Thread: R U a tool collector? Here's one to think of...

Originally Posted by IanW

No problems, SD. It's certainly possible such planes were made by a small specialist maker, but as Rob said, it would be strange for them not to use some kind of recognisable mark (but again, possible). I was mainly responding to your assertion that the planes are "too well-made to be user-made". That I will continue to disagree with....

Cheers,

This is one of the arguments used by tool historians to determine user made or not, but it's nowhere near a hard rule. I have two very different marking gauges, one metal and the other ebony (which is more than enough to dispel such a stance), and probably a lot of other 150 to 200 year old tools that have no makers mark but there's a 100% certainty that they were made in a factory setting...

I would never say an individual wasn't capable of making their own tools, it's just 200 years ago it wasn't nearly as easy as today. Availability and access to the necessary tools to make them would have been quite limiting back then for the vast majority. Not to mention the hand skills one needs to learn on the fly. And as you would know. Making a new tool, that you have never done before is near impossible to get it perfect on the first attempt. Much easier if you have the internet to guide you, but 200 years ago, they would have been making them in a great deal of isolation.

Originally Posted by IanW

... It's certainly possible such planes were made by a small specialist maker, but as Rob said, it would be strange for them not to use some kind of recognisable mark (but again, possible). ...

Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor

This is one of the arguments used by tool historians to determine user made or not, but it's nowhere near a hard rule. I have two very different marking gauges, one metal and the other ebony (which is more than enough to dispel such a stance), and probably a lot of other 150 to 200 year old tools that have no makers mark but there's a 100% certainty that they were made in a factory setting...

But it ain't necessarily so. It depends on the time frame and who actually made it.

Branding has been around for a few thousand years to denote ownership of property - cattle, sheep, tools, whatever. It was very rarely used to denote the "maker" - the exceptions being artists who often signed their works, and authors.

And then from c.1750 came the industrial revolution and some manufacturers started branding their products - initially very few did, but the practice started to grow from around 1850 and accelerate from 1870 until it became ubiquitous around 1900. This was as businesses employed marketing people, as opposed to sales people.

So essentially:

• if something was made in a factory after 1900 then it will almost certainly be branded,
• if it was made in a factory before 1850 then it probably will not be branded,
• If it was made between 1850 and 1899 then it might be branded.

Even today, quite a lot of product out of China is not branded. The legally required branding, especially the "made in China" logo is on the packaging. This facilitates sales via multiple channels. (eg how many brand names have been applied to Qiangsheng products?)

I've been taking pics of a lot of tools to sell and the side rebate was up. I noticed another aspect that goes back to one of my original arguments that they are not user made. If you look at the pic you can see the angle of the bed the blades sit in, my guess it's about 10 degrees off being flat to the bed. And then there's the complex angles top and bottom for the wedge that, don't forget, is tapered... I don't care who you are, or how good you think you are at making tools. No one is going to get that on a first attempt. Probably not on the second or third to match up to how well it all fits snuggly together. So you think someone 200 plus years ago is going to burn up that much time making one. The labour conditions back then weren't like today. Even today, I doubt a boss is going to be interested in letting employees go off on such tangents. And I surely doubt the boss back then is going to be all that forgiving to let someone burn time making one, two or three... And one thing's for sure in the UK, no commoner had the shop in the back yard, like we do today, to house the equipment and had the skills to make such planes.

No way anyone is going to convince me it's user made, unless they make one on the first attempt. And only using references (no internet, you're on your own) and methods from 200 plus years ago (remember you have to source the appropriate carbon steel, anneal it, file it perfectly (and there's a lot to remove!), harden it and temper it back (all by hand), and numerous other skills...).

Here's another point. This is a complex plane to make - no question. Much harder to make than a regular moulding plane. But!! Guess what, you don't see many user made moulding planes do you, I know I don't. In fact, I've never seen one in 43 years of looking for moulding planes in 4 countries. Why? Because they're not that easy to make, unless you have the skills and the tools available. Probably why you don't see many companies around the world or users making them today.

For me and my stances on this, and most things, it's about the odds of it happening in a certain way. Everything I see about this plane chips away at the premise the tool historians say it was user made... To the point where I can't see any probability of it being user made at all. I'm at the point now where I wonder if they can actually support such a position with any evidence at all, other than it has no makers mark...

Ahem…..

1 Parts.jpg 2 Assembled a.jpg 3 Assembled b.jpg

And it works: 4 Working a.jpg

I wanted to compare it with my Chinese-made knock-off (of what was originally the Preston design) in widening a groove, but I cut the groove too deep & too narrow for it to fit in. My plane fitted easily, it will fit in a slot just 4mm wide & up to 15mm deep, so there’s one star for it already. 5 Working b.jpg

Orright, so is it really difficult to make? Not very. I had to make a few things up on the fly – the only dimensions available were length & width of the one on ebay that Rob linked to. At 7” long, it looked quite a bit longer than any of the others shown above, and much longer than the Preston design. As it happened, I had a bit of scrap 3.2mm steel 115mm long so that decided the length for me. And how deep should it cut? The commercial plane has blades ½” wide, and since the sort of housings I need to trim are typically 6-8mm deep, I reckoned 15mm of exposed blade should be plenty. I estimated the skew angle to be between 10 & 15* from the pics, so opted for 12.5 (nothing like going for the middle ground… ). I set the blade pitch at ~18*, which looks something like what’s on the examples above.

The mouth is the main difficulty for a novice, if you stick to hand tools of the sort that would’ve been available 100 or so years ago, i.e., hacksaw & files and a couple of crude scrapers made out of old files. I decided to accept the full challenge & keep the sole intact rather than cut it like Henry’s in order to make the bed (which is actually the more sensible approach because it makes it far easier to form the bed accurately). To keep the mouth tight, you can only saw out about half the waste – laying the saw over far enough to cut to the line would have chopped a wedge off the front of the mouth, which is something you don't want.
6 Mouth 1.jpg

So nowt for it but to do it the hard way, filing & scraping the rest off from the side - tedious but not difficult. Took about an hour to get it done:
7 Mouth b.jpg

I assembled it using Philips-head screws, I couldn’t find enough short screws in my dwindling stash of ‘olde-tyme’ slotted variety. Never mind, it will place the thing in time for anyone wondering when it was made Sole.jpg

I have to confess, the darned thing works far better than I expected it would. At first sight, I reckoned that skinny bit of unsupported blade would give up & chatter at the slightest provocation, but it sits remarkably firmly & planed quite thick shavings from moderately hard wood without fuss. It’s a bit fussy to set up, the blade has to be set for an even cut, obviously, but it also has to sit perfectly flush with the edge of the sole (or ‘skate’ if you prefer). But once I got it going, I was surprised by how well it went - it's actually better (& probably less fuss to set) than the commercial thing.

Damn, looks like I’ll have to make the matching one…..

Cheers,

PS: Mine's rosewood too, but not a Dalbergia, it's good old "western rosewood" aka Acacia rhodoxylon. It has a more subtle figure & is a bit more brittle than the 'real thing', but still a very nice wood for the job.

That is looking good. I do believe the hardest part is the mouth. It would be easier with a split sole. When I made my pair I opted for the split sole and then it was quite easy. But if I do it again I might try the same as you did here. Definitely doable.

I think I also like the single iron version you made more. It should be better in your hand with less things sticking out.

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Ck, I think the construction that you chose to follow from those ebay example is actually better & also a little easier. My main aim with this project was to put money-with-mouth & prove to my own satisfaction that anyone with normal hand skills could build one without any fancy tools, so I felt bound to follow the originals as closely as staring at the photos would allow.

As I said, I was somewhat dubious it would work very well because of that thin, unclamped extension of the blade, but to my surprise, it works quite well (on long grain, I've yet to try any serious cross-grain trimming with it, which will be a more severe test). I reckon that the construction of your plane is more mechanically sound - the full blade is more solid and easier to ensure it's well tied-down. Skewing it across the wooden stock is also less delicate than an open wedge slot. Of course plenty of old wooden moulding planes etc. have open or partly-open wedge slots, but the wood I used is a bit brittle & the wedge slot is quite short so I'm not sure how well it will stand up over the long haul. The one advantage of these wedged version is that you can keep it narrow for as long as you care to make the thin part of the blade (though I'd be loathe to make it more than a couple of mm longer than I did). With your version, how thin you can get the working part depends on how low you can pitch the blade. Though let's face it, the most common task these things do in furniture-making is trim the sides of a shallow housing, which is usually 9 mm or wider, so it would only be on rare occasions you need to trim a slot less than that.

I've long been meaning to make a couple like the one you made, and particularly with a removable toe 'cos I have often needed to trim a stopped housing. So maybe this will be the impetus to get on with it, so I can compare how the two styles perform in serious use. I've already decided the home-made job is better than the Preston clone I've been using for an open slot - it's easier to set up! The clone version works ok, once you get it set, but is an absolute bear of a thing to get right because you cannot adjust the blades because they are covered by their clamps, so it's a matter of trial & error (with lots of the latter & a few rude words) to get it cutting as you want....

Cheers,

Great! You proved that an experience tool maker can make another tool. Now make a tool you've never made before without any reference to any other tool(s) or material for help. And make it perfect on the first attempt. My plane, I can assure you wasn't made in 1920. I strongly, without taking a screw out to date it, was made in the late 1800s, guessing around 150 years ago. Remember, back then access to reference material would have been scarce to nonexistent. You say you used crude tools. I'd say the tools you used and the access you had to what's needed was a wee bit better than a joiner would have access to in a shop in the UK about 150 years ago. Remember: 150 years ago labour conditions in the UK were abysmal by comparison. They were probably working 12 hour days, 6 days a week, and I highly doubt the boss is going to let a joiner make a plane on company time. So it's going to be made on his time, at night. And I doubt they'll let them go in on off hours and fire up the forge and whatever so he can bang out a tiny plane blade. That's if they had a forge...

So based on the above, lets make it more realistic. A user made tool is by definition a one off of something the tradesman is going to have to bridge other trades to accomplish. You're quite skilled at metal and woodwork and tool making - right? So, in some ways you have an advantage in this challenge over a regular joiner from 150 years ago. Without any access to resources other than what's in your memory now, make a Buck lock blade knife. And, don't forget, you have to make it perfect on the first go.

EDIT: I hate to be critical, but with all the access to pics and such, yours didn't come out perfect. Which, is what one would expect on a first attempt.

Originally Posted by auscab

I think you under estimate the ability of simple men or women committed to their passion. There are countless examples of supreme made at home thingamajigs that far exceed factory made items to behold bla bla bla .

Here on the forum you can see such things .

Have a look at what this carpenter did with his passion of clock making that changed the world for an extreme example.
He started off making wooden clocks .

Attachment 523181

John Harrison - Wikipedia

Bit late on this one. Missed it...

I'm not sure of the point of bringing him up to be honest. This isn't at all about the limits of a person to make something or not...

But lets be honest, do you think he just dreamed up a clock and then went out and made it in one hit. Or did he evolve the design through many drawings, with successive mock-ups and new concepts over years until eventually he arrived at a product(s) he was satisfied with.

Wow! Spin Doctor, why do you choose to respond this way?

Originally Posted by Mountain Ash

Wow! Spin Doctor, why do you choose to respond this way?

Well, folks do get passionate about their beliefs....

SD, I was not trying to change your mind, that seems fixed despite opinions to the contrary of people who have some knowledge of antiques. None of us has any overwhelming evidence either way, so let's just all happily keep our own opinions with as much politeness as we can muster.

Indeed my plane is far from perfect, and I'm not a gifted toolmaker, just an average bloke with a bit of persistence, which was the point I wanted to make. If I made another it might be better (& I wouldn't make the blunder of drilling a screw hole in the sole in the wrong place & having to patch it! ). However, it's possible your plane is the second or third attempt by that maker too - he may have given his first try to a friend..

I think your age estimate is a bit enthusiastic, but even if your plane was made in the 1870s as you intimate, the same tools I used were available and at least as good. You don't need a forge to harden & temper a little blade like that, everyone in Britain had a coal fire at home.

And as to artisans making tools of very high quality in their 'spare' time, there are dozens, if not hundreds of superb user-made tools from the latter half of the 19th C that needed far more time & a higher level of skill than these planes demand. Somehow, they found the time.....

Cheers,

Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor

Great! You proved that an experience tool maker can make another tool. Now make a tool you've never made before without any reference to any other tool(s) or material for help. And make it perfect on the first attempt......

Why, oh why, do you choose to denegrate eons of craftsmen in such an arrogant and ill-mannered way?

You have absolutely no reason to state or imply that your plane was the first that that person made, and that it was too precise to have been user made. A very bold presumption.

Until the late 1800's the vast majority of tools were, in fact, user made, and in some parts of the world they still are. Go to virtually any wood workshop in Japan. Indonesia or India and see where their tools are made; most will have been made on site. If a Japanese joiner wants/needs a new plane he will get a local blacksmith to forge a blade to his specifications and he will then make the new body for his kana - it is only 1 - 1½ hours work - and it is done in the boss's time. And if you think that sashimono joiners do not produce high quality work, then I have a very different opinion.

It was the same in the UK until the late 1800's. Most planes were made by the craftsmen who used them. Steel was very expensive and blades were either salvaged or made by a blacksmith and the joiner made his own wooden plane bodies - it was an integral part of the craft, and something that the employer expected his workers to be able to do and to do routinely.

I cannot see why you would keep implying that your plane was the first that your unknown craftsman had made. It was just part of his job.

Originally Posted by Mountain Ash

Wow! Spin Doctor, why do you choose to respond this way?

The written language is devoid of emotion. Emojis do help to impute the writers emotive intent but the words themselves are sterile. So if you took this in a way that is inflammatory it is entirely on you. My response is pragmatic and consistent with my stance and has no emotion, mocking or other derogatory implications to it.

Originally Posted by IanW

Well, folks do get passionate about their beliefs....

SD, I was not trying to change your mind, that seems fixed despite opinions to the contrary of people who have some knowledge of antiques. None of us has any overwhelming evidence either way, so let's just all happily keep our own opinions with as much politeness as we can muster.

Indeed my plane is far from perfect, and I'm not a gifted toolmaker, just an average bloke with a bit of persistence, which was the point I wanted to make. If I made another it might be better (& I wouldn't make the blunder of drilling a screw hole in the sole in the wrong place & having to patch it! ). However, it's possible your plane is the second or third attempt by that maker too - he may have given his first try to a friend..

I think your age estimate is a bit enthusiastic, but even if your plane was made in the 1870s as you intimate, the same tools I used were available and at least as good. You don't need a forge to harden & temper a little blade like that, everyone in Britain had a coal fire at home.

And as to artisans making tools of very high quality in their 'spare' time, there are dozens, if not hundreds of superb user-made tools from the latter half of the 19th C that needed far more time & a higher level of skill than these planes demand. Somehow, they found the time...

Cheers,

The age of the plane is obviously an estimate. What we all know is wood bodied planes were well and truly gone by 1900. There would have been a few hold-out plane makers, such as Routledge, but we can assume they were gone... And with Stanley on the rise from 1860s, that easily puts this plane between then and 1890s.

My mind works on probabilities. Each of those factors will either increase or decrease the probability of what I think of something... Those factors on this plane in particular are: relative complexity, how well it's made, age, scarcity, perfection, it goes on... The overall probability suggests to me it's not a one-off user made plane. When the "experts" that are quoted, the only evidence given is there's no manufacturers stamp... That's weak as p1ss in my books. I have no agenda here other than I simply disagree with such a simplistic assessment. Over the decades I've seen many experts make claims that were eventually unravelled, mostly because they were based upon an opinion that had no merit to begin with. E.g. Try to find good instruction on making sash windows... There's a bit out there but it's far from comprehensive. The reality is much of what furniture makers were doing and how they did it even as little as 150 years ago has been lost. It wasn't all that long ago that the discovered the Romans used metal planes!

On the contrary. I think you're a brilliant tool maker. I'd love to own one of yours. What you demonstrated with yours was one of the key things I've been prattling on about. It's near impossible to make a perfect tool in the first attempt. My plane of subject here is without fault - it's perfect in execution, proportion, balance... In my words: The probability of it being a user made one off is: if not zero, it's extremely close. Now as you said, the craftsman made a few... But you have to think of the age. He/she is working 12 hour days. I doubt they're going to be investing time in making more, they would settle for good enough. Which is what we often see in user made tools. As a result, probability is very low that it was a user made plane.

From my perspective there are two other possibilities of it's origin:

1) a rich person that has the space, time and tools to indulge in making novelty tools to satisfy his/her hobby of furniture making.

2) an extremely high-end shop that was a royal warrant holder. In which case, complexity of the furniture or woodworks made would require the need for specialty tools. As such, they would more than likely have a tool maker as part of the company... Which could also explain the lack of a company stamp.

I agree on there being some high-end user tools floating around... One of the more common ones is the radius planes you see for sale in the UK, I used to have a lot of them. The reason they are so common is they were part of the apprenticeship of pattern makers, same with a joiner's toolbox. They're common as cornflakes in the UK. Some are so well made they're a work of art, depending on the shop they worked for and what they demanded from their apprentices. But, there is an easily back traced reason for these. As I've stated earlier in this. So why don't you see the more user made simple planes like jointers and fore planes. Any half assed joiner can bang one of them out in a few hours, and buy a premade blade and lever cap. Surprisingly enough, you find them in Europe but not the UK. Moulding planes, when was the last time you saw a user made one? If you do see one, it's so obvious because it's nowhere near as good as the professionally made ones. Just look at the replacement wedges in moulding planes. Far-out, are they crap looking and fitting.

Any whoo. I apologise if you thought I was being a dick... The problem with the written word. Unless you're an accomplished writer, it's the reader that injects the emotion. I meant no malice, there wasn't even emotion in my words.

I haven’t bothered following this debate but up with leg cramps have time to kill.
The point about Stanley’s metal planes taking over the market is a little irrelevant as besides them not making a double sided version they were a foreign manufacturer.
The Preston double sided monster may have been developed from these earlier craft made planes.
In the period the plane was made there was still a strong craft apprenticeship, journeyman then master tradition whilst the furniture trades were never unionised like the engineering trades there was some mutual support and protection and sharing of knowledge. So whilst England was and is a country with an appalling record of exploitation of workers there was considerable pride in being a skilled tradesman even though conditions were primitive and work methods out dated. (my engineering bias showing here re Lee Enfield and RR).

My father a fitter and turner whose nickname was ‘thou black’ made a Norris copy for my uncle during WW11.
Why did my uncle want a Norris copy so many years after Stanley had taken over the market and there was even English made copys available to satisfy the desire to support mother England.
Same reason Benjamin’s hardware in Chatswood gave a family friend a Spiers smoother for his topping Tech College.
These were the planes a Master had in his kit not the cheap Stanley’s and clones.
My father could have knocked out one of these planes in his tiny backyard shed no probs if one of his mates or rels wanted one.
When I served my time as a patternmaker we were given the timber and time to make our toolbox. This was in a government establishment, Dunno how the other 20 or so apprentices in my year at College made theirs.
Those corebox planes were knocked out as needed usually there would be a pattern for the body lying around and the different radius soles made up.
Why did they bother doing this when Stanley had a small and large ones available? Their large one a monster.
I never bothered whist in the trade, we hade a good circ saw to rough out and crank gouges. They could be done on the circ saw with a jig for the angle cut but that would tie up the Saw bench.
Cramps have gone with the dawn so I’ll quit here.
H.