Thread: Woodriver Planes

Originally Posted by ian

However, to my substantive point, I agree that careers and reputations were built "plain old Stanleys" but my impression is that these careers didn't include extensive use of the more difficult to work Australian timbers. However, following the introduction of Hock and ASW blades and LN & LV planes, these timbers have started to feature in the out put of those craftspeople.

Aussie hardwood specimens were returned to England in the holds of ships, initially as ballast, and were used by enthusiastic and curious cabinetmakers in the very early years of Colonial Australia (specialised timber trading ensued - Casuarina being a favourite).

English furniture made from the new colony's hardwoods (which incidently fetch astronomic prices nowadays) would have been dressed with wooden planes initially and latterly, Plain Old Stanleys. Only the best cabinetmakers could afford such exotic timbers and the furniture they produced was exquisite - so our forefathers somehow managed without LN and LV planes.

Originally Posted by Woodwould

Aussie hardwood specimens were returned to England in the holds of ships, initially as ballast, and were used by enthusiastic and curious cabinetmakers in the very early years of Colonial Australia (specialised timber trading ensued - Casuarina being a favourite).

English furniture made from the new colony's hardwoods (which incidently fetch astronomic prices nowadays) would have been dressed with wooden planes initially and latterly, Plain Old Stanleys. Only the best cabinetmakers could afford such exotic timbers and the furniture they produced was exquisite - so our forefathers somehow managed without LN and LV planes.

WW

technically, I believe most Australian timbers are hardwoods, however workability differs greatly between species.
There is a reason Toona Australis was prized in the early days because, compared to some of the alternatives, it was easy to work.

As you say, only the best cabinet makers could afford the exotics but it was these same makers who could also afford an infill style smoother.
and while I may be wrong, my recollection is that the development of the infill smoother roughly coincides with the introduction in England of hard to work tropical and Australian timbers.
Also I recall reading a comment, from one of the acknowledged plane experts (I think it was Chris Schwarz) that a LN plane was "equivalent" in performance to a Norris infill

So I think I'll stay with my broad assertion that the introduction of thicker after market blades (e.g. Hock, ASW) and "better" planes (e.g. LN) allowed the "average" wood worker to work the moe difficult timbers

Ian, I'm not up on the history of the companies that you're referring to there, but I find it hard to believe that no furniture was made from our hardwoods until LV, LN, Hock et al came along. What, 20 years ago? I'm not sure how long these companies have been active in Australia.

When I first worked in joineries in the 80's, Stanley planes were all I ever saw, maybe the occasional Record or Marples. I'm am fairly certain that unless he subscribed to one of the American magazines, the 'average woodworker' would not have even been aware of the existence of all these 'upmarket' hand planes and blades.

In fact as recently as 3 years ago, I asked a mate of mine who has done a cabinet maker's apprenticeship in the 80's and now runs a joinery, and he had never heard of Lee Valley or Veritas. I'm pretty sure that those of us 'in the know' are limited to the people who frequent forums like this or buy magazines like Wood Review or Fine Woodworking.

If there is a boon in the production of hardwood furniture, I would put it down to fashion more than any other factor.

Originally Posted by ian

So I think I'll stay with my broad assertion that the introduction of thicker after market blades (e.g. Hock, ASW) and "better" planes (e.g. LN) allowed the "average" wood worker to work the moe difficult timbers

Is your use of "allowed" in this sentence meant to mean "made possible that which was not possible before?"

If so, I can't accept that. Maybe, I might accept that these things might give the less experienced woodworker a little more confidence, but it is possible to work these woods without exotic tools.

I mean, how many average woodworkers working with difficult Aussie hardwoods are using a Hock or ASW blade, or LN or infill planes? Certainly not all of them.

And besides, hardness of the wood is only one aspect that can make planing difficult. I'd rather plane a malee burl than many softwoods with swirling grain. A thick blade and a stable plane certainly make tough wood easier to plane, but blade angle is, in my opinion, much more important.

For a while, many years ago, Stanley marketed thinner blades for their planes as being easier to sharpen. Tastes change. When my dad picked up my LN 4 1/2 he actually laughed at it, and said, "no way would he want to push that heavy thing all day"

Of course heavier planes/blades certainly help when dressing some timbers, but there simply weren't the quantity of infill planes around, let alone within the reach of the majority of cabinetmakers, compared to the number of cabinetmakers who must have used exotic hardwoods.

Much emphasis is put on the relatively new Aussie hardwoods, but dense hardwoods from Africa, The East and South America had been in widespread use in Europe long before the first transitional/infill/all metal planes were available. Some of it prompted the finest furniture ever made in the pre-industrial era.

Don't fool yourself that the relatively new Aussie hardwoods precipitated the invention of Norris type planes! They were simply part of the evolutionary process of metallurgy and manufacturing.

