Thread: Tuning an old wooden plane

Hi Apricotripper!

Firstly - good story and nice pics. I must say that I would have thought that such a wide mouth would encourage tear-out though:confused:

Secondly, I reckon that you're pretty handy with planes and know what you're up to - almost as much as Derek (runs for cover, donning flameproof trousers:eek: ).

For myself, and I suspect many others here, I'm only just starting on the learning curve, so after much frustration with some spectacularly horrible not very old Record / Stanley "things", I've gone down the path of a few LNs and LV - and they are a real joy.

Also, tuning / fettling these new planes, given that they are made so well for production items, is pretty straightforward; so much so that even I can make a fair go of it

I'm expecting to get the Shepherd infill plane kit sometime in the next week or two - this one in kit form

So I'll see how I go assembling, tuning - then using it.

Cheers!

When you tuned it, did it pick up AM or FM??

Al :confused:

Originally Posted by Auld Bassoon

Hi Apricotripper!

Firstly - good story and nice pics. I must say that I would have thought that such a wide mouth would encourage tear-out though:confused:

Secondly, I reckon that you're pretty handy with planes and know what you're up to - almost as much as Derek (runs for cover, donning flameproof trousers:eek: ).

For myself, and I suspect many others here, I'm only just starting on the learning curve, so after much frustration with some spectacularly horrible not very old Record / Stanley "things", I've gone down the path of a few LNs and LV - and they are a real joy.

Also, tuning / fettling these new planes, given that they are made so well for production items, is pretty straightforward; so much so that even I can make a fair go of it

I'm expecting to get the Shepherd infill plane kit sometime in the next week or two - this one in kit form

So I'll see how I go assembling, tuning - then using it.

Cheers!

Hay, go for it.

Thanks for your comments. But I didn't do anything special. All I did was push it 3 times through the jointer, and sharpened the blade. Thats it. Don't need talent for that. See, Seeee, See my point Its all hipe.

You still have to sharpen those swish planes don't you ? ohhhh, I'll drop it, getting a bit old.

I spose what you back depends on the path you travel, like you say.

Beautiful plane you got there. Shouldn't need to pass that through the jointer ! .....BUT, (how much will that set you back).....How many 1987 Ford Lasers could you buy with the same sort of money ? ........

Originally Posted by apricotripper

Hay, go for it.

Thanks for your comments. But I didn't do anything special. All I did was push it 3 times through the jointer, and sharpened the blade. Thats it. Don't need talent for that. See, Seeee, See my point Its all hipe.

You still have to sharpen those swish planes don't you ? ohhhh, I'll drop it, getting a bit old.

I spose what you back depends on the path you travel, like you say.

Beautiful plane you got there. Shouldn't need to pass that through the jointer ! .....BUT, (how much will that set you back).....How many 1987 Ford Lasers could you buy with the same sort of money ? ........

Cost for the infill (the brass one) from Shepherd: US$279 = AU$370 approx, plus about $60 shipping - but compare to the cost of a 'real' Spiers No7 Smoother - this from a recent (25 Sept) auction <TABLE width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD width=25></TD><TD width=780 colSpan=2>Lot 775 A rare SPIERS No 27 gunmetal smoother with d/t steel sole and rosewood infill and open handle 50% orig. Spiers iron remains. G+ £800 / $1,436

Then again, I have to file it, rivet it, peen it, and whatnot - plenty of chances for a Bassoon style stuff up I hope I get it right - see http://woodcentral.com/shots/shot547.shtml

Sharpening is just one of those things with any edged tool, but that bit I don't mind - sort of relaxing after a day at the orifice

I wonder, in the craftsmen's days of yore, was sharpening a task given to apprentices, or was it a 'black art' held closely by the Master? One can imagine the terrors in store for a youth who 'snaffled up' the Master's prized XYZ plane iron:eek:

Cheers!


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Ohhh Jake - you're spoiling all the fun when you use an old plane like that and make our Porsches look like a VW!

I have several nondescript planes, both Stanleys and woodies, that can take a very sweet shaving - as long as it is relatively undemanding timber (that is, relative to timbers such as figured Jarrah, Blackbutt, Camphor, and others). In straight-grained timbers, even some Jarrah, I have no difficulty with these planes keeping up with my HNT Gordons and LVs. But (!!) switch to a timber with interlinked grain and their performance falls right away. For basic carpenter-type work these planes are fine. But for cabinet work they are not.

Have a look at this article I wrote (on the LV Bevel Up Smoother - BUS) in which I compared the performance of a Type 12 Stanley #4 1/2 that was tuned to the max (and included a thick Clifton blade and a thick cap iron).

http://members.iinet.net.au/~derekco...bus/index.html

The Stanley and the BUS were initially set up to plane at the same cutting angle (45 degrees) on exactly the same pieces of timber. There was essentially no difference in their performances on undemanding timber (mostly Yank stuff) but, once I moved to the Aussie timbers, it was very evident that the Stanley could not keep up with the BUS.

The law of "Diminishing Returns" applies as much to woodworking tools as it does to motor cars and to hifi equipment. They all get you there. How much you are prepared to compromise is really what this is about. And for the hobbiests here it is really just a game.

One does not need a shop-full of tools to build great furniture. If it were not for the fact that I get tools from LV to feedback and review, I would have a lot less to use, and very, very few "new" planes. I still love the romance of Yesteryear and happily use my Stanleys and woodies. If I also did not have such a strong interest in the history of handtools and seek to find examples to experience, I would happily go the other way, that is, to become a minimalist - take pleasure in building furniture with the least number of tools I can. In fact I did this in my latest review (the LV Bevel Up Jointer - just waiting for MikeW to get it onto my website for me). I built the entire sofa table with only the jointer as a bench plane (all endgrain, smoothing, scrubbing, beveling, etc) was done with this. I also used a spokeshave (for the curves), a cardscraper (removing some tearout), a tenon saw and a couple of chisels (for the mortise-and-tenon joints).

<div><img src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Furniture/Sofatable.jpg" border="0" alt="" /> <br />

Incidentally, my highly tuned Type 11 Stanley #7 could not keep pace with the LV BU Jointer on the Blackbutt or Jarrah used here.

Now don't get me started on the guys that use thicknessers and planers and buzzers ..

Regards from Perth

Derek

Apricotripper, that's one of the coolest, no-nonsense posts I''ve read in awhile. Make it 800 words and submit it to a good woodworking mag.

I have my wife's great-grandfather's wooden try (?) plane (Mathieson blade) that I was simply going to hand over to whichever of our children showed the most interest in woodwork. Reckon it might get a bit of use before then, after reading your piece. Good one.

Regards,
Rusty.

P.S. I'm so tight-fisted with the greenies that I can't give you another one yet, apparently; so it's on back-order.

Ta for the article. Interesting stuff. Very thougher.

But I don't see any mention of my CJS model. (caveman Jake special).
I mean, that article doesn't help this discusion one bit,,,,really,,,you compare the 41/2, the BUS, and that HNT gordon wonder. But, no, I don't see the CJS.

See, I don't think many people really have the oportunity to work expensive timbers regularily. I certainly don't. And most timbers in my opinion can be made into something impressive. Heir loom stuff. Cabinet pieces included. It goes too far to segregate a tool into the just 'carpentry' section just because it can't keep up with the rare occation it tears a seldom used timber. In my opinion, of course.

I'm not ever questioning the fact that these planes are better. But by just saying 'better' or 'superior' one often thinks a vast improvement. Betya, in general, the improvements nice, but definetly not necessary to have.

Oh, but definetly agree, I think the stanley 41/2 is a crap plane. But you didn't backbevel it say 10degree, or use a 5mm thick iron in those tests.

I seriously believe my CJS, as beatup as it is, with a 10 degree backbevel, thick blade, even with an open mouth like it is, would have performed as well as the HNT Gordon. Wishful thinking ?

Making very fine shavings in these tests, right?, how bad were these tears anyway ? Significant to the eye. Or would it only bother you if you had Chuck Yeagers eyes ? Many finishes completely hide small tears anyway ?

(shrug)

Should I have forgotten to mention,,,,,Liked the article, and the table

Thanks Rusty. Maybe I should send it in somewhere. Bit shy, , never done anything like that before.....

$1436 !!!!! Steve. ....Could get a couple of 1987 Lazers for that.

It's the clown hanging off the end of the thing, not the weapon of choice...

Heck, that long jointer I made has a mouth as big as that old thing you got there due to a f...eature?

Sharp, and reading the wood it doesn't tear out, and leaves a glossy surface.

Wanna plane those test samples backwards and see what happens though...

BTW, that thing has been remouthed once before, no reason you couldn't do it again if so inclined. I know you aren't, but the folks at home might be interested.

Originally Posted by apricotripper

...See, I don't think many people really have the oportunity to work expensive timbers regularily. I certainly don't. And most timbers in my opinion can be made into something impressive. Heir loom stuff. Cabinet pieces included. It goes too far to segregate a tool into the just 'carpentry' section just because it can't keep up with the rare occation it tears a seldom used timber. In my opinion, of course...

He, he! Bang-up job on that old, useless, perhaps-ready-for-the-tip plane! More so, because you really didn't do much to it!

Sorry I can't provide a link (it's been years since I read the article), but somewhere out there is a web page with a series of photos of an old Roman bench plane dug up somewhere in Britain. Of course, all the wood was eaten away and/or decayed. So how'd they know it was a plane? Simple, it was an infill! The iron sole and cutter remained (heavily corroded). Too, there were 2 iron pegs running vertically from the sole, which was interpreted as being the pegs that fastened the wood infill to the sole. It was bit different than today's infills, though. Instead the iron sole running down one cheek, across the sole, and up the other cheek, this old plane's sole ran down the toe, across the sole and back up the heel.

An interesting look into woodworking history. But to my point: There isn't anything new, really, when one gets right down to it. A plane is simply a chisel attached to a body. The body holds the cutting edge at a specific angle and keeps it from rising, lowering, or yawing during the cutting action. In short, the body adds some simplification to a task that, prior to the first plane being "created," was done all by hand control. Free-handed chisel work, that is.

Well, a bit of time's passed since then, eh? And little discoveries have been made. Cutting angles, mouth widths, metal content, levers, adjusters, and endless other things. Even simple economies. For example, if the Romans were using infills 2000 years ago, why do we continue to make wooden planes where the only metal in it is the cutter? Surely, after all this time, we'd have advanced beyond what the Romans could come up with?

Well, yes. We could. And we did. Witness all those little controls and fiddly bits. But we have to go back to the simple physics of just what a plane is, which is little more than a body to control the chisel that's actually doing all the work. And for low cost, a simple wood plane is just grand, thank you, and fairly easily made, even by the novice.

I honestly wouldn't bother to count every plane, or plane-like, tool in my shop. I inherited several dozen from my uncle, and another dozen or so from my dad. Since then, I've purchased 20 or 30 more, and made well over 50 myself. Some (most) are simple wood planes. Admittedly, they are mostly profiling planes for moulding work, but some are simple smoothers or rebates. I have several spoke shaves and various iron planes from bench to dovetail to plough to block to chamfer to whatever.

But then, I think I faintly hear you asking, "Why? Wouldn't 1 simple wooden bench plane do for all your bench planes?" To which the answer would be, yes, assuming that the iron was narrow enough to accomodate my most narrow planing needs. It would only take more passes with a narrow iron. And if the bed is set low enough, I can always regrind the cutter angle, flip it over and use a back bevel, etc., to get my desired angle of cut. And assuming my 1 bench plane was long enough for jointing, and at the same time, short enough for smaller jobs.

So why so many? Well, as was said earlier, consider the options on vehicles. So you want to get from point A to B? Well, wouldn't walking do as well? I mean, why some form of transport? Oh, you want to get there faster? OK, well, how about a unicycle with an electric motor? Need more balance? Will a motor bike do?

No? Need to carry passengers, you say? More than one passenger? OK, well try a micro saloon car. Oh, that's a bit of a rough ride and hasn't enough oomph to get you up to speed. Well, then, let's try a...

See where I'm going with this? A more complex, better engineered, newer metalurgy-technique plane offers more in the way of meeting specific needs for a specific piece of work. The suggestion that none of it is really necessary is quite true. But then, a plane isn't necessary either, is it? A chisel and a scraper would do just fine. So if the land yacht SUV's are deemed excessive to merely walking to get you to your destination, wouldn't even a simple wood bench plane likewise be excessive? After all, you only need the cutting edge, and everything else is gravy.

And please don't overlook that the higher the pitch, the more force you have to use. More labor. More tiring over a long period of use. But, as you've observed, the higher the pitch (all other things being equal, which in fact they never seem to be but that's life), the less need there is for a tighter mouth. Scraper planes, which have a real cutting angle somewhere between 65 and 80 degress (depending on how you burnish the edge), don't have any mouth to speak of, other than the need to punch a hole in the sole so the cutter can reach the wood. The mouth on these scraper planes is irrelevent.

Then there's the wood, and as well-noted, interlocking wood is a serious problem. Still, with a higher pitch, and a VERY thin, fluffy shaving, mouth opening is less critical (it's NOT unimportant, just LESS critical with a high pitch and super thin shavings). Change the parameters at all (thicker shaving, lower cutting angle), and mouth opening becomes more and more important.

It's simple physics. If the wood fibers cleave straight and the chips break quickly, there's no need for a close mouth to press down upon the wood microns in front of the cutting edge. If the fibers are less well behaved, then the sole must extend right up to the cutting edge to prevent the fibers from cleaving downwards or in lumps, thus causing tear out.

Finally, do you REALLY want to ALWAYS use one plane and simply swap out the cutters, adjust the mouth, fiddle with the adjusting lever, etc., every time you want to make a different cut, be it end grain, tangential or radial? One plane, multiple cutters, that is. A rounded cutter for jacking, multiple angles to suit the wood and the type of cut, realining the setup, taking a few practice passes after doing so, and etc.? If you're a hobbiest, well, that might prove to be quite economical and a grand solution. Otherwise, as I prefer to do, I simply reach for yet another plane, permenantly set up for the way I wish to use it. If that other plane has some adjusters, such as an adjustable mouth, you can bet I won't be fiddling too much, if any, with any further adjustments. I'll have another adjustable mouth plane (for example) already set up with the desired mouth, pitch and depth of cut.

Yes, it's more planes. Yes, over the decades I've been doing this, it's cost me more money. But here's the catch: yes, it's saved me LOADS of time on my various jobs, and time is money, and I've definitely gotten paid much more than the sum total of all those planes I've ever bought. I've definitely been paid more than I could have been with just a couple of "use them everywhere" planes. Could I have gotten by with what I inherited? Absolutely. Do I WANT to? Never.

I agree with your assessment. I'm not at all religious about any company or any type of plane. There are no planes that are panaceas; if there were, there'd be just that one plane, now, since the Romans had their go at it. You're right to question. You're right to doubt. You're absolutely right in that any given plane can usually be pressed into use just a little outside its intended working parameters.

On the other hand, don't assume your one wooden plane is the only bench plane you'll need. Length of sole make a difference for jointing. If you should find yourself with a small task, such as a jewelry box, well, your plane's a but on the large size, isn't it? And the wood, yes, DOES make a difference. It really isn't about hardwood and softwood. Balsa, for that matter, is classified as a hardwood, but it's much easier to slice than wet pine. It's the characteristics of the individual boards that make a difference. Straight maple is one this (dang hard on edges, but works nicely). Figured maple is quite another, where varying and interlocking grain make it an extremely difficult wood to work with. Always wants to tear out. Thinner shavings would indeed help a lot, in this case, but then, that means more passes. More passes means more time (and more honing).

So yes, you're right. And no, not quite. Like all the variations on the "chisel with a body" theme, personal use, intent, volume of work and choice of wood also need to be considered. One car doesn't suit all your needs, all the time, though you can probably make do with but one, or two at the most, plus a bicycle and walking. Same with planes. Unlike owning multiple cars for every task, though, owning multiple planes is achievable over time. If that's something that would be meaningful to you, such as making a living (or a sound second income) from your work.

It's all about making a given task easier. Which means getting improved results with the same amount of time, or the same results with less time. Though it would probably take you months of practice, I'd dare say if you WANTED to, you could toss your plane body and just get a firm grip on the iron, brace your knuckles against the wood and push. Nah, I wouldn't want to, either! Apparently, neither did the Romans.

Well, that's my 1.98 (USD) worth. I'll be keeping the 2 cents for meself!

Originally Posted by Auld Bassoon

...I wonder, in the craftsmen's days of yore, was sharpening a task given to apprentices, or was it a 'black art' held closely by the Master? One can imagine the terrors in store for a youth who 'snaffled up' the Master's prized XYZ plane iron..

Ha! Days of "yore?" Wow, that would make me, let's see... OLD!

That's exactly what I did. From age 12 to 14, all I did was grind (using a flat stone, no electric grinder), hone, lap and in general work with metal. I watched and listened, though.

The earliest days were spent with junk irons or damaged planes. No need to fear me making bunk out of something useful! Once satisfied I could do the job in general, I was set to work honing "real" irons and chisels for the journeymen in the shop.

When their complaints about my work stopped, the "master" had me doing his irons.

Eventually, I was given a rough sawn board to make 90 degrees at every angle. I remember it well. It started out at something like 2 inches by 6, and 4 feet long. When I was done (every angle measured up), it was 1.5 inches by 3 inches by almost 4. I'd planed away half the board! But dang if it wasn't square!

Needless to say, I've improved a bit since then. Guess that's because I'm old!

Nice one Apricotripper.
There I was thinking that a crack in the sole would render the plane useless. I'd greenie you but the 'puter won't let me.

I agree with your point that there is a lot of hype about the new wood working tools, and that the older ones bought second hand can be as good or better.
It is nice though to lash out and get a nice new tool that works as well as advertised every now and then.
Other than that, I guess for some the experience also includes using the latest and greatest as well as making something from wood. Others prefer to zip through the job with their electric powered tools and finish up with the ROS. Its all horses for courses, IMO.

As for the hype - I think it exists to allow people to justify that what they are doing/buying is "right" - an important part of marketing in itself is the pseudo-psychology.

After all, it is no use getting a great result, if you don't get it in the 'right' way with the 'right' tools, as used by the 'right' people! There is no point in succeeding if you aren't in the right crowd.
:confused:

.... I'd dare say if you WANTED to, you could toss your plane body and just get a firm grip on the iron, brace your knuckles against the wood and push. Nah, I wouldn't want to, either! Apparently, neither did the Romans.

....haven't tried that yet.

Pond-jumper. I'd love to see your shed, I mean, workshop.

I liked what you had to say.
Its just another 'need over want' debate, isn't it. or is it ' want over need ' ? :confused: ...I failed English at school. I don't know what grammer is apparently.

Thanks for your post and yours Clinton, gota go.

I largely agree jake, you can get nearly any plane to work and do a reasonable job, on difficult timber though I found the only LV plane that I own, that is my LV LA block works better than any stanley I have been able to tune... but as you say it doesnt come through that often.

The only time I really noticed it, was in the process of trying to smooth the workbench top... which because of $$$ I made out of construction grade pine... I was getting a lot of tearout with the usual suspects until I got the little guy out.

I have to say though at that price, you cant exactly stock up on them , the LV jointer costs as much as a 6inch jointer from Hafco! If I had the space, I know which one I would be buying...

cheers

Marios