Thread: Veritas Custom Planes - more than a review

Wow! A lot of work and a lot of food for thought! A monumental effort.

I haven't read the chapter on chipbreakers & frog angles, yet - I will do that when I have enough time to read carefully & take it all in.

So far, I am pretty much with you all the way, and the areas where I might not agree fully are probably too subjective to argue rationally (but I'll try - see last couple of paragraphs)!

I totally agree on the desirability of 'mushroom' knobs - been singing the praises of these for a couple of decades, now. My take is that they encourage a flat-palm grip which makes it easy to bear down on the toe as you start the cut, which helps to keep the body of the plane level & not create a 'hill', particularly on short boards. As you progress through the cut, you automatically ease off the pressure so that by the end of the cut, as the blade goes over the edge, any downward pressure is on the rear handle only. All my planes have had those tall knobby things replaced with lower mushrooms long ago.

You have also illustrated rather well 'how to push a plane'. As you imply, long use of a tool brings you to adopt body positions that work over long sessions, which means, essentially, minimising muscular effort. Having your forearm roughly horizontal is 'right' for handles with a mean angle of around 70 degrees. Lay your arm flat, with your wrist in a 'neutral' position & close your fist. The angle your closed fist makes is (surprise) about 70 degrees, unless you are an anatomical anomaly. Pushing with your wrist in that 'neutral' position is less tiring than if you had to twist it up or down a bit. It makes perfect sense that you adopt postures that 'get behind the tool', as I was always encouraged to do. For planing, you most certainly want to bend into the job to bring hip & lumbar muscles into play, so the bench height that best suits you is one where it gives you just the right amount of stoop for a comfortable & sustainable 'power posture'. Using 'postural muscles' in a steady, rythmic process is good. Without getting too technical, these muscles are not only bulky & powerful, they can sustain steady effort over a long period, while your arm muscles are full of so-called 'fast-twitch' fibres that develop lots of power, but tire more quickly. Ask any rock-climber.

Now for the more subjective issue. The one point we will never agree on is that those Veritas handles are in any way comfortable! Call me a pig-headed old fuddy-duddy, or what you will, but they just do not fit my hand. I think there is more in the shape of the 'traditional' style handle than the mean angle, which as you point out, is similar for both (somewhat to my surprise, I confess). That shape goes back a good deal beyond Mr. Stanley, and evolved by trial and error over a very long time, so let's not discount it too readily. What is it, exactly, about Veritas's sticks I find so uncomfortable (I refuse to call such crude chunks of wood handles! )? First off it's the cross-section shape that I dislike most. The more oval cross-section of the 'traditional' handle (& I'm talking pre-1940 shape, not the lame excuses that were stuck on the degenerate post-war things), lets my hand close more naturally. Have a look down your partly-closed hand & you'll see the fingers & palm describe an oval, not a square with 4 corners knocked off).

Now about that exaggerated reverse curve. I suggest the reverse curve on the back of the top half fits the ball at the base of your thumb. The straighter profile of a Veritas handle doesn't, so even though the mean angle of the grips are similar, it puts the pressure more on the ball rather than distributing it over the whole palm area.

And finally, a somewhat less subjective point. Although a freshly-sharpened plane does cut with little or no downward pressure, a blade gradually dulls as you use it, and it takes increasing amounts of pressure to make it bite. At first one does this subconsciously, but after a while, depending on how quickly the blade is dulling & how sensitive you are to the feel of a tool, you will be conscious of it, & realise a trip to the stones is called-for. You can demonstrate this to yourself very easily, by sharpening up your favourite plane, and laying into a piece of She-oak, or other species that has a rapid dulling effect. It will only take a dozen or so strokes before the plane is not taking clean shavings without a little applied pressure. So while you may not notice it in a few test cuts to asses handle comfort, I maintain a certain amount of downward pressure is a necessary part of most normal planing sessions. If you carefully watched someone planing long enough for the blade to dull a little, I bet you would see that forearm creep up a little to apply a bit of 'cutting' pressure. I reckon that the shape of the traditional handle makes it easier to shift the direction of the force a little, whereas I find the Veritas style imposes more of a 'one position' grip.

My hands are becoming increasingly arthritic, & handle comfort is getting to be a bigger & bigger issue for me. I may change my mind in the future, but for now, it's the old-style, curvaceous, oval cross-section handle for me, every time....

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

.....

