For flattening tables, fitting drawer fronts flush with a carcase and other furniture making needs, I’m looking at purchasing either a cabinet scraper, scraper plane, or belt sander. The hard maple I’m using has very finicky grain. I’m constantly running into tear-out problems with my LV block plane, LV smooth plane, and card scraper even with very sharp blades and narrow throat gaps on the planes. It’s occurred to me that a belt sander, possibly the new 14″ model from Porter Cable or a standard 21″ model might avoid these tear-out problems. However, it’s difficult to prevent rounding over edges with such power tools.
Would a cabinet scraper or scraper plane be a better investment than a belt sander for the above needs or does one really need both? Alternatively, would a high-angle blade for my LV bevel-up smooth plane substitute for the need of a cabinet scraper/ scraper plane?
– Lyptus
Replies
Lyptus ,
Since not all pieces of wood work the same , having more than one way to go is a good thing.
Sounds like whatever you use needs to produce a finished surface that will need little clean up , if you can scrape cleanly enough why not . Personally since I use mostly machine tools I belt sand .
A caution with belt sanders besides the obvious of going too far is imo the longer the platen or belt the flatter results you will get . Better off with a larger belt sander that can also be used for surfacing many other surfaces also imo .
dusty
I have a Stanley Cabinet Scraper and the LN large Scraper Plane. On really difficult grain I will work the whole face with the LN Scraper Plane and then followup with the Stanley Cabinet Scraper. The scraper plane helps me keep the surface flat and eliminate the tearout, but leaves a rougher surface than I like. Light cuts with a freshly sharpened cabinet scraper leaves me with a more refined surface I can apply a build finish to. If I want to oil the piece, I usually endup sanding.
It takes more practice to learn to control a belt sander well enough to flatten a board than it does to learn to flatten with a hand plane. Just as with planes, the larger the sander is the easier it is to create a flat surface.
It sounds like you are using a standard iron ground at 25 degrees with your bevel up planes. Try honing your smoother iron with a micro bevel of 45 degrees giving you a cutting angle of 57 degrees to the wood. You may find this will eliminate the tearout problem altogether. You can try increasingly steeper micro bevels to take the combined cutting angle up to around 65 degrees. Just experiment a little until you find a combined cutting angle that can handle the wood you are working.
Lyptus,
I don't know at which stage in surfacing you're at, but a belt sander seems a little aggressive if you're considering a scraper. Maybe a random orbit sander or finishing sander fits the bill better. Personally, I would start by sharpening your smooth plane to a 60-degree or more cutting angle. Increase the bevel of a LA plane or add a back bevel to a bench plane. You don't need to buy another blade - just change the angle at the very tip. I find that a planed surface is usually superior to that of a scraped surface.
In an experiment I did on curly maple, a LA block plane (12-degree bed) with a freshly sharpened 25-degree blade and a really tight mouth had much more tearout than a 50-degree blade and a wide-open mouth.
Chris @ www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
Lyppy, I must recommend a decent plane , (not a block plane ) with appropriate structure to support a nice thick blade . The blade ofcourse will rest flat on the bed and be well supported at the critical point which is as near to the edge as possible.
You may experiment to get the right cutting angle but it will most likely be 55 degrees or more. If the sharp blade is able to be clamped wherever you choose to set it so that there is no chatter then you ought to get a smooth surface, certainly smooth enough to be quickly perfected by use of a card scraper.
Bevel up planes give you more leeway-you should be able get the right result with your L/V bevel up and a card scraper only.
I would HATE to try to flush drawer fronts to frame or carcass with a belt sanders.... but they are mighty useful in other ways.
Hello Mook ,
Now that I think of it I may belt sand and finish sand the face before fixing it to the drawer but typically adjust the drawer from the inside to make the face line up correct .
Regards from the states
dusty
Lyptus,
I suggest that you ensure that you are truly getting your plane irons sharp. Hard maple should hand plane quite nicely without the need of follow up with a scraper. Belt sander scratches in hard maple would be quite the nightmare to remove in such hard wood so it could be that you would be trading one problem for another. A good sharp iron and tight throat should be more than enough to handle hard maple even with curly figure. If you're looking for excellent surface quality right off the plane, it may be as Philip suggested, time to upgrade to a more specialized smoothing plane.
Ron
http://www.breseplane.com
All will work.