And what about the intervening years before Hock, LN, LV et al? Stanley type planes ruled supreme and opened up a whole revolutionary industry of mass-produced furniture made from fashionable exotic hardwoods.

how many average woodworkers working with difficult Aussie hardwoods are using a Hock or ASW blade, or LN or infill planes?

I consider myself an average woodworker (very average). I own one LV plane (low angle block). The rest of my planes are Stanley, with the exception of a couple of Mujing Fang woodies. I work exclusively with hardwoods. I view a $400+ plane as a luxury that I cannot justify.

Originally Posted by ian

Peter, please correct me if I ere
however, I thought the principle feature of the bedrock frog was that its postion relative to the mouth could be adjusted without removing the blade. i.e. the frog was attached to the sole using pins that were "tensioned" by screws inserted into the rear of the frog.
The picture you've posted looks like a conventional frog

Ian,
It sure is a Bedrock....and quite a rare plane....which escapes the notice of many buyers
The first edition of the Bedrock (1898) introduced the flat base frog. And also the frog adjuster screw, which was not introduced into the standard range until 1907.
The flat top sides with the pin and screw were not introduced until 1910.
Regards,
Peter

Originally Posted by silentC

I'm am fairly certain that unless he subscribed to one of the American magazines, the 'average woodworker' would not have even been aware of the existence of all these 'upmarket' hand planes and blades.

Good point. I was a professional cabinetmaker and restorer (I'm not claiming any degree of accomplishment) until my retirement and hadn't heard of Hock, LN or LV until a couple of years ago, thanks in large to this forum.

The first LN and LV planes I saw in the flesh and handled were at Carba-Tec earlier this year and the only ones I've tried have been the property of an enthusiastic DIY woodworker who brought them round for me to try. I would go so far as to hazard a guess that the majority of LN and LV planes are owned by non-professional woodworkers, though I'd be more than glad to be proven wrong on this.

I have never seen a Norris in the flesh either.

Originally Posted by silentC

I work exclusively with hardwoods. I view a $400+ plane as a luxury that I cannot justify.

That seems to have been the view of most cabinet makers unless they were in a very prosperous way of business. One even said to me - "We young blokes couldn't afford the Millers Falls stuff though we knew it was good, never mind Norris".
Jim

I want to add a bit of my own experiences to what Woodwould is saying.

I'm an ex pro shooter (photographer that is). Many of my friends still are. In this world, it's the pros that own all the top end gear. They have stuff just because it's new and because you never know what you'll be shooting tomorrow. They have at least 2 of everything just in case something breaks down. They buy the best because they don't get second chances often.

And when they all get together, one thing they pretty much never talk about is the gear, or the process. They only talk about the result. They ask questions when someone does something in a way that's not obvious - which really means when you can't work out a way to do it. But most times, once you see a shot you can work out a way to do it. Notice I didn't say how they did it, because that's not important.

Now. Even though they have all the best gear, it's only because they can't afford stuff ups. But they all know that the gear doesn't make the shot. It never makes the shot. Never. The talent of person behind the camera makes the shot and not the camera.

Photographers have forums too. And it's usually the so-so guys that get on there and try and cloak everything in complexity and mystery. They prattle on about buying this or that, and thanking God for such and such equipment making photography possible. They have secret-handshake special overly-complex processes and can prove mathematically that there is no other way of doing it. Beginners are mislead into believing the knowledge is beyond them and that you need pro gear to photograph the kids growing up.

It simply isn't true in photography, and you know it's not true in woodworking.

I'd really like to see woodworking made more accessible to beginners. I'm sick of reading about 327 step sharpening processes that are about 325 steps too long. I'm sick of listening to those that claim they can tame really narlly grain with a $4000 smoother. Really? Here, plane this against the grain. What's that? Can't do it. Really.

A beginner has trouble planing because he/she is a beginner. Not because daddy's old stanley isn't flat to within 1/2 a micron per kilometre. I guarantee you the only difference a new $600 plane will make for them is that it will be sharp when they get it. The new plane doesn't come with an injection of experience and muscle memory.

Anyway. Best stop ranting.

Cheers

Originally Posted by monoman

A beginner has trouble planing because he/she is a beginner. Not because daddy's old stanley isn't flat to within 1/2 a micron per kilometre. I guarantee you the only difference a new $600 plane will make for them is that it will be sharp when they get it. The new plane doesn't come with an injection of experience and muscle memory.

Anyway. Best stop ranting.

Cheers

I don't have one of the LNs or LV so what I say may be put down as sour grapes. I do wonder however, whether, in some cases at least, there is a letdown once the user has to grind and sharpen. It may work perfectly straight out of the box but to keep it in that state requires some skill.
I don't doubt that they are marvellous tools but we all know that a good workman (or should it be workperson) can get the best out of an average tool, whereas a poor one gets the worst out of a good one.
Cheers,
Jim

Originally Posted by jimbur

I do wonder however, whether, in some cases at least, there is a letdown once the user has to grind and sharpen. It may work perfectly straight out of the box but to keep it in that state requires some skill.

Good point Jim. Which gives me an idea. Woodworkers need to learn many skills, some indirectly related. Sharpening is one of them, if not the most important one.

In the spirit of helping new woodworkers, getting together and making new friends, and just having a good time, I suggest the following:

A get together plane resto and sharpening day. It works like this. You bring along an old hand plane or chisel in need of resto, a piece of wood, and a bottle of red (or whatever floats your boat). During the course of the day everybody fettles their tool and the more experienced help the learners and by the end of the day everyone will have a nicely working old tool and have learnt some new skills and made some new friends.

But we need some rules. No planes over $50, and no chisels over $15 for the resto part, and no 327 step sharpening processes. New guys can bring anything they want along to practice sharpening on.

K.I.S.S. The aim is for everyone to walk away with some new skills. Especially, we want new people to learn a simple way to sharpen and prepare a plane or chisel for work.

It helps people take pride in their tools and the skill in their hands which never exists in a store bought tool regardless of how much it costs. And when you have faith in the tool, and the edge is sharp, it is amazing how well it works.

George

No matter what brand of tool (NEVER LET A BLUNT TOOL NEAR YOUR WORK!)

Sharpening and tuning hand tools should be learnt and practiced over time not just buy a dvd or go to youtube and become a expert. These skills are past on buy craftsmen and Master craftsmen. People can come into these forums with questions on this angle and that angle ,flattening soles and tuning up hand tools but will not take the time these days to invest in there own trial and errors. I have a few lie's stanley's ulmias, veritas and each one has its own soul, so love and respect what ever tools you have to work with. I have a fine furniture maker friend who owns some old decent tools some second hand and crappy looking but tuned up and cared for they make some beautiful one of pieces that have sold for $60.000.

Does one “need” fine woodworking handtools to build, say, furniture?

Of course not. I doubt that anyone believes that a tool is imbued with any magical powers. Could I finish plane Jarrah with a Stanley #4? Sure I could – but I might need to use a scraper to remove some tearout (if you see the tearout to be an issue, that is). Does one then consider the Stanley to be a lesser handtool? No – but it is working outside its optimum performance envelope (which is straight grained timber). And does this mean that one should get “better” handtools? Again no – finding a work-around is one of the challenges I enjoy.

On the other hand, there are many valid reasons why one might still desire and even benefit from fine tools, new or old.

Speaking from a personal perspective, I have a great number of tools – far more than any sane person would need. There are some really beautiful handtools there – Lie-Nielsen, Veritas/Lee Valley, HNT Gordon, Spier, Blue Spruce, Brese, Marcou, Wenzloff, Lunn ….. the list is longer as there are many that I have built as well. The only justification that I choose to offer is that I enjoy using them. What other justification is necessary?

I could argue that some make the job easier .. which they do. I can plane a piece of interlinked, crazy Jarrah without much difficulty with the Marcou (but sometimnes where is the fun in that!). Cutting a rebate with the Veritas skew rebate plane is a whole lot easier than a Record #778 (and yet I more often choose an old ECE woodie I restored). My Koyomaichi dovetail chisels get an edge and hold it better than the yellow Stanley that I use for rough work. Wielding a Blue Spruce detail chisel is one of the pleasures in life. As is sawing a tenon with the Eccentric Toolworks carcase saw. But making the job easier is not my justification of choice. My justification is …man, I just get so much fun from all this.

Would I get as much fun from lesser tools? Actually I would and do. If these fine tools were not in my workshop or were not available at all – as was the case for many years – I would still get a thrill out of using handtools. Any handtools. It is not a case of “either or”. It is not about the tools being “fine”. That is simply the Cherry On The Top since some are both tools and art. For me handskill still comes first. Handskill will always come first.

Keep in mind that woodworking is a hobby for me. I am an amateur. I do not do this for a living. I do it for fun. If I woodworked for a living I would very likely have a different mindset. In my day job (as a clinical psychologist) I probably take an approach that is similar to a pro woodworker: I take pride in my expertise. I keep my “tools” to a minimum (also because the job of a tool is to produce income, and unnecessary tools do not earn their keep) and only use what works for me. I have 25 years of experience and I like to believe that I have learnt a thing or two in that time. It would be easy to let myself become cynical of the new graduates who clutch a new battery of ubeaut psychometric tests, which are meant to answer every question under the sun. But, hey, I was like that many years ago, and I grew up… Cynicism reflects immaturity and a sense of inferiority ..

There are too many reasons why people choose to woodwork to label.

What I find distasteful are those that dictate to others how they “should” do their woodworking. There is a snobbery among some that really just reflects either that cynical attitude or a just plain envy.

Live and let live….

Regards from Perth

Derek