Now for the more subjective issue. The one point we will never agree on is that those Veritas handles are in any way comfortable! Call me a pig-headed old fuddy-duddy, or what you will, but they just do not fit my hand. I think there is more in the shape of the 'traditional' style handle than the mean angle, which as you point out, is similar for both (somewhat to my surprise, I confess). That shape goes back a good deal beyond Mr. Stanley, and evolved by trial and error over a very long time, so let's not discount it too readily. What is it, exactly, about Veritas's sticks I find so uncomfortable (I refuse to call such crude chunks of wood handles! )? First off it's the cross-section shape that I dislike most. The more oval cross-section of the 'traditional' handle (& I'm talking pre-1940 shape, not the lame excuses that were stuck on the degenerate post-war things), lets my hand close more naturally. Have a look down your partly-closed hand & you'll see the fingers & palm describe an oval, not a square with 4 corners knocked off).

Now about that exaggerated reverse curve. I suggest the reverse curve on the back of the top half fits the ball at the base of your thumb. The straighter profile of a Veritas handle doesn't, so even though the mean angle of the grips are similar, it puts the pressure more on the ball rather than distributing it over the whole palm area.

And finally, a somewhat less subjective point. Although a freshly-sharpened plane does cut with little or no downward pressure, a blade gradually dulls as you use it, and it takes increasing amounts of pressure to make it bite. At first one does this subconsciously, but after a while, depending on how quickly the blade is dulling & how sensitive you are to the feel of a tool, you will be conscious of it, & realise a trip to the stones is called-for. You can demonstrate this to yourself very easily, by sharpening up your favourite plane, and laying into a piece of She-oak, or other species that has a rapid dulling effect. It will only take a dozen or so strokes before the plane is not taking clean shavings without a little applied pressure. So while you may not notice it in a few test cuts to asses handle comfort, I maintain a certain amount of downward pressure is a necessary part of most normal planing sessions. If you carefully watched someone planing long enough for the blade to dull a little, I bet you would see that forearm creep up a little to apply a bit of 'cutting' pressure. I reckon that the shape of the traditional handle makes it easier to shift the direction of the force a little, whereas I find the Veritas style imposes more of a 'one position' grip.

.....

Cheers,

Ian my dear friend, you raise interesting points, as usual!

Let's take the first area, about the uncomfortableness of the Veritas handles.

I recall that you made a fantastic handle replacement for me once, which also reflected how we shared a dislike of the standard handles back then. The question I now ask you is whether you have tried the new handles? There are now three sizes of handles (along with two styles), and this makes a difference. I have a larger paw, but rate at the top of the Lee Valley scale for a Medium size. The old handles would fall in the Large range. Even the Medium in the Standard Style is on the large size for me, and I would recommend that anyone wanting to purchase this style handle get one size down. Size counts ... but bigger is not what is always better .


Interesting comment about the thumb in the reverse curve. But I have never seen anyone do this. Do you?

The last point about the blade dulling is relevant. In fact, I ask anyone reading this (there surely cannot be just you and I ) to go and push a plane with a duller blade ... and observe where they place their hand on the handle. I bet the hand drops and the heel pushes at the base of the handle!! That is how we maximise power.

The fact that Stanley has an S-shaped handle does not mean that it is the best, most ergonomic design. The world moves on. That there were many woodies built with similar handles ... well do not be fooled - perhaps they were not the same. Recall that I argue that it is not simply that the Stanley has an S-shape, but that the area of flat below the "S" is so short.

Why not test this out for yourself - make a copy of the handle I built for the #604. This one is staying on that plane ..



Lastly, I am reminded of a story about a dear professor of mine when I was in graduate school, Prof Dreyer Kruger. He was a real character. Tall and skinny, and usually dressed in one of two suits. One was pillar box red and the other forest green. Anyway, one day a lady arrived in his office to be interviewed for a potential doctoral thesis in psychology. She said that she wanted to do her research on Levitation. Anyone else would have turned their eyes to the ceiling, and showed her the door. Dreyer sat quietly for a while, then said, "Well Newton has been around for 300 odd years ... perhaps it's time for a change". And gave her the go-ahead.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

..... Interesting comment about the thumb in the reverse curve. But I have never seen anyone do this. Do you? .....