One thing I'd say about belt sanders is that they do not have to be brutes. I have a 21" multi speed makita that has an separate sanding shoe accessory. The sanding shoe alleviates any worries of gouges or rounding over. It also allows you to set the depth. With a fine grit belt and the shoe, I can sand anything, without much trouble.
I have scrapers, high angle planes, and scraper planes as well. Use 'em all. Just wrote to let you know that a belt sander is not a bad option.
I bought a Festool 1/2 sheet sander and it does good work. It's not as fast as a belt sander but fast enough and no worries about gouging; since it's hook and loop changing grits is quick.
L,
Consider this article if you want to adopt a novel approach to belt-sanding a load of drawer fronts flush in a carcase; it looks efficient:
http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/SkillsAndTechniques/SkillsAndTechniquesPDF.aspx?id=2302
Personally I do it the traditional way these days- plane each drawer until it fits as required, using a high angle blade if the grain is awkward. Any final surface-finishing then only needs a light hand-sand, to remove any furze or track, as this is all a really sharp (high angle if necessry) blade, used with care, will require. ("Used with care" means: sharp blade, very light cut, closed mouth, go with or across the grain where ever possible, keep the plane in motion right across the workpiece).
I used to employ an RO sander to make things flush/flat - A Festool 150 with a hard pad and the 3mm orbit. This can take a lot of time but leaves a good result. I did once fancy a Festool Rotex, that has the very aggresive sanding option as well as the normal RO action. In the event, I took up handplanes, which seem more satisfctory (good ones do, at least, when used with the right configuration for the task, timber-type etc.).
There is also the Metabo dual orbit RO sander (3mm and 6mm). The 6mm orbit sands more aggresively whilst the 3mm leaves a fine finish. Again, a hard pad is essential if its flush/flat you want with no roundover edges or little hollows.
Having a belt sander mounted in a frame, to increase its footprint and prevent dig-ins, makes a big difference. I used to use one for flattening large tabletops, although it now languishes in its box as the planes have taken over that role. It still took a lot more time to belt sand a top flat/smooth than do the smoothing planes, though.
I don't use a scraper much but of their nature they don't take much volume. Any significant out-of-flat amount would take forever to remove with just a scraper - hand or mounted in a holder of some sort.
Lataxe
Thank you all for your feedback. I re-sharpened my low angle smooth plane to 38 degrees, tightened the mouth, and set the blade depth to take a whisper light cut. This sufficed to eliminate tear-out (although I worked up a big sweat trying to push the plane forward). I may try re-sharpening my low-angle block plane to the same angle for similar finish work.My only regret is that now I don't have an excuse to buy a new tool. I'll have to look for other reasons/ projects that may require a belt sander. Or maybe I'll buy another hand-plane. Thanks,
Lyptus
Ah, but at least you do have an excuse to by new blades!
-Steve
If you cannot hand plane a surface then use a scraper. If you cannot scrape it then use sandpaper. Hand planing gives the best surface with the most brilliance. Sandpaper leaves a dull surface by comparison.
Gb,
I can't agree that a plane leaves a more brilliant surface than sandpaper - unless you are meaning the nature of the surface before finishing with the shellac, oil, wax, varnish or whatever.
Once the finish goes on it becomes impossible to tell the difference, unless there are glitches left such as RO sander swirls (coarse grit used and not sanded out by subsequent finer grits) or plane tracks (blade not cambered enough or too heavy a cut). If one is competant with the chosen method, a finished flat surface should end up the same no matter what the tool was
There was an FWW article that examined this very comparison and came to the same conclusion. The difference in the appearance of the bare wood is as you describe; but we rarely leave bare wood unfinished......
Lataxe
PS I confess that I've come to prefer a planed finish but only because I am still leaving a shadow of one or two tracks. Although this might be called a glitch, somehow I like the signal that it gives: "hand made".
Edited 6/25/2008 2:23 pm ET by Lataxe
Think of it as the difference between cutting the fibers of the wood and grinding the fibers. It especially shows in open pored woods such as mahogany very well. You can easily see the difference in pine as well. If you hand plane a piece of hard maple and then burnish the surface with some thin cherry shavings produced by a hand plane and look at the surface you will see that is so smooth and reflective that it is much like a mirror. Then take 600 grit sandpaper and just rub it across the surface you will see the difference. In hard maple a hand plane will produce a surface that is darker in color than if you use sandpaper. By grinding the surface with sandpaper the wood will appear white like a cloud. The hand plane must be capable of producing shavings that are much thinner than a sheet of paper. It works much better with a wooden hand plane then one with a steel or cast iron bottom. The shavings will probably be about .001” to .0015” thick. When the surface is hand planed, the grain will not raise as much as if sandpaper were used. When hand planing a surface, a lot of the minute details of the wood show whereas in sanding they are clouded over. For example in pine the wood will tend to glimmer as if it were vibrating if a sharp hand plane is used but when sanded the glimmer is gone. All the arguments in the world for sandpaper will never convince those who use hand planes and have seen what I have. Over and over I have shown people the difference and they quickly became believers.
You seemed to miss the point. Lataxe agreed that there is stark difference when the wood is raw, but that difference disappears completely once a finish is added.
I understood what he wrote. I contend that one cannot just apply plastic finish and come near what a hand planed surface and finished applied over it looks like. It is much like the difference between a lake with no wind and a lake with the wind blowing. Which is easier to see the bottom. That is like the difference between wood that is hand planed and finished compared to wood that is sanded and finished. Wood that is sanded will take a lot more finish too. It also looks more plastic looking. The finished product will only look as good as the finished wood underneath. If only finish was necessary nobody would finish the wood first. Many nice pieces use nothing more than shellac polish or wax. If one looks at a piece where the wood is highly polished and then shellac polish is applied over it they will immediately know the difference in the brilliance of the wood. There is a huge difference between pieces where the wood is hand planed and those ground down using a sander. There is a difference in the color and brilliance of the wood. Even wood ground down using 600 grit sandpaper will not compare. Intellectual arguments will never convince anyone until they see the difference. I have even tried taking pictures and am not able to convey the difference.
I use both planes and sandpaper. I know first hand. Either can and do produce excellent results if done well.
"Intellectual arguments will never convince anyone until they see the difference."
You don't seem to be getting it. These are not abstract intellectual arguments. These are actual tests. People prepared sets of matched boards, surfaced via planing, scraping and sanding. The boards were then finished using standard finishes (shellac, oil/varnish, etc.). During subsequent blind testing, judges were not able to reliably distinguish which was which.
-Steve
Steve,
Yes, those tests written up in the magazine offer us confirmation. My personal tests take the form of quite a few pieces I've made. The early ones were all finished with an RO sander (Festool) whist the later ones are all finished with smoothing planes. Discounting the very early pieces, in which I may find a swirl mark here or there, the only way to tell the difference is that the planed surfaces show those "shadows of uneveness" - the odd track mark, super-shallow undulations from the blade camber and so forth.
There is no discernible difference in the depth or clarity of the grain, where the finish is of the same type (and the vast majority of my pieces are oil and wax finish).
I have had another look at several pieces, in the last day or so, just to make sure. The only thing that seems to make a difference to the depth or clarity is the age; or rather, the number of times the piece has been waxed/polished over the years. As the grain gradualy fills or the wax coat builds, the underlying wood does seem to gain character in some way. Perhaps this is part of that elusive quality "patina"?
****
In considering these woodworking traditions I try to find the balance between "hard-won truth from experience that may be objectively verified" and "semi-religious myth based in mystique rather than reality". It is sometimes quite difficult to put aside one's romantic inclination to choose the latter over the former.
Lataxe
I am not in the business of discrediting anyone and would hate to discredit their study but the difference is obvious to someone who knows what to look for. If you put a nice piece of cut glass next to a diamond I would not know the difference because I am not knowledgeable about diamonds.Funny you should mention a test because I had the same discussion with another student when I was at College of the Redwoods and he sided with you. I challenged him to take a piece of wood and sand it and I hand planed mine and he quickly saw the difference when we put them side by side. Sanding is a series of scratches while cutting the wood is much different. They leave a very different surface finish and the flatness is different too.My argument is much like trying to explain sight to a blind man. Until you see it for yourself you probably will not become convinced. Get a nice plane iron such as a Hock iron and sharpen it as you would an iron for a smoothing plane with a black hard Arkansas or an 8000 grit waterstone. Make sure your plane bottom is flat within .001” and then hand plane the surface. Make sure the shavings are no thicker than .0015”. Then take a piece of hard maple and polish it with that hand plane then sand a portion. Sanding it looks like someone painted it milky white in comparison. Then take a piece of Honduras mahogany and hand plane it, then sand a portion. The sanded portion will not leave the pores as open. On each piece put some shellac polish on them and see how much the grain is raised in comparison. The surface will not be as flat and the grain will be raised a lot more on the sanded (ground) surface
Probably 99% of the people I have had this same discussion with would side with you until they were shown. I have shown it to others probably over 100 times and in every case they quickly became a believer. Takes a piece of sugar pine or Ponderosa pine and hand plane the surface and then sand a portion of it. You will quickly see how the glimmer is destroyed when you sand it. When you put a plastic finish on it the glimmer will not come back.
Sanding leaves grit on the wood and will dull anything that tries to cut the wood. In the lumber business they know that. Some lumber yards like sanded wood rather than planed wood because sanding hides a lot of small defects. They also hate to machine plane the wood that has been sanded because the grit dulls the knives.
See Straw man.*
Show me the results of a blinded test involving finished wood samples that supports your assertions.
-Steve
*Your real name isn't Doug Meyer, is it? [inside joke]
I ahve to agree with what everyone else has said - once the finish (especially if it is a film finish) goes on, I find the surfaces indistinguishable. BEFORE finish, it is not difficult at all - as you describe.You are talking to people who do have some experience with woodworking, including handplanes. You seem to be speaking as though you were talking to your aunt. If you say you can see a difference, fine, but I will contin ue to believe that you could not pass a double-blind test in this capacity until it is proven otherwise.
Just take the same piece of wood and hand plane it then sand 1/2 of it and you will see a difference in the color and details in the wood. For example in hard maple and walnut the wood will be darker when you hand plane it compared to sanding it which will be lighter in color because of the furry surface due to grinding with sandpaper. Imagine what a lawn would look like if you used a reel lawnmower to cut the lawn versus a grinder that ground the tips of the grass off and left them ragged. That is what a hand plane versus a sander is like.
So, at this point, I just have to assume you are a troll. Got it.
I understand you point. It won't be the first time. I just thought I might include a few pictures though.
Yeah, as I said, most of us here are woodworkers and have some tools. Here's some of mine:
http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/album/556711471EleNWD
View Image
View Image
View Image
View Image
View Image
Edited 6/26/2008 10:15 pm ET by Samson
Gee - sand half and plane half... never done anything like that. </sarcasm>I'm not sure if you're being obtuse, or just have an incredbily overdeveloped sense of self-worth, but no one is disputingthat the differences are obvious BEFORE the finish goes on. Once the finish is applied, however, these differences are no longer obvious.I can only assume that you included photos of your work as some sort of 'credentials' to insinuate that you know better than the rest of us plebes. Your work is lovely. That makes no difference, though, and to be honest I find such posturing a bit off-putting. There are, believe it or not, many other extremely talented woodworkers here as well. Perhaps you are right, and the rest of us are completely out to lunch, but the only way to know that is for YOU to try a double-blind comparison. I have done comparisons and I know I cannot discern the difference even un-blind, so a DB test is redundant. I am far from alone in this finding. Have a nice day.
Someone insinuated that it was a troll and it is not. So I just thought I would put a few photos on there just so someone could see I am not kidding and this person actually exists. I know you are not alone. Before I studied at College of the Redwoods I thought the same thing because my experience with a hand plane was nothing like I learned at COR. My experience was that I could not get a decent surface and it was dull looking. So I do understand and can identify with your thoughts quite well. I just know what happened since that time. Many planes are not flat and the steel is poor quality. A wooden hand plane will produce a surface that is far superior to a surface planed with a steel plane. I am saying that the differences are still there after the finish is applied especially if you used something like shellac polish. The finished product is no better than the quality of the surface of the wood before it is finished. If you apply a thick plastic finish then no doubt the differences will be less. If you sand half and plane half the difference is very obvious. When a thin finish is applied, the subtle differences between planed and sanded are obvious. On an open pored wood the pores will be more open when hand planed than when sanded. The sanded surface will take more finish and the grain will raise more. I am not a fan of stain but if you want to see a big difference then apply stain on the surface of the sanded and planed surfaces. Hand planed wood always appears darker than sanded wood. Maple will appear to be not so white. Walnut will be darker than sanded walnut. Cherry will be darker than sanded cherry. Alder will appear darker than sanded alder. In alder there is a huge difference between sanded and hand planed. If you are unable to see a difference then I would question the quality of the planed surface. It takes a very sharp blade and a setting that produces very thin shavings. I have hand planed surfaces where you can see the reflection of the building on the surface of the wood. Applying the finish makes little difference in the shine of the surface.
I am failing to see the reason for animosity over what QB is saying. It is my observation that most woods take a better finish if the planed or scraped surface is such that no sanding is required before a finish is applied.
However it is not always practical to aim those conditions, which are more appropriate for top quality one-offs or exhibition pieces in which the amount of time spent is not a major consideration.
THen there is a middle of the road approach: achieve a reasonable surface with hand tools, apply sanding sealer such as Zinsser Bullseye then sand that- now the sanding is only cutting the sealer to level it and any nibs, not the wood. So here one is sanding for tactile reasons only , not to "fix" the wood .Philip Marcou
Excellent One,
It is my experience so far (there is always more to come) that sanding and planing the same timber type and applying the same finish result in an identical look. Before the finish is applied the look is far from identical but the finishes I've used (oil, wax, shellac) obliterate those differences.
I suspect that the difference you and Gb are seeing may be less to do with the "superior" ability of a plane to make a good surface and more to do with not using a sanding regime that brings the best results. If one has always been a planer of wood one may, through lack of sufficient experience, not ever have become a sufficiently competant sander of wood......?
It is important, if smoothing with sandpaper, to:
go through al the grits;
use suck to keep the work clean and free of loose-grit;
end on a grade of grit that suits the timber/grain;
have a flat substrate to the sandpaper if a flat surface is required;
use a good technique and tool (eg Festool beats Black & Decker);
raise grain and hand sand off the last fuzz;
avoid over-burnishing with blunt sandpaper;
etc..
In short, a good technique informed by both understanding and experience is required no less for smoothing with sandpaper than it is with planes and scrapers. Perhaps the lads who propose that planed surfaces are inherently superior are simply inexperienced in sanding?
I used sanding for 8 years before obtaining them proper planes so this gave me sanding-experience, from which I learnt. My sanded surfaces are no longer muddy, fuzzy, showing odd swirls, rounded on the edges, dippy/bumpy, over-burnished by blunt paper or any of the other faults that sandpaper may introduce if used incorrectly.
Just lately my planing results are also improving with experience and reading of exppert advice. Perhaps in future months I will discover an unsuspected technical addition to my skills that produce the magic surface proposed here as a real thang? I am doubtful just now as my surfaces seem to be as good as they might be. If I wanted an even deeper look to the grain et al, I would turn to French polish rather than go seeking a a magic plane technique.
But I might be wrong.
Lataxe, a skeptic awaiting more shocks of the new.
Really? You can't see any reason that several of us think this guy is pretentious, sophomoric, and generally off-putting?
Allow me to quote a passage from his recent post:
I know you are not alone. Before I studied at College of the Redwoods I thought the same thing because my experience with a hand plane was nothing like I learned at COR. My experience was that I could not get a decent surface and it was dull looking. So I do understand and can identify with your thoughts quite well. I just know what happened since that time. Many planes are not flat and the steel is poor quality. A wooden hand plane will produce a surface that is far superior to a surface planed with a steel plane.
highlights:
-- you don't know how to plane unless you've been taught by masters like those at the College of the Redwoods
-- did I mention I've attended the College of the Redwoods?
and here's one that I would have thought might be particularly off-putting to you, personally as a metal plane producer:
-- wood planes produce better surfaces than steel planes
-- oh, and, did I mention that I've studied at the College of the Redwoods?
Do you remember the comments made by some woodworkers about Krenov when he came to this country?
Nope. I'm not that old. But I do know that you sir are no Krenov. Indeed, based upon his philosophies as set forth in his books, I kinda doubt he'd think much of you and your pedantic and pretentious huffing.
Oh, and as far as steel versus metal planes, here's what Krenov had to say about it:
Can you get results that are good with a metal plane? I think so, yes, and I've seen it. We've never said to our students here, "Put that thing away." As long as it's working well for them, and it's tuned up properly, and it's kept in perfect shape, and they do beautiful work. I would never want anyone to quote Jim Krenov as saying that you have to have a wooden plane. It's nice if you like them, but there isn't only one way.
http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/SkillsAndTechniques/SkillsAndTechniquesPDF.aspx?id=2490
Edited 6/27/2008 2:05 pm ET by Samson
"I am not young enough to know everything."
-- Oscar WildeI doubt that you know Krenov well enough to read between the lines and fully understand what he is saying. Krenov’s approach is not to condemn another, but to present a positive approach to woodworking. He does spend the time condemning anyone much like others did to him in the past. If one wants to use a metal plane that is fine with him. In the school I have not known one person who makes some wooden hand planes and uses the metal planes instead unless it is unlikely that he can because of the operation. Do you know even one?
For example have you ever visit the school and see how many students are using metal hand planes for smoothing operations? Ever ask Krenov why he started building his own wooden hand planes while he was a student? From your quote the answer is given.There are times when you have no choice but to use a metal hand plane. It is pretty hard to find a wooden circular plane. Wood on wood will leave a different surface than metal on wood. A wooden hand plane is much easier to push than a steel plane too.
Edited 6/27/2008 2:39 pm by gb93433
I'm not that young either.
For example, I've learned that there are many paths to exceptional ends in woodworking.
Ah, once again, I obviously don't understand.
Good day, sir.
Enjoy your dogma. Perhaps it will someday lead to you to produce something excellent.
Some people if they cannot win a debate by attacking the issues then they attack the person. Does that describe you?
Nope.
Some people will not have a debate, but instead will simply state their opinion over and over, and when confronted with evidence to the contrary, will ignore it, and when confronted with other opinions, will belittle them and the people expressing them. Does that describe you?
Edited 6/28/2008 1:55 pm ET by Samson
While you feel that you have evidence that supports your viewpoint. I do not. I challenged your "evidence." Is that not my right just as it is your right to challenge my viewpoint? If you can offer something that is better than my experience would I not be a fool to consider it? The fact is that I have been down that road years ago and have shown the same thing to many many woodworkers on an individual and corporate basis. Wooden hand planes push much easier then steel planes. They leave a different surface on the wood. Wood on wood has a different coefficient of friction that steel on wood. A wooden hand plane will tend to burnish the surface differently than steel on wood. You can tell me I am wrong, call me arrogant and a liar if you like, but I do not happen to agree with what you have written. It is really that simple. I do not know you and have no ax to grind. All I did was to respond to the OP.
While you feel that you have evidence that supports your viewpoint. I do not.
The evidence is not a "feeling," it is a fact. As several folks mentioned earlier in the thread, this was a scientific test:
http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/FWNPDF/011180064.pdf
The results of the test were surprising to me back when I read it, but having performed similar tests myself when testing what finish to apply to a piece, I've found that the test results as reported are accurate.
Your response seems to be that those testers and everyone else that has duplicated the test, such as myself, are just not good enough at planing or discerning enough in judging finishes to know any better. Is that right?
I challenged your "evidence." Is that not my right just as it is your right to challenge my viewpoint?
When presented with evidence of Krenov, himself, saying that wood and steel planes are both good, you challenged that by saying essentially, "he was just being nice to the ignorant woodoworkers out there that use steel, and, indeed, if you knew him (like I know him), you'd know when he said black, he meant white." Of course you can say whatever you like, but plain denial is not really a "challenge" that advances the debate.
If you can offer something that is better than my experience would I not be a fool to consider it? The fact is that I have been down that road years ago and have shown the same thing to many many woodworkers on an individual and corporate basis.
Perhaps we work different sorts of ways - with different woods, different finishes, different application methods, etc. Being specific might actually broaden both our horizons. I guess the problem is that we both have direct, but contradictory experiences. Figuring out why that might be the case would be enlightening. Instead you seem to assume that the explanation is obviously that I'm either incompetent or undiscerning.
Wooden hand planes push much easier then steel planes. They leave a different surface on the wood. Wood on wood has a different coefficient of friction that steel on wood. A wooden hand plane will tend to burnish the surface differently than steel on wood.
I have no quarel the plain fact that wood and metal planes behave somewhat differently. The same applies accross the tool spectrum where variations in accomplishing given tasks abound. There are many ways to get to an end, and often is boils down to what the individual woodworker is most comfortable with. Have you performed tests where you used a wooden and steel planes to surface a plank, applied finish, and then, in a blind test, tried to see is there was a discernable difference? I've never done that one, but then I've never been dissatisfied with the finish my steel planes leave either.
You can tell me I am wrong, call me arrogant and a liar if you like, but I do not happen to agree with what you have written.
I don't think your liar. I do think you don't leave much room for the other guy in your posts as far as being open to the prospect that sharing is more productive than declaring.
Cheers.
On what basis do you judge is as scientific study? How do you know it was not a qualitative study? What indicators told that the study was scientific? From what posters in this forum posted it seemed to be a qualitative study and not quantitative.
I do not have access to that study. So I am not able to examine it for myself. If it was a scientific study then the study would have stated the following: the hypotheses in the study, how the study was validated, what the independent variables and dependent variables were, and what the accepted method of evaluation was. Certainly the results and statistical analysis would be reported according to the already accepted standards. Was there an ANSI standard for the test? For example what was the steel for the iron which was used? How was the steel heat treated? What was the alloy of the steel? How was the iron sharpened? What angle was the iron held in the plane? What was the vision of the observers,? Were the observers tested against a recognized standard of excellence in observation?If one used a plane iron from a typical Stanley or Record plane then it would be different than if one used another piece of steel of much higher quality. With the kind of surface finish that those would produce then I would not doubt that sandpaper would do a better job. If there is a better surface on one piece of wood than another and apply the finish that is like saying that surface preparation makes no difference. I would say that in some finishes there would be not much of a discernable difference. Some finishes are so poor that they do cloud what is underneath. Some people also put on finishes so thick that the finish clouds what is underneath. A few thin coats of super blonde shellac polish will not. Super blond shellac polish is about 1/400 lb. cut shellac. It goes on very thin. The wood will look quite different when a thick plastic looking finish is applied. Would you trust someone just because they said something and wanted you to believe it? I would hope not. I would want to see their entire study and not just listen to what they said.I would agree with Krenov too. However, the article did not press him on the issue of which is best. There are some manufactured wooden planes which are poor quality and in my opinion are not as good as some metal planes which are produced in smaller quantities. That is not comparing the best to the best. The hand planes we made at school performed far better than the manufactured wooden planes one could buy. With some modification to the manufactured wooden plane it could be made to perform better. The same is true for the metal plane.
Certainly how you would interpret his words and how I would are entirely different. I know him personally and know what he and the instructors said in class, and what the regular practice was at COR. I am sure you would tell an inexperienced woodworker that his work may be good but then if pressed you might explain how to make it better. The article did not seem to press him on the issue of which performs the best. Good is a rather subjective term. Good is not best. Good is like saying an old car will get you around the race track. However it will not win the race. Only the best will win the race. Any plane can be classified as good but not necessarily the best. There is no doubt in my mind that in essence that is what Krenov said. To say that there is no difference in the surface of a piece wood planed with a wooden plane and a steel plane can have a lot to do with many or one variable. If both planes have cheap iron that cannot be sharpened very well then I do think a great sanding job would be better. I have seen plenty of poor hand planed jobs and great sanding jobs. If there is not any difference is it because the finish is poor or the planing job is poor or both? Not only are there poor surface finishes and finishing jobs but there are woodworking violations among pieces of furniture which are shown in juried shows. So I do not always believe everything woodworkers (or anyone else) would say or write.
I'm convinced. You win. Have a nice day. Bye.
If there is something I have learned from the handtool reviews I have written over the years, it is that you cannot please everyone. There are just so many opinions, interpretations, and other variables that some consider important. At best you can attempt to describe something in as much detail as possible, report the parameters of the study, and show the results (in my case photos and measurements) on which the interpretations were based. This will be accepted by some and rejected by others.
I recall reading the article in FWW comparing sanded and planed finishes. I admit to feeling most disappointed by the results (that there was no apparent difference between the two finishes). I really wanted the planed surfaces to win. I looked the study over for glaring research design or methodology faults. I noted that the wriiter was (like I) a professional-trained psychologist and so I assumed that he would understand the issues of bias (we all have this - no big deal) and objectvity (which is how we deal with our bias). I was again disappointed when I could not fault him for rigor and technique. This was a decent experiment conducted by a suitably qualified and skilled individual. (This is not to say that he is/was the most skilled or even highly skilled, but if he was not then all the better to represent Mr/Ms "average" woodworker).
Did the results alter the way I work? No. I continue to use handplanes 95% of the time. What the results did do was (1) allow me to feel more comfortable about mixing sanding and planing on the same board - I am aware that in the pre-finish state I can see a difference in the two finishing methods with sanding casting a dullness over the surface of the wood. I would then sometimes sand out the entire board to even it up. Now I just leave it alone. (2) The results also made me re-examine why I prefer using handplanes and why I felt as I did. I realised that I like using handskills and take pride in developing them. I like the "aura" created in a quiet workshop, with soft jazz in the background and the smell of the wood rather than the inside of a rubber mask. I do not need to justify the results for that.
As to whether wooden or metal planes work best, well it comes down to sooooo many issues that a definitive answer is just unreliable. I use them interchangeably, having some amazing metal planes and some amaizing wooden planes - some manufactured and some shopmade. Hey, I even have one of Jim Krenov's own planes and I love using it, but it has to fit within the range it is best suited for otherwise it will fail miserably on the wrong wood.
Personal preference is another matter altogether, and this does not have to be justified.
Regards from Perth
Derek Cohen
with many reviews and opinions at http://www.inthewoodshop.com
Edited 6/28/2008 10:48 pm ET by derekcohen
Edited 6/28/2008 10:51 pm ET by derekcohen
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Derek. Well said.
Derek,
When I go mad, you are the psychologist I will turn to for relief! :-)
Like you I suffer from romantic tendencies from time to time and find the counterpoint of a more scientific outlook (or even a small dollop of Rationalism) a handy thing when the scenery begins to get that rose-tinted hue. Still, one does like to avoid also becoming a human-shaped CNC machine.
I hope Gb will make an effort to reconsider his own views, even if he comes to the same conclusion he has reached just now. I suspect there is a pair of pink-tinted spectacles somewhere about his person, though.
But as you say, why should we not colour the world a bit to a shade we prefer. Some dull fellows colour theirs grey, although they tend to employ a necktie to cut the blood supply off to their brain's more sensitive functions rather than the tinted glasses. Their world then goes both grey and dim, so they may then ignore many of the inconvenient signals given out by "reality".
But I digress.
Lataxe.
PS I have long been looking forward to a review of the Blumplane. Despite putting an eagle eye over your website I cannot find it yet. Cohen-review addicts shoud not be kept too long without a new review-fix or they might get tetchy and look for some luckless soul on Knots to tilt at for relief of their tensions.
Edited 6/29/2008 8:45 am ET by Lataxe
Yes really.I feel you are being harsh. If you don't like the guy because of the way he is expressing himself here I still see no reason to vilify him. How come you are not concentrating on putting across a different point of view-like Lataxe has just done?
The reason for my beating of drums is that I keep coming across folk who say they don't contribute/ frequent or even lurk on Knots because if they appear the slightest bit out of square they get crapped on from a dizzy height.So we lose out . Not good. There are too many examples of this. Wait until the Duty Troll is on beat then you can give him a rev (;).
At any rate, he may well be right about wooden planes producing a better surface than steel planes- because he has spent time at the College of the Redwoods using wooden planes, and therefore has yet to experience the superior performance of certain other (steel) planes (;).Philip Marcou
How come you are not concentrating on putting across a different point of view-like Lataxe has just done?
Have you read this thread? I've stated my points of view on the subtantive question.
If what you mean instead is, why have you not just stated your thoughts and refrained from mentioning the annoying qualities of this other poster's tone, well I suppose some folks might not know how they are coming across unless told. You think such directness is scaring away fragile flowers, I would counter that pretentions are just as toxic.
Do you turn at all? When I turn pens, depending on what mood I'm in, I sand my wooden pens up to either 600x or all the way up to 9000x (0.5 micron) for fun/experimentation/perfectionism. 9000x produces a high gloss sheen (with the right woods - hard). In general woodwork, I prefer not to sand whenever possible.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
I do essentially the same thing when turning.
Here are a couple of Maloof chairs. Sanding to 4 or 600 , Burnishing with a cotton rag will yield the same results IMO. These belong to President Carter.
Ever compare Maloof's and Krenov's work?Some of Krenov's work is in the Smithsonian.
Edited 6/26/2008 8:06 pm by gb93433
To compare the two is as they say like comparing apples and oranges. My point is that with sculpted forms such as a Maloof chair, a handplane has no place. The fit and finish of a Maloof piece is something to behold, as is that of a krenov. Two different paths to some of the most spectacular works ever produced. If you are comparing the finishes on the final pieces, you are truly splitting hairs.
As Lataxe stated , he sometimes leaves a few ridges from his plane for that handmade look, otherwise I assume from his standpoint there is not much difference. I agree.
Respectfully, Tom.
By the way I really like your work, outstanding.
Edited 6/29/2008 11:26 am ET by gofigure57
Ok, now -- group hug!
(Rats! and I thought the fur was really going to fly...)
BTW, Samson, I concur with your sentiments as to the tone of the responses you've received -- to me, they came across as arrogant and condescending.
Edited 6/30/2008 12:08 am ET by pzaxtl
Lyptus,
Suggestion, since the wood you describe is tearing -out you might want to try some Mineral Spirits brushed on the work piece and then attempt your scraping, this has worked for me in very figurative woods and has eliminated the tear out. It softens the density of the grain so you can slice through it more easily without tearing it out.
Good luck and hope it works for you
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled