Woodriver Planes

**derekcohen** · 10th July 2009, 05:06 PM

Ian my mate, you are not going to win a debate from the side that argues that woodworking became possible with the advent of better handplanes, such as the LNs of this world. The fact is that furniture has been built for centuries in all sorts of timber using all sorts of handplanes and tools, some of them very crude.

It would be a better argument (for LN and other handplanes that are viewed as a step up the ladder from Stanley) that the latter made working with wood an easier and more pleasant task. Even this argument has flaws since one must define what "easier" refers to. That LN, LV, Clifton, etc are more pleasant to use also depends on the criteria that one prioritises. There is a valid argument that the latter are built to tighter tolerances, and that these features certainly do improve user-enjoyment. Still, this argument also only holds water if you are examining planes that are Stanley-like. There are a whole host of alternatives to Stanley, such as woodies, and I'd hazzard a guess that more fine furniture (on difficult timbers) was built using woodies than metal planes. It is not really a point I want to argue over since it is not that important in the grand scheme of things.

The best argument to defend is one that states that improvements in handplaning difficult grain comes from tuning planes to meet the challenges therein. For example, creating high cutting angles for Australian hardwoods. While one can work them with common pitch planes, such as the Stanleys, this may also require additional work, such as the use of cabinet scrapers to remove tearout. Also, it is not a done deal that all such hardwood will lead to tearout with common pitch planes - just less likely with higher cutting angles. Ironically, it is only very recently that LN introduced high angle frogs, and even then they only go to 55 degrees (that is very high for the US market, but often not high enough for Oz). The type of handplane that excells in our neck of the woods are BU planes, since the cutting angles can be as high as one wants.

The point is that one can made anything "do", and in many cases this is what occurs. I have said this on many occasions, that there is a difference in the attitude to possession of tools and equipment between amateur and professional. The professional needs to avoid increasing overheads unnecessarily and will "made do". This is no different in my world when it comes to neuropsychological assessments - I utilise maximum skill and minimal equipment.

None of this invalidates the purchase of "expensive" (a relative term) or innovative handplanes. But we must admit that they are, for the large part, the medium of the hobbiest/amateur. That does not demean them or the user. "Amateur" does not mean that the woodworker is less skilled than a professional. These days it is typically the amateur only who has time to hand build furniture in the traditional way. Jim Krenov repeatedly referred to himself as an amateur. It simply states that the tools may not be as profit-making as something more basic (read cheaper). Given the choice between using a plane that looks good, is ergonomic and works more effectively verses a clunker that takes effort and may not be reliable, well I think the answer is easy (even for Krenov when it came to handplanes ... his may have been "ugly" but a lot of attention was lavished on making them rather than buying and tuning cheap Stanleys). Let's not exclude those that prefer to use vintage tools (whether these are infills, Stanleys or old woodies) and those who prefer to make their own (and I put my hand up in this group as well).

... who is to say which group is the "right" one? There is no "right" or "wrong" group of tools, just self-righteous individuals who may argue this way.

Regards from Perth

Derek

**jmk89** · 10th July 2009, 05:34 PM

Ian

If you look in some of the Australian woodwork books published just after WWII, eg Waugh The handyman's Complete Carpentry Guide , Smith New Australian Home Carpentry, Lloyd The Australian Carpenter, they all have significant discussions of Australian timber and the uses to which it can be put. They also show both wooden and metal planes for use on these woods. There are tips about avoiding what we now call tear-out and advice on using a very sharp blade when planing local woods. All of this suggests that these woods were all worked without help from TLN and Rob Lee.

It is also worth saying that at the time of these books, Australian companies like Carter, Pope, Turner and Titan (to name only a few) were producing plane irons and chisels of very high quality (as we now know, even though at the time there amy have been an unreasonable belief in the superiority of the imported products of the UK and the USA).

That suggests to me that, if there was a period when these woods were not able to be handled by tradtional hand tools available to the home woodworker, it was probably when the quality of the steel in the plane irons and chisels deteriorated in the '70s and 80s. That was really what later provided the market for high quality planes - that the 'ordinary planes had become so ordinary.

Woodworkers had however at that time taken to using the tailed apprentices, and burned electrons to achieve a good result generally (including when using native timber). Whether that was the result of the belief that power tools were an advance on traditional tools or because the hand tools became so shoddy, I don't know. P'raps a mixture of both.

**ian** · 10th July 2009, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by Woodwould

The plane evolution you talk of coincides exactly with the industrial revolution - precipitated by advancements in the mining of fossil fuel which was a huge improvement over traditional organic fuel for smelting and greater outputs of steel. Fossil fuel-fired kilns also made mass production of bricks possible which in turn lead to the building of huge factories and improvements in manufacturing processes in general.

I don't disagree
however, if you don't accept my proposition that the high angle infill smoother developed in response to the introduction of exotic timbers into Europe, what is your explanation ?
Is it that the industrial revolution made mass production feasible and therefore begat the labour intensive high angle infill smoother ?

**ian** · 10th July 2009, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Ian my mate, you are not going to win a debate from the side that argues that woodworking became possible with the advent of better handplanes
snip

yeah I know.

I know which blades I've sharpened and how,
I know which planes I've used and how I've controlled for factors like mouth opening and blade projection
which woods and grain types I've planed
and the results I've obtained.

my experience clearly demonstrates that more massive planes and more rigid blades give a better result

maybe I should say "I'm bored now" and walk away ...