I think you misunderstood me Derek. I hope this will make my meaning clearer: TinFist.jpg

The arrow points to the muscular 'ball' at the base of the thumb. When I wrap my hand around an old style handle, that ball sits in the recurved part of the tote, as illustrated, with the result that (for me,at least) I feel there is more evenly-distributed pressure on the tote over my whole palm. I would point out that your modified 604 handle has precisely that concavity, whereas the back of the Veritas totes is virtually straight. And yes, I think you are quite right that the height (and slope) of the out-curved part at the base is important for comfortable pushing. I think it needs to be of a height & angle that matches with the top concave curve so that it fits the hand.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

...The last point about the blade dulling is relevant. In fact, I ask anyone reading this (there surely cannot be just you and I ) to go and push a plane with a duller blade ... and observe where they place their hand on the handle. I bet the hand drops and the heel pushes at the base of the handle!! That is how we maximise power...

OR, simply raise your elbow a tad so that the forward force is directed at an angle more towards the blade than straight along as you do when the blade is dead sharp. My point is that the shape of the old totes makes it much easier to do this.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

...Lastly, I am reminded of a story about a dear professor of mine when I was in graduate school, Prof Dreyer Kruger. He was a real character. Tall and skinny, and usually dressed in one of two suits. One was pillar box red and the other forest green. Anyway, one day a lady arrived in his office to be interviewed for a potential doctoral thesis in psychology. She said that she wanted to do her research on Levitation. Anyone else would have turned their eyes to the ceiling, and showed her the door. Dreyer sat quietly for a while, then said, "Well Newton has been around for 300 odd years ... perhaps it's time for a change". And gave her the go-ahead.....

Hmm, not sure that was a good choice of anecdote, 'ol buddy, depending on how it's interpreted. I doubt the lady managed to levitate anyone, & Newton's 300 year old laws helped send men to the moon and back, which rather supports my argument, does it not..?

But I do take your point. I like to think I have reasons for preferring some particular method, tool, handle shape, or whatever, and am not being an old reactionary and clinging to something simply because "that's the way it always was". However, I am also ready to admit that it's very hard to be totally objective and avoid all prejudice, particularly when one has been doing something a particular way for more than half a lifetime. I think you are doing a splendid job in raising the points you have, and putting a cogent case for the prosecution. This member of the jury remains to be swayed on this particular point, but you never know, the judge hasn't summed up yet.....

Cheers,

Derek

thanks for sharing - I'll read over the next couple of days

however any comments will not be as erudite as Ian's and I'll just read for interests sake

The arrow points to the muscular 'ball' at the base of the thumb. When I wrap my hand around an old style handle, that ball sits in the recurved part of the tote, as illustrated, with the result that (for me,at least) I feel there is more evenly-distributed pressure on the tote over my whole palm. I would point out that your modified 604 handle has precisely that concavity, whereas the back of the Veritas totes is virtually straight. And yes, I think you are quite right that the height (and slope) of the out-curved part at the base is important for comfortable pushing. I think it needs to be of a height & angle that matches with the top concave curve so that it fits the hand.

Hi Ian

If I understand correctly, there is a difference in our hand holds.

You are using the ball of your thumb near the top of the handle. I am using the heel of my hand at the lower end of the handle.

Your grip is likely to lead to downforce (and less power), while mine is likely to lead to forward thrust (and greater power).

What shows up in all the videos of experienced woodworkers is the use of the heel of the hand.

My modified #604 encourages the use of the heel. The extended flatter section allows the hand to drop down more naturally.

Any thoughts about this?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

.....If I understand correctly, there is a difference in our hand holds.

You are using the ball of your thumb near the top of the handle. I am using the heel of my hand at the lower end of the handle.

Your grip is likely to lead to downforce (and less power), while mine is likely to lead to forward thrust (and greater power)....

Derek, there may be a slight difference in holds, but I push my planes like any of your examples in the pics you posted. My point is, because of the way the handle fits my hand, the pressure is distributed over most of the palm surface, not on any particular point. My handles fit rather snugly, and unlike those early Veritas handles, there is only one position for my hand, it doesn't slide all over the shop like it did on an old-style Veritas. The 'push' vector comes from the angle of my forearm, which is roughly parallel when I begin a session with a shiny-sharp blade, but creeps up a bit as the gloss goes off it, and the plane requires a little more of a downward vector to keep cutting. Of course, how much power input is required depends on what plane it is & what you're doing, too, does it not? Hogging off thick shavings in tough wood may require lots of power and some conscious down-force (e.g. using a lightweight scrub), whereas taking gossamer shavings from a nice wood with a freshly-sharpend blade will need nothing at all. Here, it can be all arm action, as you need little power, too....

Cheers,