #27½ have 2^1/8” and 2¼” wide blades which don’t have a PMV11 counterpart. Woodies tend to have odd sizes and shapes so it makes it harder to upgrade the blades. My Badger for example has a tapered blade. Even disregarding the skew, it’d be difficult to replace the blade especially with a modern counterpart because the wedge probably wouldn’t work.
8. It’s easy to repair and customise a transitional plane. If the wooden base ever get’s too damaged, you can simply unscrew the whole frame and frog assembly and easily make your own base. You can even tailor the length and width of the sole to suit your individual need (almost impossible on metal-bodied planes). If you wanted to, you could even have multiple spare bases of different sizes and just use one frame/frog/tote assembly between them.

The point about customisability is one that’s lost on most people. Some cars have achieved cult status purely because they are so customisable. Here’s a video by Third Coast Craftsman in which he customises a Jack Plane by adding a Razee cutout and a custom tote. I only came across it after my restoration and it has opened up my eyes to the possibilities and I’ll be attempting something similar. I guess that’s another positive for transitionals: they’re not popular with collectors and very few of the models are considered collectables. As such, most people aren’t “precious” with them lending them to being more customisable.


It's not my intention to convert the masses. Many people, especially the more-experienced woodworkers amongst us, have become set in their ways and that's perfectly fine. I don't expect a relative novice like me to convince anyone let alone such experienced woodworkers. One of the things I like about woodworking is that there are many ways to skin a cat and there are many "right" ways of doing things. Knowing that and accepting what is best for one person, may not necessarily be best for another, will lead to a more stress-free existence. It's perfectly human to develop biases based on our preferences and experiences, but when we close our minds, that's when we stop learning. And I guess that's what my message regarding transitionals - give them a chance. If you haven't tried one, give one a go. Borrow a mate's. Don't let your preconceived ideas prevent you from possibly experiencing what could be a pleasurable woodworking experience. It's hard to express the euphoria I experienced with my #29 as I tested it on ever-increasing challenges but I don't know if I've ever received a greater satisfaction in woodworking when it effortlessly sliced through that piece of Ironbark. It was a combination of confusion/surprise turning into disbelief, followed by slow realisation, a tinge of pride for having done a good job with the restoration, and then culminating in pure joy. I hope to have more experiences like that. The honeymoon may not last long, but AFAIC, it wasn't even one I was expecting to begin with and anything after is a bonus.




Cheers,
Mike

Well, I haven't been posting on the forums for a while, but this is exactly why I can't deal with it any longer. I hope nobody follows you down this path and starts wasting money on expensive replacement parts for a junk plane design that started after both wooden and all metal planes and failed before either of those.

Originally Posted by D.W.

Well, I haven't been posting on the forums for a while, but this is exactly why I can't deal with it any longer. I hope nobody follows you down this path and starts wasting money on expensive replacement parts for a junk plane design that started after both wooden and all metal planes and failed before either of those.

Well that’s a rather disappointing comment David . Mike seems to have really enjoyed setting up and using his 29 and this thread has inspired me to at least try one.

Originally Posted by D.W.

Well, I haven't been posting on the forums for a while, but this is exactly why I can't deal with it any longer. I hope nobody follows you down this path and starts wasting money on expensive replacement parts for a junk plane design that started after both wooden and all metal planes and failed before either of those.

Again with the blanket statement without any logical argument to back it up other than their manufacturing lifespan didn’t last as long as the all-wooden and all-metal planes. Hardly damning evidence that they’re a junk design. The were made and sold for over 60years after all. I’d hardly call that a failure. And there are many valid reasons why the plane manufacturers would choose to cease production of transitional planes over the woodies and all-metal planes. For example, their profit margin may not have been as high as the other types. Or perhaps the fact they’re easier to repair and more able to sustain a drop onto concrete floor (see intro to the video I linked where the craftsman’s dog drops it from a height of approx 4ft) meant that they had less repeat customers. Ultimately, we don't know why transitionals ceased production before the other types, but to conclude that it’s because of junk design is quite simply moronic.



So, your reason for posting is altruism, is it? You want to save the masses from going down the same path as me, right? Or is it narcissism disguised as altruism. It’s quite evident that you have a problem with anyone with views that contradict yours especially if the other person is a novice like me. I suspect if Derek, BobL, or IanW had expressed exactly the same view as me, you wouldn’t be so dismissive, disrespectful, and rude. I’ve taken the time to carefully explain why transitional planes appeal to me and I have backed up my opinion with logical reasoning, multiple photos, and wispy shavings. Despite of that, I do not expect everyone to agree with me. Some, including yourself, may even suspect me of doctoring or exaggerating the results. I’m OK with that. My motivation is not in pleasing people, but only in pleasing myself. That’s the reason why I choose to share my woodworking adventure. Whereas you seem to take it personally if someone follows me down this path, I couldn’t care less if no one else does. If by sharing my woodworking adventures some are educated (even if it’s how NOT to do things), entertained or slightly amused, then I’m glad but that’s just an added bonus. What matters to me is that I enjoy sharing my adventures………………..until someone like you comes along to rain on everyone’s parade.


I find your attitude condescending, disrespectful, and down right rude. You don’t even have the decency to argue your case properly. Your behaviour is pretty much “I’m David Weaver and I’m a woodworking god and what I say is gospel and I don’t have to give reasons because I’m David Weaver, the woodworking god. Everyone kneel before me !!"


This is the 2nd time that we’ve tangoed and both time have been unpleasant. For those who aren’t aware of the history between Dave and I, last year I created a thread asking for info and user feedback on Henry Eckert Rabbet Block Plane compared to the LN version. I didn’t get much of a response primarily because not many people own that particular plane. After I purchased the plane, I shared my user experience. It was after I had already purchased the plane that D.W. chose to grace my humble thread with his presence. In his several subsequent rambling posts he proceeded to denigrate Rob Cosman, Chris Schwartz, Terry Gordon and other well-respected woodworkers. At first I chose to ignore his posts and I tried to laugh it off. For some reason this seemed to trigger D.W. and he accused me of being close-minded of all things and he seemed to take it personally that I chose to buy a metal-bodied rabbet block plane when in his opinion that they were inferior to wooden rabbet planes even though I had purchased the plane before he posted his advice. His posts were not informative, constructive, nor were they entertaining, or even relevant to the discussion. When I asked him how his “advice” helps me after the fact, he didn’t even respect me enough to give an answer. I became so frustrated that I opted out of my own thread. I revisited the thread recently after I was reminded by auscab’s block plane thread that I had promised to report of my long-term experience with the plane. Upon revisiting the thread, I noticed that I’ve missed a post by another member (apologies MountainAsh) and the last post in the thread is another off-topic rambling by D.W. regarding chisels and tangs. I decided not to revive the thread because I didn’t want to open up the can of worms………and yet here I am again !! Oh, the irony of it all!! Last year D.W. accused me of being close-minded for not considering woodies. 12 months later the roles have swapped. Not only have I proven that I’m open to trying woodies (Ok, half-woodies….or perhaps they should be called semis), and he’s still not happy and I find I’m accusing him of being close-minded amongst other things!!! It’d almost be funny if DW’s post hadn’t put a dampener on things.


To David, I’ve made a concerted effort to stay well clear of you. Not because of cowardice or anything like that. I just find interacting with you unpalatable. Like I told you in our first dance, you’re the type of person I turn around and walk away from at parties. Life’s too short to spend it with people you don’t agree with. It’s clear to me that any future encounters between us will end the same way. I ask you please to refrain from commenting on any of my threads. You may think that you’re doing everyone a favour by saving them from a mistake, but that’s because you’re a narcissist. Hopefully this is goodbye and good riddance.

Originally Posted by Chief Tiff

Well that’s a rather disappointing comment David . Mike seems to have really enjoyed setting up and using his 29 and this thread has inspired me to at least try one.

Trying one is fine. Misleading people into thinking there is some advantage to them is ...well, getting other people to waste money.

I had six. None of them better than a metal or wooden plane. My negativity above has to do with the discussion never progressing - forums have actually gone backward in that respect, but woodworking in general has. The level of work on forums 10-15 years ago was mostly beginners, but mixed in there were very experienced users doing fantastic work. most of the experienced users have disappeared because people who don't know enough to not argue are more interested in trying to prove that experience can be disregarded, and here we are with an underlying implication of "all of the woodworkers lost interest in transitionals before metal and wooden planes, and they were all wrong".

A couple of test shavings disprove millions or billions of planed board feet by experienced users. Add the potential of V11 and suddenly, the draw into perceived ideals goes even further. It's just detached from reality, but the lack of substantive work to find out what actually works well - which hasn't changed for over 100 years - prevents any real threat of showing that this kind of stuff is a waste of time other than for play.

Trust me when I say that really needling into what makes a good plane and what makes a plane work well is a waste of time to communicate on the forums. I spent about 10 years working mostly by hand, planing and sawing four figures in board feet from rough and offering things that actually work better. Understanding what's actually causing edge failure and getting away from the nonsense that V11 or high speed steel irons are the only thing that can deal with hard woods, and so on. it goes nowhere against the flow of people who just can't wait to get experience first before making definitive statements.

What will be the result here with the transitionals? A bunch of planes that spend time on a shelf after the novelty wears off - and lost money. But if the point is the play to get to there rather than something longer term, i guess that's just where things are in this hobby.

Here's the link to the thread I mentioned for those who want to read our first interaction for themselves.

Chief, I hope you are furiously genuflecting at David's feet for I am the devil and he's saving your woodworking soul. You are, after all, but a mere mortal incapable of weighing up the information before you and making up your own mind. Sacrifice 7 virgins and give thanks to the woodworking god for he know what is best for you and for everyone. Amen.

Originally Posted by KahoyKutter

Chief, I hope you are furiously genuflecting at David's feet for I am the devil and he's saving your woodworking soul. You are, after all, but a mere mortal incapable of weighing up the information before you and making up your own mind. Sacrifice 7 virgins and give thanks to the woodworking god for he know what is best for you and for everyone. Amen.

what a bunch of nonsense. When you're new to this hobby and maybe short in skill, which I suspect you are - people will tell you thinks that are maybe a bit abrupt, but you would be wise to take as advice. At least if there is somewhere you're trying to go.

I vaguely remember the prior post, but have no idea who you are or that any such post was to you. this transitional stuff fits in the "there's a whole bunch of ways that work just fine" thing. It goes nowhere ultimately, but to a bunch of wasted time.

Imagine if you liked to fish and eat the fish in the evening, but your point was to do a bunch of things that don't catch as many fish, and then smarm another guy who caught twice as many and made a suggestion to you.

the entirety of the internet is like this. There are very few people who actually use hand tools for a significant amount of work. I do. I also make them, and I've never settled for "there's many ways to skin a cat - let me find one that's kind of a waste of time".

Woodworking now is filled with trails to go down to do almost nothing, but that bring people a bunch of unfounded joy temporarily and then leave them with junk. One day, it's the next design in block planes. then after that, it's high angle frogs. Then, it's a chisel with a long handle and a short blade, and then one with a short handle and a long blade.

It all sounds great - every time - because the people who are gushing about it are excited to find anything that works at all and then they can hope to live in a bubble and be excited that something that was never popular is somehow great or better than whatever is sort of mundane and useful.

It is precisely why I am pretty much done posting. It's why John Coloccia in the US probably doesn't post many places (he's both a woodworker and a whiz making guitar electronics), it's why George Wilson disappeared from the forums. it's why Raney nelson disappeared. it's why Custard disappeared from the UK forum.

the difference between those guys and this discussion is they told people things that would be useful, that would be worth knowing to do something or learn something better.

it's too big of a burden for many, and my first post to you was hopeful. I couldn't dream of having a clue who you were when I made it a day or two ago - so I have no clue why your assumption was "let me show you that I know more than you" even though you are not remotely close to where I am. It is that truth that people can't handle on the forums. There are people who know more than I do, but for the same reasons as mentioned here - they're not going to waste their time on forums. I did my shift. I pushed the cap iron, I came up with a method to make double iron wooden planes and published it. I put out a whole lot of information about edge failure and how to avoid it without tedium. I published a heat treatment cycle for high carbon steels that can be done by eye and that betters commercial results. all the way along, most of what I get is feedback from people about how the focus is too narrow and there's many other ways to do it - all the way to outright "you're lying and you don't know what you're talking about".

I would've done all of these things without the forum and maybe faster. somewhere along the way, I guess I became deluded and thought that what I found early on in people like George Wilson would mean that you could get the majority of people on forums to realize that they could take on some of this stuff themselves - objective experimentation and legitimate accurate discussion. But it will never beat the people who want to play at stuff without the burden of reality - that catering to beginners and "everything works and I think there are some undiscovered secrets" is a waste of time. There's enough out there that's not being done well now that just needs to be researched to get up to speed with what's already available. It's unlikely that anything I mention above wasn't relatively common at one point. The evidence is there to point you in the right direction -what did professionals do - what stuck, and what were they doing? what were their results, and what few things have really changed where you might get something slightly better? It'll probably have to be built on what was already there - not just dreamed up by starting from scratch or following routes that failed.

It's really one step past what's available immediately (in understanding or comprehending) to beginners, but I guess that step is too big.

I'm sure you can find a way to make a transitional with a toothed high angle V11 iron and take test shavings and tell everyone how history should've been.

Originally Posted by KahoyKutter

……a Mathieson Badger Jack Plane....

The second reason I’m not such a fan of the Badger is harder to fix. The problem is one of ergonomics. The plane is unwieldy partly because the tote is 35mm higher than the #29 (It may explain why the workbenches of the era were so low). This is further exacerbated by the weight of the plane and its balance. Most would probably expect both planes to weigh the same or possibly that the #29 would be the heavier of the two because of its length and cast iron pieces. AFAIK, the wood used on both planes is Beech. I don’t have a suitable scale to measure the planes, but the Badger is noticeably heavier of the two. It’s also front-heavy and the fact it doesn’t have a front knob does not help. I’ll probably add one down the track.

My understanding is that a Badger plane is a large rabbet plane, not a jack.

The Black Dog's Woodshop: A Badger Plane

All wood planes in the English tradition don't have knobs. European style smoothers have a sort of horn at the toe.

In this blog, this guy demonstrates how to hold the plane.

How To Set A Wooden Plane - The English Woodworker