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

Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor

The problem with the written word. Unless you're an accomplished writer, it's the reader that injects the emotion.

The fact that most, if not all, of us read your words the same way tells me that the writer is easily able to inject the emotion, and indeed did so, whether or not it was intended.

Your apology, although welcome, fell a bit short. Perhaps you did come across more strongly than you intended, but if that’s the case, own up to it instead of trying to blame the reader for your mistake.

The case for either side of this debate rests on opinions. My balancing of the probabilities suggests to me that the plane in question could have been made by any good craftsman a hundred or a hundred & fifty years ago, and it would not have occupied all that much of his time - I would have spent something like 4 hours on mine.

I'm not being falsely modest when I say I'm not a gifted craftsman, I know several people who can put me to shame. I was feeling a bit smug about my first shoulder plane when I showed it off to a friend. She said "I like that idea", and went off & made a waaay nicer one - first try!

The side rebate in question is not difficult to make, mine has a couple of flaws due to being done a bit hastily, I'll admit, but it's not all that shabby, either. What I was curious about was how difficult it would be to make that mouth using tools that would have been readily available 100 or even 200 years ago. It's a bit tricky getting the bed flat working from one side, which only strengthens my belief that it's not a factory job. I suggest anyone knocking these out for profit would very quickly realise that it would be quicker & more accurate to split the sole to form the beds, as was done for low-angle metal planes for at least a century before your plane was made.

I was also curious to see how well it might work - the thin skate of this design rather than the bevelled sides of the Preston design is an advantage if you need to get into a very narrow slot. However I was dubious from the start about that thin, unsupported blade. So I did a more careful head to head with the Preston clone: 1 Side rebate planes.jpg.

As already reported, it did a fine job along the grain, there was little to choose between them:
3 B LG.jpg 2 A LG.jpg

But it stumbled on cross-grain; I could not persuade it to produce continuous shavings:
4 A CG.jpg

The factory job was clearly better across the grain, it will produce near-continuous shavings if I hold my mouth right:
5 B CG.jpg

Not as good as a shoulder plane with a similar blade skew, but the weight & convenience of the plane gives it a big advantage:
SP CG.jpg

I had a bit of a conversation with Auscab as to where such a side rebate plane would have been most useful & between us we came up with a suggestion that it would have been handy for trimming narrow rebates in frames to hold glass (like the sliding windows of old style railway carriages, for e.g.), where it it would only be required to cut long-grain.

But like the exact origins of these planes, we'll never know what they were used for unless someone comes up with some clear documentary evidence, so until then, let's just go on happily agreeing to disagree.....

Cheers,

OK, ok, let's not get into a discussion about what the Spin Doctor may or may not have intended. I did 'detect' a little sarcasm in his reply, but as he points out, that could be my sensitivity and an unintended consequaence. Having spent a working life in a profession where debate was daily fare, I am perfectly comfortable and well-practised in the art of debate! The best way to respond if you disagree with any argument is to counter with your own reasons as rationally as you can, getting personal is a losing gambit.

I have a picture of a very similar(but not identical) plane in a book written about 1980 by someone with a pretty good knowledge of antique tools. He called it "user made". However, that's just another opinion, so I was reluctant to produce that as "evidence".

As I just said, let's all cheerfully keep the opinions we've formed on the basis of what we know or think we know, unless or until someone comes up with irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Cheers,

Hi All

Without adding fuel to the fire, I have just picked up this one recently.

I have a fairly extensive collection of user and and factory made planes and comparing to others I know to be user made, I am leaning towards factory made for this one. Perhaps a small shop in the UK making local stuff without branding...? It also looks like the twin to the one previously posted with the exception that mine has a spot for a depth guage which is missing.

Also it's definitely mahogany and not any type of genuine rosewood IMO..

CCheers Dan

2.jpg1.jpg3.jpg

Originally Posted by ddryland

...... mine has a spot for a depth guage which is missing.....

Dan, I wouldn't have thought there would be much point in having a 'depth gauge' on a side rebate, it can't cut any deeper than the bottom of the slot it's trimming. My first thought is it may have had a small knob or something to make a finger-hold. However, I suppose there are situations where you might want to make a small fillet on the upper inside of a slot, for which a stop would be handy. That might be an important clue as to what these planes were used for?

I don't think your plane should add any fuel to the fire, it will just reinforce established opinions, methinks. To me, it is again different from all the others shown so far & one thing I would expect to see in batch-made tools is consistency. No two are the same size judging by the pics (some vital statistics would help, fellas), and I note particularly that the placing of the mouth is different (i.e. length of 'toe') on each & that is something I would not expect if they had been made in the one workshop.
Cheers,
Ian

Originally Posted by IanW

... I was also curious to see how well it might work - the thin skate of this design rather than the bevelled sides of the Preston design is an advantage if you need to get into a very narrow slot. However I was dubious from the start about that thin, unsupported blade. So I did a more careful head to head with the Preston clone: 1 Side rebate planes.jpg.

As already reported, it did a fine job along the grain, there was little to choose between them:
...
But it stumbled on cross-grain; I could not persuade it to produce continuous shavings:

Ian, Your plane appears to have a bed angle of about 30° and a primary bevel around 25° giving a cutting angle aound 55° plus the secondary bevel. Could this be a little too steep for cross grain planing?

Ian Plane.jpg Ian Blade.jpg Ian's Plane

That exposed part of the blade looks rather unstable. Initially, I thought perhaps it could be reinforced with some webbing, but that would not work if you were planing the sides of a trench.

Ian Blade 2.jpg Ian Blade 3.jpg


Form follows function. But what exactly was the function of that plane? What trade or trades was it used in?

Hypothesising:

1. Cut a trench with a router plane,
2. Finish the trench sides with a double sided rebate plane?

Just speculating!

Thanks Ian

Your suggestion for a knob makes more sense as opposed to a depth stop and certainly batch runs makes sense too.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a time machine!!!

Originally Posted by ddryland

....Wouldn't it be nice to have a time machine!!!....

Sure would! There are quite a few questions I'd like answered from back then. Even to be able to observe quietly from a corner as a ghost-like waif in Chippendale's workshop would be revealing, I reckon...

Graeme, the bed of my plane is 18 degrees, not 30. The unsupported 'wing' of the blade is indeed its Achilles heel, and great minds think alike - I also considered using a web like you show, to stiffen the unsecured 'wing'. But obviously, by doing that you immediately limit the width of the slot it can fit in. If you tapered it off carefully, you could end up with something with about the same ability as the Preston design. But all of the planes we've seen have gone to the trouble of keeping the part of the blade outside the wooden stock more or less flush with the top of the metal sole, which makes me think the makers really wanted them to fit into slots that neither the old wooden side rebate nor the 'new' metal versions could manage.

I kept the wing on mine as short as I thought compatible with enough reach to make it useful, without becoming too chattery - I think its performance would improve a little if the exposed wing were shortened. As I said when I first posted it, trenches & sliding dovetail sockets in furniture are rarely deeper than 9mm, in fact they are usually more like 6.25mm. So it would make sense to limit the exposed blade to something less than 10mm, if they'd been intended for cutting cross-grain edges, but all of the planes presented so far look like they can cut at least 15mm or more deep in a narrow slot. The blade itself is <20mm because part has to be within the stock, so it can actually plane a deeper edge if there is no opposite side to impinge on the wooden stock.....

Cheers,

That plane really has me intrigued, Ian, and I have never seen one! Your experience and my analysis are very similar and keep leading me back to one question - why?

What was the plane used for in the late 1800's, possibly early 1900's? What trades and industries?

It was obviously designed to smooth the sides of quite narrow trenches. But where were those trenches?

• Carriage makers trade - Auscab's post?
• Railway carriage windows?
• Tracks for frameless glass doors in display cabinets? But these did not originate before the Art Deco Era, c.1930?

And how were the planes used?

• Flat on their sole like most planes?
• On their side like a mitre plane?

And as Ian confirms, the archilles heel of the design is the "wing" of the blade, waving in the breeze. How do we stabilise it? We cannot make it wider as that would compromise the width of the trench. Is it possible to make it thicker?

Ian Blade 4.jpg

They could have possibly been used for fine tuning extension table slots. Like the timber side rebate plane could have been used if it’s needed. After plowing or doing slots on spindle moulder . But why make one and not use the side rebate? And why do it for left and right use? Same as matched side rebates ? For handling the different grain direction to give a fine finish probably.

Originally Posted by auscab

...... But why make one and not use the side rebate? And why do it for left and right use?...

Rob, I can suggest an answer to your first question - this little sucker fits into a much narrower slot than any other side rebate I've seen. On both the old wooden rebates and the all-metal Preston type, the stock bevel is narrow & steep, they can't reach far into a narrow slot. My plane can reach a bit over 15mm into a slot that is barely wider than the thickness of the sole (which in my case is 3.2mm). On some of the other planes pictured, the 'free' part of the sole looks to be a bit wider still, though not much, I think you'd be stretching the friendship making the narrow part of the blade much longer.

Why left & right? I guess you answered that yourself. But it's an interesting point because you really only need to observe grain direction if you are wanting to finesse those sides to fine tolerances for something that will be seen, and tear-out would be visible. In places where grooves are out of sight & the fit not super-critical, most makers didn't fuss too much in my experience patching up old pieces. Whatever the plough plane gave you was close enough.

Graeme, me lad, you might be wracking your poor old noggin unnecessarily. I suggest the reason the planes are built like they are is because they did the job the makers wanted them to do quite well, and if it ain't broke....

The plane's performance is quite satisfactory planing along the grain - I didn't try it on a gnarly bit of blue-gum, but it cut cabinet-grade woods happily enough. It did work okay, sort-of, on end grain, but it was not as happy, I found it harder to keep it cutting evenly.

As to which way it was used I'd say 'however was convenient'. You are most likely to have the piece secured with the slot vertical (if that's what you're doing), so you'd probably use it at 90* to the way I was using it for the demo above. But I can envisage situations where you might find it more convenient holding the thing flat, so whatever gets the job done.....

Ian

Originally Posted by IanW

OK, ok, let's not get into a discussion about what the Spin Doctor may or may not have intended. I did 'detect' a little sarcasm in his reply, but as he points out, that could be my sensitivity and an unintended consequaence. Having spent a working life in a profession where debate was daily fare, I am perfectly comfortable and well-practised in the art of debate! The best way to respond if you disagree with any argument is to counter with your own reasons as rationally as you can, getting personal is a losing gambit.

I have a picture of a very similar(but not identical) plane in a book written about 1980 by someone with a pretty good knowledge of antique tools. He called it "user made". However, that's just another opinion, so I was reluctant to produce that as "evidence".

As I just said, let's all cheerfully keep the opinions we've formed on the basis of what we know or think we know, unless or until someone comes up with irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Cheers,

Thanx mate. I appreciate that you understand debate isn't personal or condescending. It's interesting, in that historians well beyond our qualifications have had robust debate for thousands of years.

If people can't deal with my writing style I strongly suggest they block me...