**monoman** · 10th July 2009, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by ian

if you don't accept my proposition that the high angle infill smoother developed in response to the introduction of exotic timbers into Europe, what is your explanation ?

And the most successful maker of infill planes was probably Norris, or at least they out lived all the others. My understanding is that many of their A5 and A6 smoothers were only bedded at a rather modest 47.5 deg. Hardly high angle.

Of course I may be totally wrong as I have no bothered to check that these are indeed facts, or only my failing memory.

No where did I put that cat? Pus, pus, pus....meow... Why are you hiding in the microwave?

**jimbur** · 10th July 2009, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by ian

I don't disagree
however, if you don't accept my proposition that the high angle infill smoother developed in response to the introduction of exotic timbers into Europe, what is your explanation ?
Is it that the industrial revolution made mass production feasible and therefore begat the labour intensive high angle infill smoother ?

I'm not making a statement here just a possibility. the industrial revolution created a whole new wealthy class who wanted all the showy features of the landed gentry - house in the town house in the country etc. This could have created a whole new demand for furniture, with the result that skilled craftsmen were at a premium and ended up with more disposable income. New steel and new manufacturers like Spiers (1840?) resulted in the premium planes.
Anyway just a thought.

Jim

**derekcohen** · 10th July 2009, 08:50 PM

George

Given that the average LN common pitch plane will plane as well as a Norris, or better it, I would say that you do not have support for your argument that a Norris will perform as well as or better a decent smoother with a high cutting angle (e.g. of 60 degrees) on interlinked timber.

While the Norris' and the Spiers had a terrific reputation, it is altogether another matter whether one would surfice in planing all woods. A Norris would be expected to perform as I outline in my previous post - that is, it should do just fine on most timbers, and could be made to work on all. However it would not do so with the confidence of a HA smoother when working interlinked grain. I can demonstrate this for you any time of the day as I have the planes in my workshop.

Now where did I put my Ducatti?

Regards from Perth

Derek

**monoman** · 10th July 2009, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by derekcohen

George

Given that the average LN common pitch plane will plane as well as a Norris, or better it, I would say that you do not have support for your argument that a Norris will perform as well as or better a decent smoother with a high cutting angle (e.g. of 60 degrees) on interlinked timber.

? I posited no such argument. Feel free to contradict me.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Now where did I put my Ducatti?

?

**monoman** · 10th July 2009, 10:41 PM

Derek,

I publicly apologised to you back in post 89, see https://www.woodworkforums.com/showpo...9&postcount=89

Not only have you lacked the common decency to acknowledge my apology, you continue to jibe at me and misquote me.

May I suggest now would be a sensible time for you to back off.

**Vann** · 10th July 2009, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by monoman

?

You're too subtle for him Derek, I think he missed it

Cheers, Vann

**Woodwould** · 10th July 2009, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by ian

I don't disagree
however, if you don't accept my proposition that the high angle infill smoother developed in response to the introduction of exotic timbers into Europe, what is your explanation ?
Is it that the industrial revolution made mass production feasible and therefore begat the labour intensive high angle infill smoother ?

The majority of exotic (hardwood) furniture at the end of the 18th century was veneered and any furniture that incorporated solid exotics were primarily curved and carved, so what were high-angle infill planes for - preparing softwood carcasses for veneering?

**Slow6** · 11th July 2009, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by ficfac

Hi all,

I just bought a Woodriver No.5 from Woodcraft in the usa.

They seem to receive quite favorable reviews.

I'll let you know what I think after it arrives.

Anybody got one or seen/used one?

soooooooooooooo........ How's your new plane?

**watson** · 11th July 2009, 12:19 AM

This's new.......the thread's back on topic.

**Tex B** · 11th July 2009, 12:21 AM

Just read the thread, couldn't figure out how we could get 10 pages on a review of a hand plane, but when it got that many posts I had to have a look to see what the attraction was.

Very interesting thread, and as is often the case on the forum, some fairly passionate opinions.

Monoman, thanks for the reviews on the planes, nice write up and very honest. Derek, thanks for the links and your thoughts.

Seems to me we have the option of spending more money for better quality (bronze frog and lever cap, precision machining, quality materials throughout, etc), or less money for lower quality (needs fettling and other tuning, generally lower quality of material, etc).

No doubt with some work and skill, great results can be achieved with the lower priced tools, and some mighty fine furniture has been produced over the centuries with some fairly rough tools.

But, if you can afford a BMW and enjoy the drive, by all means buy the BMW. And, if it's important to you to support artisan manufacturers rather than producers of cheaper (potentally "knock off") tools, then do that. If you can't or don't want to spend the money for the high quality tool, I do think it's a good idea to look at who is behind the mid priced product you buy. For example, would you want to buy a Hongda motorcycle?

At any rate, it doesn't look to me (based on Monoman's review) like the Woodriver is an equivalent quality product to a Lie-Nielsen or a Lee Valley, but would be interesting to compare it with comparably priced planes from other manufacturers.

Cheers,

Tex

**Woodwould** · 11th July 2009, 12:31 AM

The thing about BMWs is that they don't actually get you from A to B any better than a Holden ute. If you perceive they do, or you feel more comfortable in a BMW, then I'm sure it is money well spent.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Thread: Woodriver Planes

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Similar Threads

Which are the best planes?

Old planes

infill shoulder planes vs infill rebate planes

Trying planes

All the planes you could ever want

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions