After years of woodworking strictly with power tools, I have decided to incorporate hand tools into my building. For the moment, specifically planes.
Over the past few years, I have acquired shoulder, #4 smoothing and bevel up block planes. I plan to add a #7 jointer plane and something in the mid rage. Which is the reason for my post.
Should the mid-rage be a #5, #5-1/2, bevel up, bevel down, 45, 50 or other degree frog?
I’ve done some research, read the posts, and I’ve found pro’s and con’s to any combination of the the above plane.
I work mainly with hard woods (oak, cherry, maple). Although, I can see working with other varieties (cruly woods).
I suspect the choice may boil down to personal preferences – weight, feel between bevel up/down planes, most common types of wood, what I typically build, etc. The investment is substantial, so I would like to ensure my decision is one that will be optimal.
I’d appreciate any thoughts or recommendations from those that have crossed this bridge once and/or many times… what to consider and avoid.
Thanks!!
Joe
Replies
Are you still going to prep stock with machinery? If so a good quality smoother (I like my L-N #4 ½ York pitch) and a #7 (again L-N 45 deg. for me) will cover most of the bases. But you’ll get as many opinions on this subject as you can stand which just goes to prove that there are many ways to achieve the desired results and all of them are correct if they work.
I have allot of hand planes. I use 'em not collect them so not as many as a collector. I flatten then thickness all with hand planes. Some call it purgatory; I call it exercise.
I would recommend getting one of these
http://www.veritastools.com/Products/Page.aspx?p=104
I have the Lie-Nielsen version and think the veritas more user friendly though not as cool looking.
I have two # 7s ( one bevel down one bevel up ) and can say fairly confidently that you can get along with out them.
I recommend the jack over the #5 or 5-1/2 because I don't see the added weight to get the added length to be worth it.
Longer planes for me have not proven to make flatter work. I still use a straight edge and find that I start to get out of flat when using the longer #7s
So why use them. Just moving allot of iron around for no reason.
I like to look at the long planes so no you can't buy one from me. But I don't feel I need them really.
Larry says the bevel up may burnish the wood. I don't seem to have a problem. He has more experience than I. I would recommend searching for that conversation.
The bevel up is soooo versatile and I am happy with it over getting steep bevel down frog or what ever for 50°
I have many blades for it of various angles and edge radius. I was just scrubbing bubbinga tonight and then switched to the jack to take out the ripples from the scrub using a blade with allot of radius so I can still take the thickness down past the tear out then I will switch to less pronunce curve but using the same jack then the finish plane with some radius then the finish with almost no radius just corners taken off the blade.
All the while using the straight edge and I will be done. No #5 or # 5-1/2 needed.
I would even consider going right from the scrub to the big old veritas bevel up finish plane with the mouth way wide and using all the various blades I mentioned above if it weren't for putting allot of scrapes in the sole and wear on the finish plane. Meaning putting more stress on the handles to where they loosen up etc. I am not convince a heavy iron plane gives more momentum either. Maybe technically it does but in practice the #7 is no big advantage in that department. The big old wooden jacks and longer planes are really light and do a great job.
That is what I find from my experience.
The pic shows the planes I use most for surfacing.
roc
Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )
Edited 8/25/2009 11:12 pm by roc
Edited 8/25/2009 11:13 pm by roc
Edited 8/25/2009 11:18 pm by roc
I cannot recomment the Lee Valley low angle jack enough. It is a beautiful plane, that I find really versatile...
... I have .. #4 smoothing and bevel up block planes. I plan to add a #7 jointer plane and something in the mid rage.... Should the mid-rage be a #5, #5-1/2, bevel up, bevel down, 45, 50 or other degree frog? .... I work mainly with hard woods (oak, cherry, maple). Although, I can see working with other varieties (cruly woods).
Hi Joe
If you prepare your boards with machinery, then you can get away with a longer smoother since the boards will be pretty flat by the time you are ready to finish them with a hand plane.
Further, you will not need a traditional jack plane, which is used to remove waste, and can rather look at a plane that might double as a panel plane/smoother/shooter.
You already have a #4, which is fine for smoothing straight grained boards. It is limited, however, on more complex grain.
For myself, the choice would lie between a BD LN#5 1/2 and the Veritas LA Jack.
The LN (with the common pitch frog) would make a good shooter and (set up with a toght mouth) an excellent smoother for straight grained woods. In standard form, it would not be well suited to smoothing curly (interlinked) grain. You could get around this with a second blade that is honed with a backbevel. With a 15 degree backbevel it will perform superbly on interlinked grain.
The Veritas has a wider range owing to the BU configuration. This plane is a superb shooter as it can be set up with a low cutting angle (lower than the LN). Set it up with another blade (as you would the LN), and you have the capability of smoothing anything you can lay your hands on.
If you plan to work with interlinked grain a lot, and will use a high cutting angle much of the time, my choice would be the Veritas since a BU plane is easier to push than a BD plane. If you were not using machinery, and needed the plane to also act as a traditional jack/fore plane - that is, to take thick shavings - then I think that the LN would be preferred .. not that the Veritas cannot, just that the LN is easier to set up for this particular task.
Hope this helps.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 8/26/2009 8:21 am ET by derekcohen
Roc,
In the photo of your two planes, I noticed that the top of your bench is rather shiny. Do you find that a bit slippery, or does it work fine for you? You obviously do a lot of planing on it. How did you finish your bench?MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
There is a reason why plane makers make so many different sizes and styles of woodworking planes. Each plane has a specific function that it is best at. While many planes can be tuned in a different way to perform a different function, there isn't a magical plane that performs all the necessary functions that a hand tool jockey would be happy with.
My best advice to you, and all other new hand tool woodworkers that are just beginning to acquire the tools of the craft, is to simply get what you need presently. As your woodworking projects require other tools, your 'collection' shall grow with your needs.
Perhaps the most important thing you can do right now (assuming you don't already have the knowledge) is to learn what each type of plane is generally designed for. A good book, like "The Handplane Book" by Garret Hack can help you discover what certain planes excel at, which purchases will benefit your woodworking the most.
There's a time to reach for the 4 1/2 smoother with york pitch, and there's a time to reach for a low angle jack plane. While these planes can sometimes be interchangeable, they often are not. With experience comes knowledge.
You'll have 'em all before long, so it really doesn't matter which one you buy first.
Seriously.
S
I think you have it there. If you "get the bug" for unusual woods, you are going to need some special planes. I have the $$ for the low angle BU and I am leaning toward the Veritas Jack. I am sort of "old school" with my BD stuff and steeper angles for curly maple. Recently, I tried the Veritas BU with the mouth set tight for some curly maple finish plane work. Wow.
I don't like sanding. Hopefully, the Ver Jack will cut down some of the time with paper??
I must confess I had a Hock HC blade and chip on the shelf so I built a 50 degree wooden plane after reading my friend's book by David Finck. I am pleased. The curly just shines like .. I hoped it would shine.
On with the journey. Customers are waiting and wondering-- what is he doing?
dan
Edited 9/3/2009 5:40 pm ET by danmart
I have the LN BU Jack and love it. No doubt the Veritas is excellent too. I've heard many folks rave about it.
Joe,
You got lots of good advice from good people. Of course, they don't all agree, which makes the advice game on Knots a bit tricky. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said it comes down to personal choice.
Of all of the answers you got, I enjoyed Roc's most. That happens often. The reason is that Roc is a person who is well known for doing his own thinking. He tries stuff out and uses what works for him.
My take is that asking for the experience of others is a good thing to do. But, what to do with the advice? My suggestion is to follow Roc's example, try lots of things and see what works. You are an experienced woodworker so you know if there are others near you. I like to try tools out before I buy them. Visiting a friend's shop is a great way to go. A second way is to join a Woodworkers guild and set up a meeting on the topic. Have folks bring in some planes and some wood.
My take on taking advice is to listen to everyone, and then get my own experience to check out what I have learned "intellectually" from others.
Samson's reply was wise. If you enjoy this stuff, you will soon have a passel of planes so it doesn't matter which ones you buy first.
When I buy a car, I look at lots of things, including resale value. That tells me a lot about the car, and gives me options, should I choose to use them. I feel the same way about tools. I check them out before I buy them, BUT I like to keep my options open. I have found two sets of tools that sell on EBay for close to current retail value, even after use for a number of years. I won't try to explain this. They are: Pfeil "Swiss Made" carving gouges, and Lie Nielsen hand planes. I have been roundly criticized for bring this up, and the criticism is "Why would you ever sell a hand plane?" The answer is magnificently obvious. Because I found another that I want even more, and this one doesn't please me any more. I haven't used this option yet, but I like to keep it in reserve. For this reason, I am partial to Lie Nielsen planes. I don't believe the quality is any better than Lee Valley, but for some reason, Lee Valley planes don't have the same cache on EBay. I like to keep my options open. I do not criticize others who don't like to keep their options open.
Well, others answered your question directly. I hope you found my "sidelights" to be helpful "points to ponder". If you don't find them useful, maybe you found them entertaining. My advice is worth every penny you paid for it. :-)
Have fun in your adventure. The folks who answered your questions so far didn't confuse you further with ALL the choices. No one has brought up the high end planes that sell from $2000 to $15,000 apiece. Look up the words "Holtey" and "Marcou" on Google, if you haven't already. Of course, it is more difficult to find one of these to practice on before you make a decision. But then again, I have never heard anyone say anything negative about this high-end planes.
Enjoy,
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Disclaimer: I have about a year's worth of experience with hand planes so weigh my advice accordingly.
I had the same collection of planes as you do now when I first started. I decided to buy a used Stanley #5 and #7 on ebay. My reason for this was my jointer only has a 6" bed and I wanted to surface some boards that were wider than 6". The #5 was in great shape for something that was pre WWII. I put a Lie-Nielsen cryo. A2 replacement blade in and fettled with it till i got it right. I typically use it to surface rough stock that is too wide for the jointer. After I've got it mostly flat with the #5 I'll then use the #7 to true it up. Once one side is flat (doesn't have to be smooth yet or have all the mill marks removed) then I use the electric planer to thickness it. As the name implies, the jack will do a lot of different jobs, but what it excels at in my opinion is rough stock surfacing. You can set it up to do a variety of different jobs but that usually means messing with the frog and mouth opening which gets old if you have to do it a lot. The #7 I bought was more of a challenge to get in working order. The sole was badly out of flat and after about 6 hours blood sweat and sandpaper I called it close enough. My #7 is more tempermental and harder to adjust than the #5, maybe because it was made in 1892. I have no experience with bevel up bench planes so can't help you there. If you decided to buy a used plane be prepared to spend another $40 for a modern replacement blade from LN or Hock and be prepared to spend some time setting it up. There are tons of articles on FWW that will tell you how to set them up. Like others said, there is something addictive about these things and I would be surprised if you don't add many more to your collection before it's all over with. Good luck.
You need ONE of each: smoother (No 4), jack (No. 5), and jointer (No.7). I'd throw in a scrub plane. These three (or four) planes, along with a 20 buck investment in scrapers are all you need to go from roughsawn stock to a ready-to-be-finished state.
That's true Charles (well, up to a point - depends on the grain you work) .... fortunately, there is no law that says you can only have 4 planes :)
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,
CHarles said that you really only need bench planes. You countered with "That's true Charles (well, up to a point - depends on the grain you work)". Given that one understands which grains require which cutting angles, cant one jjust keep regrinding one's blade for the specific work at hand, or just get a few more irons to change out when necessary?
Charlesworth has said that you can do quite a bit with just a jack. It can be used as an ubersmoother and as a jointer, and as a jack which means that it can be used to remove a lot of wood quickly, and it works well at the shooting board.. A few different blades makes it a bit more efficient. And there are some tricks that will help you use it to joiint long boards So if you are really on a budget and you are not trying to win contests, a block and a jack can get you through a lot.
If money and space were no object, I would prefer to have a few hundred planes. I did see photos of the shop of a guy who had over 5000 planes. I have concluded that one can go to far.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
All of these "what planes do I need?" threads should be immediately responded to with a link to Alan Peters and his work.
He never met a board he couldn't slay with a "crappy" Record No. 7.
Talent, not tool inventory, produces works of art.
I think that we think when we are 'tooling up' (sadly to the hilt too often) we're getting closer to the masters. We're not. We're moving farther away (Derek's whining about Australian hardwoods to the contrary).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Peters
Edited 9/8/2009 4:11 pm ET by CStanford
Charles,
my persolal approach is close to yours and to Alan Peters, I.fear that I grow older, I am growing more tolerant of those who have different approaches. My focus on skills stemmed from growing up with limited resources. Even though I have an old #7, I enjoyed learning how to joint long boards with a Jack plane. I understand that others have no problem buying many specialized tools, which can make things easier. But each of the tools DOES have a learning curve. Everyone should learn more about Alan Peters. While my approach is close to that of most professionals, I am in the minority here on Knots.
Enjoy,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
All of these "what planes do I need?" threads should be immediately responded to with a link to Alan Peters and his work.
He never met a board he couldn't slay with a "crappy" Record No. 7.
Talent, not tool inventory, produces works of art.
As you know Charles, Alan Peters is amazing. He has long been one of my inspirations. By coincidence, Jeremy Broun contacted me today to let me know that the documentary DVD he has made on Alan is completed and for sale. The link is http://www.woodomain.com/
Some time back I decided to do my own private salute to Alan by building a piece of furniture with only a jointer plane, in this case the Veritas BUJ. This is what I built, a sofa table ..
View Image
Jarrah top and Blackbutt body/legs. All wood recycled from twisted and very dry roof trusses.
Jointing boards was straight forward enough ..
View Image
As was flattening and smoothing the table top ...
View Image
Of course, a high cutting angle made it easier to avoid tearout here. However, working as a smoother on the shorter sections was a little more tricky ..
View Image
Tapering the legs was easy enough ...
View Image
However I did need a spokeshave for some of the curves (but still persevered with the jointer for bevels and endgrain ... where one might use a block plane) ..
View Image
... and I admitted failure on the narrow sections, where I resorted to a cabinet scraper ..
View Image
But over all it was fun (and my wife liked the table) ..
View Image
I would like to have Alan Peters' skills, but I do need to use more than a jointer plane in my work. Hard to admit this. I am deeply ashamed :)
Do I take it that you only use a jointer plane in your work. I thought, from previous discussions, that you were quite fond of your scrub plane, and #4 smoother and a few (several) others? :)
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 9/9/2009 2:02 am ET by derekcohen
Edited 9/9/2009 9:01 am ET by derekcohen
Derek,
Great table.
Woodwork speaks louder than words.
Enjoy,
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
I have more than one bench plane, to wit:
L-N scrubberStanley 4, 5, and 7.One right hand L-N skew block if that counts as a bench plane, though it is used not all that often.
My largest handtool investment, by far, is a half set of C&W hollows and rounds and a Stanley 55.
Four squaring and smoothing don't require, in my opinion, a huge investment in tools to get the job done and done well. So you can see that I've spent my money elsewhere, for different capabilities, or actually so as not to duplicate capabilities.
I don't need a No. 7 and a No. 8 nor do I need a No. 5 and a No. 6. Each would be mutually exclusive as far as I'm concerned and none of them will accomplish the tasks handled by the hollows and rounds or the 55.
Edited 9/10/2009 6:42 am ET by CStanford
CHarles said that you really only need bench planes. You countered with "That's true Charles (well, up to a point - depends on the grain you work)". Given that one understands which grains require which cutting angles, cant one jjust keep regrinding one's blade for the specific work at hand, or just get a few more irons to change out when necessary?
Hi Mel
Nice chatting with you the other day.
Given reasonably straight-grained and uncomplicated wood, there is no reason why you cannot work with one cutting angle (say a common pitch - 45 degrees - as used by Stanley). That would be more likely the configuration in the US. In Australia many might just use a half pitch (60 degree) if finishing hardwoods by hand as these tend to have a high percentage of interlinked grain. Even if you only have a common pitch plane and you are faced with reversing grain, the simple response is to use a cabinet scraper.
The simple cabinet scraper is an amazing tool. I believe that using handtools increases one's understanding of working with work, a sense of intimacy that one does not get if one only used machines. Taking this a step further, my introduction to cabinet scrapers raised my awareness to a yet higher level.
The short answer to this part of your question is that I do believe that you can keep the numbers of planes down if you think about what you can do with the tools at your disposal, and know a few work-arounds. Being creative with what you have is part of the enjoymentof working wood.
Charlesworth has said that you can do quite a bit with just a jack. It can be used as an ubersmoother and as a jointer, and as a jack which means that it can be used to remove a lot of wood quickly, and it works well at the shooting board.. A few different blades makes it a bit more efficient. And there are some tricks that will help you use it to joiint long boards So if you are really on a budget and you are not trying to win contests, a block and a jack can get you through a lot.
David (Charlesworth) has made famous his "Super Smoother". This is a highly tuned Stanley #5 1/2 with LN blade. He has a lot of work/time in it. David (as far as I know) uses machines to prepare his boards. His "jack" is never used as a traditional jack plane (which is essentially a roughing plane), and only as a smoother. It may be termed a "panel plane" in this context. It is set for a fine, smoothing cut. It is not used with a rank cut. Set up this way it may also be used as a jointer (keeping in mind that his edges are first milled on a machine). As far as I know, this plane retains the same setting (resetting Stanley bench planes is a chore - that is one of the reasons why the Bedrocks were developed. Their mouths adjust without removing the frog).
For some woodworkers (who work this way), they may also have the same strategy. Keep in mind, however, that David has many planes. He only chooses to highlight this #5 1/2 (I would not call it a jack). For other woodworkers, such as those that complete more of the preparatory work by hand plane, a wider selection of planes is needed: scrub, foreplane, jack, jointer, smoothers.
I will say more when I reply to Charles.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 9/9/2009 2:22 am ET by derekcohen
That's true Charles (well, up to a point - depends on the grain you work) .... fortunately, there is no law that says you can only have 4 planes :)
One can't help but wonder, with due respect, what your line of reasoning would be if you lived in North America and didn't have Australian woods to wrestle with.
In your wildest dreams could you ever imagine getting along with a modest investment in capable, but rather ordinary, bench planes?
Charles,
Derek's table proves Peters is correct.
We are all in agreement.
The Earth seems at peace for a brief moment.
But soon someone will bring up the Health Care bill :-)
Melps an LN 5 1/2 with two irons (smoothing and bogging), a LN LA adj mouth block and a scraper are my "most used". Changing irons and adjusting mouth are a breeze on the LN Big Jack.Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
It's not really an exercise in metaphysics for me. A plane holds a cutter. They're all basically the same. You don't need all that many.
Charles,
Yup. Different style of speaking. Same answer.
Enjoy,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Joe:
As you have discovered, all of us hard core plane pushers have strong opinions. If you need a jack or fore plane to do heavy stock removal an old Stanley bevel down #5, #5 1/2 (or I would suggest a Clark & Williams wooden jack or fore plane if you are planning to buy new) is the better way to go versus a bevel up plane. If you are looking to smooth large surfaces then a bevel up jack will give better results. The LN bevel up jack is the size of a #5 while the LV bevel up jack is the size of an old #5 1/2. The LV also has a better handhold and larger sides for use as a shooting plane (that said, I own the LN which I bought prior to being able to test drive the LV and am happy with it). Nothing says (except maybe a spouse) you can't have both. Old Stanley #5s can be had for $30 or less.
When it comes time to buy the jointer plane you said you were also planning to get let me suggest that if you intent to get a LN that you consider the #8 over the #7. Again, I own the LN #7 and it does everything I bought it for, but if I had the purchase to do over I'd get the #8. The extra mass can make a big difference when jointing tricky woods. Another great option is a Clark & Williams jointer.
Planes are like potato chips, hard to stop having just one more.
gdblake
gd,
I concur on your recommendation of going for a #8 over a #7. But isn't there an even more interesting alternative. Get Finck's book on making your own hand planes. You can make your jointer as long and as heavy as you want. You can make it fit your hands. The cost is very reasonable. I have made one hand plane so far. It's not that difficult. Larry Williams has a great DVD on making your own side escapement planes. With that, you can learn to make your own hollows and rounds. The possibilities are limitless. As Derek has pointed out, there are some great kits if you don't want to build your own from scratch.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel:
I have the book and have built several planes, including a 24" long razee jointer with a 40 degree frog that works extremely well. In past posts, I have also encouraged others to make their own plane. Not everyone is so inclined. For decades I worked with old Stanley planes, then upgraded to several Lie-Nielsen planes (all of which I am quite happy with). About eight years ago I started messing around with wooden planes, but none of the old ones I have found in my region of the country were as serviceable as I wanted, so I made a few. At some point I intend to purchase a Clark & Williams large jointer. I got a chance to try out one of their planes earlier this year while up north and was blown away by how well it worked.
gdblake
About eight years ago I started messing around with wooden planes, but none of the old ones I have found in my region of the country were as serviceable as I wanted, so I made a few
Hi Gregory
Won't you post a few of your planes here? I do recall seeing one here (a jack?) several months ago.
And to all of you who have built woodies, let's see them ...
There is something that is so right about building with tools that you have made.
Two recent woodies of mine ...
Jack plane in Mesquite:
View Image
View Image
Smoother in Bubinga
View Image
View Image
Regards from Perth
Derek
Regards from Perth
Derek
As usual, beautiful work. Do you find yourself reaching for these planes regularly or do you reach for others in your extensive arsenal?
Randy
Hi Randy
Thank you. I hope others post their planes as well. What about yourself?
Do you find yourself reaching for these planes regularly or do you reach for others in your extensive arsenal?
Thank you also for the opening to get on my soapbox since there has been a background issue about discussing tools that frequently resurfaces on this forum.
To answer your question .. I have the luxury of being able to choose from a number of planes and other tools. It is important (on this forum) to keep in mind that I am in this for the fun. Woodworking is just a hobby. I am passionate about it, but it is just a pasttime. I would approach my choice of tools quite differently if I were a professional. In which case I would look on my tools as a means to an end, and focus on keeping unnecessary overhead expenses down. I do this in my private practice, and I assume that all successful businesses do this as well. Happily, that is not a necessary focus in my woodworking.
While I can choose from (and do use all) the wide collection I have built up over a few decades, my first love is building furniture with tools that I have made. I reach for my 30" razee jointer before my metal jointers.
View Image
Tools should not detract from working the wood, but they may still bring pleasure as well. I don't see a contradiction in this. As an amateur, my pleasure comes from the journey as much as the destination. Those who rail at the discussions about tools appear to miss that woodworking takes many forms. Some are more involved in outcome and some more involved in the process. In my world it is not one or the other. The construction of a plane/knife/saw is no less a form of woodworking art than the design and construction of cabinet/table/chair. Some art is to hang on the wall, some to place on the mantel, and others to place in the living room. Some woodworking is for utility and some is just for the joy of working with ones hands.
The planes I have from others are equally pleasurable to use. Below is a picture from a current project, a cabinet for a guest bedroom. I have panels to plane that are Tasmanian Oak. This is a medium hard wood but tricky in that it has striations of reversed grain. A common pitch plane just creates tearout. A cabinet scraper or scraper plane ditto (because these striations are softish wood). So you really need a high cutting angle, something in the range of a half pitch. I tried the woodie (that I posted earlier), but it was not working as it is common pitch. So I sharpened up and used a Veritas LA Smoother that had the ideal cutting angle. This did the job perfectly ..
View Image
Somewhere (he repeats this often so it could be any thread) Charles stated that one only needs the equivalent of a #4, #5 and #7. He is essentially right. One does not actually need many bench planes to build most things. But this is not a rule. For many (here) time working wood is also a hobby and part of the joy comes from an involvement at different levels. Each must decide what is for themselves where their interest lies, and not feel pressurized to conform to the expectations of others.
Choose tools according to your budget, passion and goal. There is no right or wrong. There is only the working with wood.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 9/11/2009 12:34 am ET by derekcohen
Was there furnituremaking in Australia a hundred or so years ago?What did they use?Do all antiques of that age, or thereabout, exhibit devastating tearout?If not, why not?Are there any histories, tool inventories, etc. available from 19th century Australian furnituremakers? Was all woodworking being imported? Surely, somebody must have put plane to wood in Australia in the 1800s. What did they use then and will it still work now? 47* infills? Higher pitched woodies? Is there a market in Australia for antique tools that were made and used in-country? Where did the antique Australian woodworking tools go?How did work get done there before Lee Valley bevel up planes came along?
Edited 9/11/2009 2:50 pm ET by CStanford
Charles
Why not do the research and find out for yourself. You know you want to :)
I will add, however, that regardless of what was used in the past, it is evident that the accepted preference is now for high cutting angled planes. Witness the popularity here for HNT Gordon planes, which is just one example. HNT Gordon also market a HSS blade, as do Academy Saws. There are boutique blademakers selling D2 and HSS. The point is that most now accept that there is no need to battle as cabinetmakers did in the past.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 9/11/2009 7:30 am ET by derekcohen
Edited 9/11/2009 8:27 am ET by derekcohen
"Why not do the research and find out for yourself. You know you want to..."
Oh my, I thought I was doing the research - by asking somebody I consider to be an authority on the subject, namely, you. I assumed that you would have a pretty extensive knowledge of the history of hand tool woodworking in your own country along with some resources in your personal library that you might be willing to share.
I'm in sync with current preferences however that still doesn't answer the question of how it was done in the past - a point of information that I think can still be informative and valuable to present day woodworkers. This continues a consistent theme of mine - "somehow it got done." I'm interested in the 'somehow' part.
Edited 9/12/2009 8:47 am ET by CStanford
Charles,
I looked it up on Google, and found that most deaths in Austraria prior to the development of HNT Gordon and LV planes, was infections caused by splinters that people got in their butts from sitting on chairs with seat which had a lot of tearout. Also the birth rate in Australia has been abnormally low because women's delicate underwear was not practical because it kept getting caught and ripping on splinters in drawers because they couldn't be planed smoothly. As a result,women wore flannel nightclothes. Victoria's Secret went out of business in Australis. Overall quality of life has grown so much in Australia as a result of these new planes that Leonard Lee is a national hero in that country.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
That might be your funniest post yet.... a very 'biting' appraisal of the whole affair.
Mel
Simply wonderful post. :) :)
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,
glad you enjoyed it. I am quite interested in learning
ore about the issue that Charles raised. Peter's response looks like it Provides good info.Have fun,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Derek,glad you enjoyed it. I am quite interested in learning ore about the issue that Charles raised. Peter's response looks like it Provides good info.
Hi Mel
As I see it, there are a number of issues here.
About the question that Charles raised regarding tools used by Australian cabinetmakers in the distant past to work the local woods, the simple answer is that I do not know for sure. I have located a text ("The Australian Carpenter" by Lloyd) and I plan to get it, and I will then relate what I find. I will say what I have gleaned, which is based upon general bits and pieces, plus my surmisings.
My understanding is that fine furniture would have been made for as long as one can remember without the help of LN and LV. I very much doubt that half pitch planes were used much - if at all - by our forefathers. I anticipate that planes used would have been strongly influenced by immigrants from the UK, since Australia was a colony, which is why so many vintage infills and woodies are found on our shores.
The question that must be answered alongside the topic of tools is whether the local cabitmakers used the local timbers in constructing furniture, whether they imported what they used, or whether they selected carefully for wood that was more easily worked. I do not know. When I search for 18th and 19th century furniture I find almost all to be English or French imports. Mostly Mahogany or Rosewood. I found early Australian-made furniture of Cedar (very popular), Kauri Pine, Tasmanian Blackwood (also quite popular). I found one reference to She-oak. Now all of these woods, with the exception of She-oak, are relatively tame in comparison to the woods that many now use, such as Jarrah, Karri, Red and Blue Gum, etc. While the former may be worked with little difficulty with the average Stanley handplane, the latter group would cause significant problems. So the question is whether early cabinetmakers selected woods to emulate the European cousins?
One other point here is something I was told by a UK cabinetmaker (now living in Australia) - the majority of exotic (hardwood) furniture at the end of the 18th century was veneered and any furniture that incorporated solid exotics were primarily curved and carved.
I was running a workshop today with a group of 8. I had a stack of Tasmanian Oak and Jarrah scraps lying around since a cabinet I am building uses it for the carcass. The workshop was on handtools, and there were a number of different types of planes available, ranging from Stanelys to LV, LN, woodies and a Marcou. Without exception, the common pitch planes all required the support of cabinet scrapers to finish a panel without a rough patch somewhere. What may we extrapolate from this? There are Australian woods that may be worked with a sharp, common pitch handplane. And there are a larger number of hardwoods that benefit for a higher cutting angle. Let me add something here. I would also suggest that some of the "difficult" hardwoods might be handled reasonably by a common pitch plane as long as the blade is very sharp. The problem here is that many of the hardwoods (as mentioned) contain high levels of silica and blunt edges rapidly. ... leading to tearout. High cutting angles are more forgiving here. There is a popular move here to replacement HSS and D2 blades for planes and even chisels. The hyperthetical question is "would our forefathers have preferred these modern steels and planes over the ones they had?".
Now we all know that there is another reason why Charles asks the question. I very much doubt that he is really interested in Australian cabinetmaking. No matter what I answer, he is likely to try and twist it to support his own opinion. So I will end this post with the suggestion that he obtain samples of Jarrah, Red River Gum and She-oak and share with us his experience of working these woods with his Stanleys. It is one thing to draw conclusions based on ones own experience. It is another to assume that you can generalise this to include everything else.
I assume that there is more familiarity in the US with Wenge than Jarrah, so for reference:
View Image
View Image
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 9/12/2009 12:35 pm ET by derekcohen
My question, Derek, was about the history of Australian furnituremaking (Samson provided a link to a resource for that) and the tools used to accomplish it, for which Peter provided his set of links. You were virtually silent on the matter.
In the meantime, your endlessly looping infomercial starring that bloody damned hall table with supporting cast of Jarrah and She-Oak (aren't they two of the Teletubbies?) along with a production crew courtesy of Lee Valley is the closest thing science has yet seen to a perpetual motion machine.
Edited 9/12/2009 6:19 pm ET by CStanford
Derek,
I am very happy that you are searching for and providing some info on the question of what planes and woods that Australian woodworkers used prior to the availability of "LV and LN planes". The information that you have already provided is starting to provide some answers. My "hidden agenda" is nothing more than getting a better idea of what features/aspects/parameters of plane design affect performance on which types of woods and, more importantly, WHICH of those parameters are FIRST ORDER EFFECTS. This is actually a fun on-going exercise. I am looking forward to learning more.
Mel Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Hi Mel
I do not see you having a hidden agenda here. In fact I also find the topic of Australian cabinetmaking - wood choice and tools - to be of high interest. I will do my best to find out what I can and share this with you and the forum. I doubt, however, that I will be ordering the book that Sean linked to - it costs nearly $500. o:
To Charles, if you want me to stop providing you with the same answers, then you have to stop asking the same questions.
Regards from Perth
Derek
"To Charles, if you want me to stop providing you with the same answers, then you have to stop asking the same questions."
So let me get this straight - I asked questions about the history of Australian cabinetmaking and your answer is to post a picture of your hall table (that already appears in dozens of posts)?
Hubris, personified.
Edited 9/13/2009 8:33 am ET by CStanford
Charles,
"So let me get this straight - I asked a question about the history of Australian cabinetmaking and your answer is to post a picture of your hall table?
Hubris, personified."You asked a question and Derek is going to try to get some answers. What could be better?Your question was quite insightful. Answers will provide information on what features of handplanes are REALLY provide solutions to what types of gnarly grain. I believe you have a preconceived notion as to what "the answer" is. I got a hint from one of your messages. That is my preconceived notion as well, but I am very open to having it changed. Come on up to Virginia, and Mary Beth and I will take you and your gang out to get some REAL BBQ, and I'll show you how to make secret dovetails. (but don't come too quickly. I haven't mastered that as cleanly as I'd like yet.) MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Virginia and real BBQ? No way.
I do have a preconceived notion - these tougher woods were used some, probably not as extensively as now, and the guys made it through it. I think the book Samson referred to is going to have at least a few stunning pieces made with the gnarly woods Derek mentions quite often. Who knows, they last thing that touched them may have been sandpaper or something else abrasive. That notion used to send me into much more of a paroxysm than it does now.
Edited 9/14/2009 11:25 am ET by CStanford
Charles,
I have been to your state, and I love the BBQ and the Cajun food, and I always look forward to going back. But I gotta tell you, we have some good BBQ up here in Virginia too.I think you are probably correct in your assessment of antique Australian furniture, tools, techniques and wood. We will be collecting more info on that in the next few months, thanks to you. I am really glad that Peter jumped in. I didn't know him, but will look for his posts in the future. I also think that Derek is sincerely interested in learning more about this issue. Tell you what. I will expand the offer. Mary Beth and I will take you and yours to BBQ if you get up this way, or if we get down your way. Up here, we get to pick the place. Down in your neck of the woods, you pick. My favorite Cajun place was near Johnson Space Center, south of Houston, in Clear Lake. The place was called "Pe-Te's". There is a writeup on this place at:http://www.houstonpress.com/2005-03-17/news/end-of-a-cajun-era/It was across from Ellington Field, where all of the astronauts parked their jets. Each new astronaut was taken to Pe-Te's for a full meal of Cajun food, and went up for some aerobatics in their jet. I would fail that test.Have fun.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
That's awfully kind and I will certainly keep it in mind. We're not traveling much these days since we have a four month old baby but as time moves along who knows?
So let me get this straight - I asked a question about the history of Australian cabinetmaking and your answer is to post a picture of your hall table?
Hubris, personified.
Here's the post:http://forums.taunton.com/fw-knots/messages?msg=47796.33
Can you answer the questions? Can you refer us to any additional volumes you have in your library? We have Samson's link. Do you have that book?
Charlie
I must ask you whether you actually read what is written here, or even if you re-read what you write? (I am quoting your post since you have an habit of altering the content of your posts)
Go back to post 47796.16 You went into on.e of your usual diatribes, this time arguiing that real woodworkers, such as Alan Peters, only used a #7 (and did not need more handplanes than this). My response to you (47796.20) was to demonstrate my efforts to emulate Alan Peters, whom I admire as well (actually I am not sure whether you admire him or whether you simply just use him to fuel your arguments).
You only raised the issue of Australian furnituremaking in post 47796.33 (13 posts later). Now anyone with half a brain on these forums (and a bunch of others as well) knows that you rarely post anything without an ulterior motive ... and we all know what that is. Just go to your post to Sarge at 47916.52 . "I tune in to these forums for the entertainment provided by the different personalities". And also your comments to me at 47796.49 "In the meantime, your endlessly looping infomercial starring that bloody damned hall table with supporting cast of Jarrah and She-Oak (aren't they two of the Teletubbies?) along with a production crew courtesy of Lee Valley is the closest thing science has yet seen to a perpetual motion machine".
It is obvious that you simply join these forums to stir up as much conflict as possible. So forgive me (sarcasm) if I do not take your question seriously. I would rather converse with those who are not perpetually out to discredit or insult the integrity of forum members. Read my last reply to Mel.
Now I really have no desire to trade insults with you. In fact I have been asked not to do so by FWW. I have taken the time to write the above so that there is no doubt that I am aware what you are on about, and that I am not looking for a fight. So I shall end my side of this "discussion" now and if there is any further efforts on your part to continue a personal attack, I shall report you to the Knots moderators.
Derek
Derek:
Topics of threads often evolve which this one has.
Do you have any information on what kinds of tools or woods that were used in Australia about a hundred or so years ago?
Frankly, I'm throwing you a softball because I don't think the gnarly woods you are so fond of were used much at all, but I don't know that for sure. It never occurred to me that this wasn't a question that you could answer easily from your own knowledge or by referring to your woodworking library.
Edited 9/13/2009 9:28 am ET by CStanford
Derek:
Topics of threads often evolve which this one has.
Do you have any information on what kinds of tools or woods that were used in Australia about a hundred or so years ago?
Frankly, I'm throwing you a softball because I don't think the gnarly woods you are so fond of were used much at all, but I don't know that for sure. It never occurred to me that this wasn't a question that you could answer easily from your own knowledge or by referring to your woodworking library.
Charles
Read 47796.45
Derek
You said in the linked post:
"The question that must be answered alongside the topic of tools is whether the local cabitmakers used the local timbers in constructing furniture, whether they imported what they used, or whether they selected carefully for wood that was more easily worked. I do not know."
I'm sorry that I missed the part about you saying that you simply don't know. I'm with you. I don't know either. Maybe it's worth finding out. I think the chance that my public library will have anything of substance about Australian furnituremaking of a century or so ago is practically nil. If the blokes did actually use the tough woods you mentioned it would be beyond instructive to learn how they handled them, don't you think?
Edited 9/13/2009 9:48 am ET by CStanford
I'm sorry that I missed the part about you saying that you simply don't know. I'm with you. I don't know either. Maybe it's worth finding out. I think the chance that my public library will have anything of substance about Australian furnituremaking of a century or so ago is practically nil. If the blokes did actually use the tough woods you mentioned it would be beyond instructive to learn how they handled them, don't you think?
Charles
As I mentioned to Mel in 47796.51, I plan to do what I can. As it happens, I ordered 2 books tonight. That is for the short term. My time is too limited to visit libraries. The book that Sean linked to looks to be a useful reference text (it is aimed at museums, etc), but beyond a casual purchase as it is priced at almost $500.
Regards from Perth
Derek
"but beyond a casual purchase as it is priced at almost $500"
If you don't want to buy it, could you just "review" the book for the author or publisher?
No representation without taxation
Edited 9/13/2009 7:07 pm ET by MattInPA
Matt,
Made me snort beer out my nose. Shame on you.
Ray
Guys -- this has really gotten silly! It's not even entertaining to a bystander like myself.
Why don't you entertain us, then?
And if you don't think Matt's post was rather wry, you haven't been paying attention. You need to paratice your bystanding.
If you don't want to buy it, could you just "review" the book for the author or publisher?
That is priceless.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 9/14/2009 6:01 am ET by derekcohen
Derek,
Will you nivver learn? Press that button now! You are otherwise ladling a rich broth into the maws of the trolls. Can't you hear them smacking their lips, rubbing their bellies and emitting those greeny-black fetid stenches?
The spectacle is sickening, except to those who like dog-fighting, bear-baiting and derek-goading.
Lataxe
Mmmmm, yum, yum, yum. Soup good. Me want more.We've pitched Derek a softball which I have every reason to believe he'll hit out of the park.
Edited 9/16/2009 2:08 pm ET by CStanford
Lataxe my dear fellow
I understand your concerns. I see the situation. I recognise the possibilities.
This is the state of play ..
The topic is one that interests me so I do this for myself and am happy to share the insights with all who are interested.
The issue is (1) did the Australian Colonial cabinetmakers work with the local interlinked timbers?, and (2) .. if so, how did they do it?
My research to date suggests that most furniture was imported, or that either most timber was imported or that local timbers were carefully selected for ease of work. However it is apparent that some of the challenging woods were used.
Regardless of whether the cabinetmakers of Colonial times managed without a high angle bevel up smoother, the fact is that in current times this is a no-brainer. Progress is progress, and the fact that something is possible does not argue that its methodology is still desirable or preferred. Only to some would it be so. The facts speak for themselves, that is, high cutting angles work better with interlinked grain.
Am I aware that Charles is just looking for ammunition to further his cause? Sure, I said so earlier on. If he wishes to twist facts to fit his Weltanschaung, well he will do so regardless.
Lastly, this reasearch will be done, but when I have the time. A few books have been ordered, but the important references must come via a library. And I won't get to this for a week or two. And then they have to still find their way to me. So all this will take some time. Let's see if the spirit of mutal discovery persists to make the effort worth the while.
Regards from Perth
Derek
A search on Andrew Fahy at our library produced no results unfortunately:
Quick Search
Find Books & Information
Browse History
Author
No Results Would you like to resubmit search?Browse Search
Nothing on Kevin Fahy:
Find Books & Information
Browse History
Author
No Results
I've got a book that I bought in Australia when I lived there in the early 90s titled "Australian Red Cedar" that suggests that nearly all of the moldings, trim and appointments for public buildings (post offices, hotels, taverns, etc.) were made of this wood in Southeastern Australia in the 1800s. Also a great deal of locally-made furniture was made from it - there are many photos in the book. The scientific name for this wood is Toonis Australis, I believe, or something close, and is not available in much commercial quantity today. It was almost all logged out earlier. I have a small quantity of it - it is similar to "Florida Cherry" in color and density, if you have seen that variety of cherry. I don't have access to the book or the wood at the moment as I am in Montana and the other is at my home in MS.Take care, EH
Ed.
Do you know anything about the workability of the Australian Red Cedar? The center of this discussion is about what tools the early Australian woodworkers used, and so the questions being looked at are: the woods they used then versus now, and the tools they used then versus now. Quite interesting!!! It may shed some real light on the value of various parameters of the design of planes. Have fun. Hope you can help more on this one.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
I can't help much, Mel. If you google "Australian Red Cedar" or "Toonis Australis" you can find info on Australian Red Cedar (a hardwood, not really a true cedar) - it is either mostly logged out or not allowed to be logged, now, so it is real expensive, now.Like I say, from the little bit I have, it reminds me of Florida Cherry, which is another hardwood, of course, but nothing with grain like rock or anything like that. Nothing normal hand tools can't handle,...The furniture I have seen made from Australian Red Cedar is beautiful - a lot of it on display in museums in Sydney, Melbourne, etc. Take care, EH"Yes, but what's good for me ain't necessarily good for the weak-minded." - Augustus McCrae, Lonesome Dove
Ed,
YOur comment "nothing that normal tools can't handle" is good enough. That is what I was looking for. This will all take a while but will be fun.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
A quick reading in a Bernard Jones book I have makes mention of a few of the hard species from Australia as being used in heavy construction but also for some furniture.
I've got a book that I bought in Australia when I lived there in the early 90s titled "Australian Red Cedar" that suggests that nearly all of the moldings, trim and appointments for public buildings (post offices, hotels, taverns, etc.) were made of this wood in Southeastern Australia in the 1800s. Also a great deal of locally-made furniture was made from it - there are many photos in the book. The scientific name for this wood is Toonis Australis, I believe, or something close, and is not available in much commercial quantity today. It was almost all logged out earlier.
I have a small quantity of it - it is similar to "Florida Cherry" in color and density, if you have seen that variety of cherry. I don't have access to the book or the wood at the moment as I am in Montana and the other is at my home in MS.
Hi Ed
That sums it up pretty well. I came across the following CSIRO (Oz government research organisation) media release:
One of Australia's most renowned cabinet-making timbers could make a come-back from near-extinction, if a CSIRO-managed project is a success.
Red cedar was heavily harvested in the past, and was an early export item. Today there are only remnant stands and scattered individual trees. The cedar (Toona ciliata) has a range from New South Wales to the northern extremity of Cape York.
CSIRO's John Larmour, a technical officer with Forestry and Forest Products, says that the Cedar Project aims eventually to re-establish red cedar as a commercially farmed tree.
I stated in an earlier post that Red Cedar was one of the timbers chosen and used in the early days. Used up it appears. How did it work? Well I do have a piece at home, a board about 18" wide by 24" long. It was expensive. But the wood is so pretty I had to have it. I thought it may make a set of stunning drawer fronts for a small cabinet.
View Image
How does it plane?
The wood is softish, ala Cherry, as Ed noted. It planes similar in the straight grained areas. Of course, the knot here, which is part of the attraction for me, required planing from different angles, but I could manage this with a common pitch smoother ..
View Image
It is quite unlike the interlinked woods such as Jarrah. I'll say a bit about this and others at another time.
I would love to work with woods like Red Cedar - but they are not available. Over-harvested ....
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,
I would bet my life that that stuff you picture there is in fact Cedrella Toona . Confirm that it has a peppery spicy smell?
Very easy to work, non abrasive.When they tap into good water the tree can have huge girth.
They were planted in Rhodesia along with various gums that also came from Australia. At one stage they were all getting a disease and dying so we had lots of it.Philip Marcou
Derek,Since your aren't speaking of Jarrah, I would ask you to not speak as to it's environment: )
Is it forest based or more like most eucalyptus -- kind of grove oriented? Does that deep bole produced good turning material?
What with the Koalas, is it a protected species?ThanksBB
David,We have Derek, Charles, Peter and myself working together.
This is akin to full peace in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq, and New York City.I can't think of anything better.
There is a new world out there.
Come on. Join in.
Would love to have you helping out on this one.
Do you know anyone who makes metal planes or infill planes. They would be invaluable on this project.This is the coming of the age of Aquarius.
Exchange a few personal messages with Derek, and ask his advice.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
At $500 it must by encyclopedic and probably worth every penny. The teaser pages from the web link certainly looked good - seriously tasty works of decorative art.
I suspect a large public library in your area already has a copy. Might be worth an hour or two of your time. If they do have it I would imagine the library has it marked as a "reference" work that cannot be checked out so if you decide to go take a notebook. Our public library can be searched from the web. I can't imagine that yours doesn't also offer this facility. You ought to see if they have a copy.
In the US, you could buy the book and donate it to the library (assuming they'd like a copy) and take a deduction as a charitable contribution (assuming one itemizes deductions).
Edited 9/14/2009 10:45 am ET by CStanford
Charles
These are available only on interlibrary loan - that is are to be ordered in person from a local library. Archaic but all that is available. I will put in a request for the following when I have time to visit (one of these Saturday mornings). I mention the titles below if anyone else is interested in this research.
Author
Fahy, Kevin.
Title
Australian furniture : pictorial history and dictionary, 1788-1938 / Kevin Fahy, Andrew Simpson.
Author
Fahy, Kevin.
Title
Nineteenth century Australian furniture / Kevin Fahy, Christina Simpson, Andrew Simpson.
Author
Lauder, Leslie.
Title
An introduction to Western Australian colonial furniture / by Leslie Lauder and Mark Howard ; photography by Victor France.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 9/14/2009 11:43 am ET by derekcohen
Looks good.
It will be interesting to see if the pictures have notations about the wood species used. I'd be shocked if they don't.
Derek,
I looked up Fahy on Amazon.com to see if any of his books are available for sale here in the US. Here is what I found:Australian Jewellery: 19th and Early 20th Century by Anne; Fahy, Kevin Schofield (Hardcover - 1990)
1 Used & new from $125.76EARLY COLONIAL FURNITURE - in New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land by CLIFFORD; FAHY, KEVIN & ROBERTSON, E GRAEME CRAIG (Hardcover - 1972)
1 Used & new from $453.60AUSTRALIAN FURNITURE Pictorial History and Dictionary 1788-1938 by Kevin and Simpson, Andrew Fahy (Hardcover - 1998)
1 Used & new from $260.68Nineteenth century Australian furniture by Kevin Fahy (Unknown Binding - 1985)
2 Used & new from $2,093.49Australian Jewellery: 19th and Early 20th Century by Anne Schofield and Kevin Fahy (Hardcover - Oct 1992) - Illustrated
2 Used & new from $499.99I looked up Leslie Lauder on Amazon and found:AN INTRODUCTION TO WESTERN AUSTRALIAN COLONIAL FURNITURE by LESLIE & HOWARD, MARK with photography by FRANCE, VICTOR LAUDER (Paperback - 1988)
1 Used & new from $160.82Based on that, I don't think they will be at the local library. I'll do some checking.Didn't want you to think you are being ignored.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
I'll check too. Our library is chock full of books that bring hundreds on Amazon and EBay. I tipped them off to a few, recommended that they put them on reserve/reference status, but I don't think they ever did.
There's apparently quite a brisk business stealing books from libraries and selling them on Amazon. I returned a book to the Queens, NY main library that I bought on Amazon but in reality had been stolen. A library will cancel a book that it is purging from its stacks and indicate that somewhere on the inside cover. This book had no such mark or notation.
They seem to have managed:
http://www.casuarinapress.com.au/australian_furniture.htm
Perhaps they imported all their wood?
I'm pretty sure they imported a lot of it. I think it's reasonable to assume that at some point they also started working the local woods (even though they were more difficult to work than the imported mahogany, etc.) and it is this point in time I'm interested in. These Aussies obviously said to themselves, in today's vernacular, "let's git 'er done" I want to know what they used to do it.Maybe Derek would be willing to put that volume in his library and report back to us about its contents.Shipping the thing to the US will cost me a *relative* fortune though I do intend to inform myself at whatever the cost.Thanks for the link.
Edited 9/11/2009 2:47 pm ET by CStanford
-----------------------------------
"Was there furnituremaking in Australia a hundred or so years ago?
What did they use?
Do all antiques of that age, or thereabout, exhibit devastating tearout?
If not, why not?
Are there any histories, tool inventories, etc. available from 19th century Australian furnituremakers? Was all woodworking being imported? Surely, somebody must have put plane to wood in Australia in the 1800s. What did they use then and will it still work now? 47* infills? Higher pitched woodies? Is there a market in Australia for antique tools that were made and used in-country? Where did the antique Australian woodworking tools go?
How did work get done there before Lee Valley bevel up planes came along?"
------------------------------------
VERY good questions...
Here is a chest of tools..
http://www.petermcbride.com/chest4
AND...An organ maker...
http://www.petermcbride.com/fincham/
Infills made locally by Jas. McLaren...late 1890s - early 1900s
http://www.petermcbride.com/mclaren
Note one is from a woodworking school c1900
<Where did the antique Australian woodworking tools go?>
Here...:-)
http://www.petermcbride.com/oldtools/
...and YES they still work now!
I grow weary of telling people to go to any local antique mall and look at locally made furniture...unless it was repaired, it has never encountered a modern plane incarnation.
Regards,
Peter
In Melbourne, Australia.
Thank you Peter for the enlightening set of links. Looks like you have a nice business going there. Good luck.
The tool chest contains exactly what I suspected it would - nice, beefy bevel down infills and bevel down woodies. It must have been a horrifying experience using those....And those McLaren bevel down infills - really just junk you know - probably couldn't plane pine with one of them.
It is difficult to imagine how Australian woodworkers made it through the day using such inferior tools as displayed in your links. ;-)
Edited 9/12/2009 9:36 am ET by CStanford
Hi Derek.
Thanks for your reply and especially for your visit to the soap box to articulate the dimesions of saisfaction you get as a non-professional woodworker - from using fine tools, to making fine tools, to making furniture, to making furniture with tools you have made. I have thought often during the various debates about tool appretion/obsession vs making stuff about a friend, now long since deceased, who had a very impressive collection of antique candlesticks, none of which I presume he treated as "users". OK, candlesticks are not my thing, but who am I to criticize his obsession with the things. They brought him lots of satisfaction. Good enough for me.
As for posting photos of my homemade planes, can't do it. I could show a photo of a hock blade, waiting...waiting. I do have a few tools in the arsenal that I have made and have very much enjoyed doing so. and your site and postings have been a source of inspiration (and have set such a high bar for quality of design and finish). So I will try to get to the shop and snap a few photos of other tools I have made, but the homemade plane photo will have to wait a bit longer.
Best regards,
Randy
DerekWhere did you get the mesquite? And how does it compare in hardness to some of your native woods there in Australia? Nice looking plane too! I'm planning a desk and two end tables from mesquite. I found a sawyer/dealer in Abilene, Texas that saws mesquite trees up to 29" wide. Mesquite grows VERY large around Abilene. Tom"Notice that at no time do my fingers leave my hand"
Hi Tom
This is USA Mesquite. I received it - enough for this plane - as part of an Old Tools List Galootaclaus gift a few years ago. While Mesquite was introduced to Australia some time back, it grows in scrub bushes only and does not reach a size beyond making a chisel handle.
I had heard so much about Mesquite and was quite excited to have this chunk. From what I learned from the source, it had been on a shelf for 30 years. So I guess it was dry!
Working it was fairly easy. It is softer than the average wood I use, and it planed easily. In fact I was concerned that it might not hold up. This and its reputation for brittleness (which I did notice when chiseling) was the reason I added a brass wear plate to the mouth ...
View Image
It is a beautiful wood. Your desk is going to be stunning. Post pictures please!
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 9/12/2009 1:01 pm ET by derekcohen
Thanks, Derek. I've seen some beautiful furniture made from Texas mesquite. The mesquite that grows in Arizona seems to be lighter in color than Texas, and I think is a different species. Here are a few links to some of my favorite mesquite sites. Tomhttp://www.mesquite-lumber.com/index2.htmlhttp://www.mesquiteburl.com/"Notice that at no time do my fingers leave my hand"
Derek:
Most of the planes I have made were given as gifts to family or friends and I didn't think to take pictures of them before giving them away. Here are pictures of three I have kept. The 24" jointer is made of Eucalytus with a Brazilian Cherry tote and has a LN iron and chipbreaker. I made it with a 40 degree bed as an experiment. It works extremely well as a jointer and is also good at squaring up the end grain of wider panels after glue up. The 10" Krenov smoother is Wenge with a 45 degree bed and a Hock 1 3/4" double iron. The adjustable mouth block plane is Red Oak with a HNT Gordon iron, the plan for it came from ShopNotes.
gdblake
Hi Gregory
Your planes are beautiful. I particularly like the jointer. It has great lines and the combination of different woods is very attractive. The Wenge smoother is very striking. What a wonderful looking wood.
Thanks for sharing them.
Regards from Perth
Derek
GD,
Your three planes are beautiful. How would you compare hot the jointer handles to an old Stanley 7 or 8, or to a LN?MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
GD,
I like the way you work and think. That and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. ;-)
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled