Doing a bit of research
If you won a lottery and decided to buy the best handplane you could find, what would its characteristics be?
Size, function, attack angle, adjustment … dream!
My interests are two-fold:
- I’m playing around making infill planes, and would like to know if there are features I haven’t thought of, or features that I like that no-one else cares about
- I’m about to embark on a few short production runs, and would like to think I could position my planes about where the market is
See also my ‘Making a market’ post of a couple of weeks ago.
Cheers
Malcolm
Replies
Hi Malcolm,
I'd be looking for a plane about 18-20" long by about 2.5-3" wide, 50-55º pitch, maybe even 60º (middle pitch?) without a cap iron. Adjustment is preferable as opposed to using a small hammer, the style wouldn't worry me too much.
Adjustable mouth would be a nice to have, but not a necessity.
Cheers,
eddie
edit: Function would be a general bench plane - with ability to joint if needed.
Edited 4/26/2006 1:54 am by eddiefromAustralia
Edited 4/26/2006 4:16 am by eddiefromAustralia
Jeez Eddie, if I made one of those, you'd be the only customer. I hope! Perhaps the lesson is to go fo0r what's otherwise unobtainable?
20 inches, 3 inch iron, scraper-pitch! There ain't no such thing!
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Hi Malcolm,
Well, there's a niche for you.
But seriously, I'm thinking of putting one exact model of these together in my spare time - might take a couple of years the way things are going.
Now, on the plane front, the use for an infill is either a panel plane or as a smoother, or a specialty plane such as a shoulder plane.
I'd be looking to at least York pitch, and my personal preference is a fore plane length. The missing gap in fore planes is a wide plane at a not-so-long length.
(sole friction is part of the equation as to why they're uncommon, and pitching a plane at 50 degrees adds that little more to the effort required.)
I wouldn't go down to a No. 5 sized plane (14") as a panel, I think from memory that the Spiers' panel planes were 16" or so.
In an infill, what do others want?
[throwing the question out for all to answer lest others feel that this is becoming a closed discussion]
CHeers,
eddie
Fair enough, I did ask!
For some leads, what about closed vs open totes?
I've just finished chopping about a largish, originally unhandled, small smoother (sound Irish? Well, it's a block-plane length, sort of 6 inches, but uses a 2 inch iron, a little big plane, or maybe a big little plane?) and converted it into a smoother with an open, Art Deco style pedestal tote. I've decided that a handle is essential (especially for a 3.5lb tool).
Malcolm
http://www.macpherson.co.nz
Ever tried to push one like that? Put a motor or a bull on it and you might be able to.
gb,
Thanks for the feedback. yep - I use an old jointer that width, but it's 30" long.
Getting the discussion back on track, Malcolm is looking to see what people want as far as infill planes - "if" he was to make one to suit your needs, what would they be??
Cheers,
eddie
Edited 4/26/2006 7:49 pm by eddiefromAustralia
Thanks Mate
I think, on reflection, that this is probably a silly question.
Everyone will have a different ideal, and what you want depends a bit on what you've seen, used, and read about.
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
>I think, on reflection, that this is probably a silly question.<
I don't think its necessarily a silly question, and I could certainly see the genesisof this question if you plan to make planes to sell to people.
The way I feel is like this - and this is not to be insulting or dismissive of you efforts, but rather just another perspective to add to your collection of thoughts and values of your potential market - I feel like I've pretty much broken the code on bench planes. I have 15 or 16 or so, I have used them all successfully, and we're pretty much down to the short strokes on keeping them maintained and working wood with them. I don't know know everything there is to know - no one does - but I've broken enough of the essential elements of the code that I've got a pretty good idea of what's going on. For the native American hardwoods that I use for 90-95% of my woodworking and the 5-10% of favorite exotics, the planes that I already have work fine and do what they're supposed to do. Spending 100's of dollars on yet another smooth plane, regardless of how highly polished it is or how highly inspired its maker was, or other type of bench plane, seems like something different from woodworking - maybe collecting or something. Not for me.
The endless talk about the infinite variety of variations of smooth plane in the hand tool forum seems strange to me. I'd rather move on to joinery with hand tools or traditional architectural molding. The Taunton book "Shaping Wood" by Lonnie Bird is one of my current favorites, even if you do have to wade through the power tool stuff to get to the good stuff - the hand tool stuff.
Good luck, Ed
> Spending 100's of dollars on yet another smooth plane, regardless of how highly polished it is or how highly inspired its maker was, or other type of bench plane, seems like something different from woodworking - maybe collecting or something. Not for me <
And that's probably where almost every other woodworker is as well, Ed. I have a small collection of standard Stanleys, and that's just about all I need for what I do.
However, there are a number - small, maybe, but a number - of woodworkers who enjoy using elite/unusual/bespoke (made just for them) tools. And there are a few who collect tools, for all the reasons that people collect anything. I've discovetred that I get a kick out of making tools - mostly planes - and that other people like them too.
> The endless talk about the infinite variety of variations of smooth plane in the hand tool forum seems strange to me <
I don't expect it will be endless, Ed, but for a number of us, it has been very usefull, and it has inspired a number of people to have a go at making their own. In a world where Holteys can go on the Bay for $5,600, and a big jointer is currently heading in the same direction (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6275483082&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1) a discussion about technique, technology and appearance certainly has both currency and utility.
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Malcolm,
Not a smoother and half joking. but has anyone ever worked out how to build a scraper plane that goes right to the edge, sort of like a chisel plane / carraige rebate combination?
A scraper plane to the edge, yes. To the end of a board, not that I know of. But then, one can always use hand scrapers for off the end of a board.
LN makes their version of a Stanley #85 Cabinet Maker's scraper plane.
Take care, Mike
A York-pitch (or higher) bevel-down plane with no backiron can have the iron reversed and then act as a scraper. Because the blade is held in a conventional plane, it's easy to run out to the edge (side or end) in one smooth action. Better, in my opinion, than a conventional scraper plane.
This is a very good way of dealing with delicate veneered surfaces, curly and reverse grain, and inlay. The iron can be set very fine, and the length of the conventional sole provides scraping assurance from edge to edge. I've cleaned up 'patchwork' pattern inlay box lids using this technique, to the stage where all they need is a light stroke or 3 with 600 grit to finish-polish. Nothing works better!
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Malcolm,
Seen Hank Gordons, what I was thinking of though was a bull nose version so that you could go right to the end of an internal space. My current solution is a spare stanley block plane iron (all of $12) which actually works well as a scraper as long as the grain direction allows you to pull out from the corner. I have also - after the note above about the old Stanley #85, recalled their handled scrapers.
Suspect this would look pretty ugly.
David
Expressive creation in tool making has been going on as long as hand tools have been made. I guess some people think that something essential and functional might as well be nice to look at. Given that a lot of these tools were made by the cabinetmakers that used them seems to go hand in hand with the creativity that is used in making decorative items of wood using these tools. If you are a studio furniture maker then you are also a designer, joiner, alchemist, and most probably considered by a lot of people an artist. This same expression in tool creation just seems natural to the whole process.Ron
Hi Malcolm,
I would likely look for a middle weight smoother. Something close to the weight of my LN 4 1/2.
About 10-13"
45-50* attack
4-5lbs.
Comfortable tote, I enjoy using both closed and open, so either would be fine. Finish would be more critical to me and I am extremely fond of very smooth oil finished rosewood or similar.
I've been toying with making one myself for a bit as an experiment... likely end up looking like a frankenplane though. Guess I'll see :)
Michael
Malcolm,
I wish I could have one single hand-plane that performs multiple functions - scrubbing, flattening, smoothing, beveling, jointing and even edge shaping (mouldings). Perhaps it only takes minutes to assemble the attachment and change the blade of different profile. I'm not sure if the size & weight of the body really counts. The size and weight of a plane may be suitable for flattening but not for smoothing. You may make some R&D.
Masrol
...." bad decision is better than no decision..." - from theory of management.
If you won a lottery and decided to buy the best handplane you could find, what would its characteristics be?
I'd go to NASA and ask for some cuttin' blades they use for cutting Carbide and asK if they would build me a Plane for wood working!
Yes Will, but what SORT of plane?
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Sorry for the late post.. Been really busy Babysitting! Geeeee..
TOOOOOOO old to be baby sitting! I have FUN with them little girls though!I guess my response would be a small general purpose (like fits in your hand) block plane.
Why? Because that is what I use most of the time.I also would ask for a blade for a small Bull nose.. Sort of like a Stanley 90.
Why again? Because it's what I use all the time... LOL..I use them for finish work and I find them the most important to me.. They clean up all my mistakes I make with my other planes...Edit: I forgot to say.. For what I do, I think the blade does it ALL.. Well, if the frame/base is sort of OK..
Edited 5/3/2006 10:06 am by WillGeorge
I think you planemakers are making a huge mistake with your current thinking. The products I've seen thus far are not good for woodworkers and not good for you. As we've already seen, this race for an arbitrary best is doomed to failure. Here's an idea I'd like to see run to ground (BTW, I'm not only a pro 18thc woodworker, I'm an aerospace engineer/product designer)
I'd like to see you niche market guys fill the true niches. We need dado planes, rabbets, fillisters, molders, etc. The supply of antiques is limited as is the patience to restore them. The nice thing about these planes is that they offer additional capability, not another version (albeit argueably better) than what you already have. So that's nice for woodworkers. But its also nice for you since guys who want one plane, say a dado, will want more in different sizes.
So I've got two different ideas (BTW Rob Lee hated these);
1) Injection mold one or two molding plane bodies identical to 18th c bodies. You could actually laser track/shoot an 18th plane but a decent 3d modeler could do the job as quickly or quicker/cheaper. Then you make the bodies in a material like PAI (yes plastic). You could make funny colors. No reason to try to make these look like wood. And imagine how a high school shop class or Marc Adams school might prefer multiple sets in varying colors.
From the blank molded part, you either CNC or simply rout the profile. The hardest part of making molding planes (which is also the one part that never changes) is solved by the injection molding process (I'm talking about the throat).
2) Idea two is find a way to do that same thing with wood. CNC the throat or glue up bodies from CNC made parts.
Anyway, I see the need for a full range of planes, as I said, dadoes, especially 3/4" and 5/8", fillesters and rabbets (keep in mind, with PAI these bodies would never move, rust, or wear- perfect for schools or anyone in unclimate controlled shops.) You could do panel raisers, complex moldings, hollowsand rounds, sash planes, etc. Use the Seaton chest as a template/starting place.
The market is also very positive. Period furniture making is on the rise. The folks involved at present tend to be on the wealthier side of an already wealthy woodworking demographic. But believe it or not, these guys don't have full sets of hand tools. So its not like the interested market is already fully supplied. I suspect that once the supply emerges, more folks will want to try it.
Anyway, that's my idea. Stop making blessed smoothing planes. We all have smoothing planes and we don't want more. Now there isn' a big hew and cry for dadoes, but that's just because no one makes one. PAI is expensive, but its more readily available than straight grained quatersawn beech. You should be able to get a block of it (you could also use UHMW) and you could try machining it conventionally. If I didn't have so many irons on the fire, I'd do this myself. Its my understandding that C&W isn't keeping up with demand for molding planes at present (tho that might have changed). So that's some indication of teh demand that's out there. Aggressive marketing from a competitor would probably increase C&W sales, as we have seen in other niche markets, so don't let their excellence dissaude you.
Good luck,
Adam
Thanks Adam
Interesting contribution!
I've just this morning taken delivery of a Rali 220 Swiss made plane - a plastic and pressed steel thing with disposable blades and an aggressive front horn and rear stub tote - and I agree there's a place for modern technology and for different approaches to configuration.
I don't agree that we all have all the smoothers we need. There are tens of thousands of people who work wood, sometimes with hand tools, who enjoy making shavings.
Frequently, 'making shavings' is actually by far the best way to achieve what they want (a gleaming cut surface that hardly needs any further work).
A Stanley (or an LV or L-N) does that perfectly well ... but, there's another experience, provided ONLY by a well-made infill set-up to perfection and cutting whisper shavings like a dream, that some people covet. Not thousands of people, maybe only a few hundred people. That's the market that bespoke plane makers like Karl Holtey ($US5,600 on the Bay this week) and Daryl Hutchinson (also on the Bay this week) are addressing. And, maybe, me.
You have identified a technology and a market that do also offer exciting development prospects, and I hope someone rises to the challenge. I bought some industrial plastics last week, and will do some experimental shaping, but only as an alternative to rosewood as an infill material.
Cheers
Malcolm
http://www.macpherson.co.nz
Edited 5/1/2006 9:28 pm ET by Malcolm
Sounds like you are not convinced. The search goes on for my plastic planes.One word of caution: In crafts like these its not uncommon to encouter what I would term anti-competitive trade practices. Don't know the particulars of Karl Holtey, and his business is none of mine. But in the period furniture making business, there are more than a few retirees, drawing pensions, houses paid off, kids thru college, doing it for the love of it. Like Martha Stewart or Bill Gates, theirs are not business plans average folks can follow. Karl's planes are lovely to be sure, but that doesn't mean he makes money building them or that you/one can survive making planes every bit as nice. Sorry if you already knew this, but I received this rude awakening not long ago in my field. I find it very difficult to compete with a 65 yr old! And good for them and God bless em. But I'm keeping my day job. Their apparent success is no indication of a robust market.BTW, you could apply the same to woodworking authors. Scratch their surface and I think you'll find trust funds, wealthy spouses, more retirees etc. Don't let anybody kid you. Fine Wood Working is a hobby.Adam
I agree - there's a world of difference between an apparent market and a sustainable business model!
I've been doing my sums as I go. I do have a day job, as do several other 'plane makers'.
What I think people like Karl do, however, whether they themselves make any money or not, is make a market. They help create demand. It's up to suppliers to determine whether there's any real business to be done in that market, and at what price/quality points.
In my case, I may never actually make tools for anything approaching a living, but that doesn't mean I won't make and sell tools.
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Adam - I agree with you that a little more variety in planemaking would be good. As far as the way the planes are made though there is one other thing to consider. The niche market planemakers can make their products from bits and pieces of wood or metal for not much in the way of outlay - a slab of wood here, a couple of plates of steel there... No huge demands, material wise, and - for the most part - not really anything in the way of equipment. Sure, you can buy a lathe or an end mill and a few other machines if you want to but its not really necessary as far as "basic" planemaking goes - a couple of saws, files, chisels, scrapers etc. and you've got your basic kit.To go the plastic injection molding route or CNC path and you're starting to get into something a little heavier than tinkering in your back shed. Some of that stuff can be a huge outlay and a little beyond what most planemakers would feel comfortable with forking out.I'm not doubting that there's a market there. On the contrary in fact. I think the potential is worth exploring. I'm also not "shock and awed" by the whole plastic thing, as there'd be quite a few benefits with using that sort of material (I like the color coding idea too). I just think that it's a giant step up from using traditional materials and methods to high-tech modern ones, that's all.
Handplane Central
Like all modern businesses, my advice would be to purchase the plastic plane bodies from a plastics supplier (out source it!). I know this is against our nature, but the days of Henry Ford's business model (own all suppliers, make everything) are long over. The injection mold would be expensive, but not nearly as much as any of the machines you mentioned. Once the mold is done, my guess is you could buy the blank bodies for $10 or less.Its an idea like many others that folks say is stupid, yet I (or they) fail to identify the pitfalls. It looks good from every angle. Guys like Malcolm just may not feel like doing it. That's cool. You've gotta love your product. Rob Lee told me he'd start making plastic planes when I started making period reproductions out of mdf. He seems to have a great sense of humor, but you can also hear a passion in that as well. He probably feels passionately about his planes. But that doesn't mean my plastic dado plane idea isn't viable.Adam
P.S. If you look at C&W's operation, (I don't know that much about it) you see many specialized and expensive machines. So sticking with tradtiional (nobody sticks with traditional like C&W) isn't a way out of machinery.
What the Rali plane sitting in front of me proves is that a combination of pressed steel and moulded plastic, more or less snapped together, can be used to make a serviceable tool which seems to work quite well.
I'm interested in exploring areas where industrial plastics might offer improvements on traditional approaches and traditional materials - not to make another Rali, or even a plastic 'Norris', but a hand-built tool that works because the best materials are used appropriately, for the best results.
The Rali planes are too light, and not easily (if at all) adjustable. They're not friendly to the grip, and not very pretty.
Adam's idea - moulded plastic bodies designed to perform traditional functions - is worth pursuing, but not by a bespoke maker working alone! Why? Because he's talking about a volume business - with all the business superstructure that implies, and the capital that any new business needs. The Shepherd guys had a nice business model, but (as I understand it) a deficient business plan. They were almost certainly undercapitalised, had poor sales and marketing competence, and didn't have a hard-nosed focus on cashflow. A plastics-based manufacturing business would need all those things, and very much more!
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Adam,
I don't know where to start. While I appreciate the positive things you say about us, I don't think you understand what we do.
The planes we make are as sophisticated and evolved as the furniture of the period. Don't let their simple appearance fool you, there's a lot going on in the simplest of planes. Nothing about the design of those planes is arbitrary, every element or feature is there for a reason.
Much of the evolution involves the materials the planes are made of. Let's assume you can get past basic things like the thermal instability of moldable plastics and also assume the traditional designs would actually work in plastic. You've seriously underestimated what's involved. Let's look at hollows and rounds. A full set is 36 planes and they're available in four different traditional pitches. Then add the fact that 15 to 20 percent of our customers are left handed. Oh yeah, some of our customers want skewed planes but let's limit that to just 5º and ignore the others we've made at times. Add it up, we are now up to 576 molds just in hollows and rounds. What's the economic order quantity of each? Maybe 500? Let's see, that's 288,000 planes and we have yet to sell a thing. Hmmm, I need a bigger shop--no, a warehouse. What about ogees, Grecian ogees, ovolos, Grecian ovolos, side beads, center beads and on and on. We need a BIG warehouse! Who's going to make and put irons in all those planes? Sharpen 'em, heat treat, assemble and fit them, ship them? How many people do we need?
The major efforts of last 75 to 100 years of early wooden plane making had one focus on development. That was to reduce labor and labor costs involved. They tried about everything including prison labor but the main impact was lower quality and their efforts hastened the demise of the industry. Their attempts at moving production to machine actually lowered the quality of the planes. We have every intention of avoiding duplicating earlier mistakes.
We do use machines and some pretty specialized ones, but they stand idle most of the time. The majority of the work is simply careful tedious hand work. I've investigated the whole range of CNC machines, from the basic $30,000 machines to a five axis 24 station behemoth that leases for $5,000 a month and just turning it on involves three 20 hp motors. The simple fact is none of the CNC machines make sense or is even close to sound for our business at this point. If you find someone crazy enough to loan money on such a venture at an affordable rate; send me their name, I'll give them a realistic proposal--one that allows us to actually still produce the functional products our customers need.
We sell to an entirely different market than earlier plane makers. Final tuning, sharpening and even application of finish fell to the end user. We can't do that. Today's woodworkers expect them to work perfectly out of the box and to have a flawless finish. Woodworkers today have no way to be exposed to how these planes perform when properly tuned and sharpened, most of them simply work in the seclusion of their own shop and the feel of a properly working plane isn't something you can get from an article. The whole supporting industry has vanished with plane making. Lumber dealers no longer stock the proper beech or other woods; there are no sources for iron blanks, metal depth stops, thumb screws, skates or all the other metal parts needed. We have to make all these ourselves.
From your own writing and posts on various forums, I know you struggle with tuning and/or sharpening too. Whether it's your problems with your moving fillister or the fact you can't get your hollows and rounds to do their work, it's just a matter of lack of exposure. What I can assure you is that wooden plane making is an industry that's hundreds of years old and it wouldn't have survived long if it had been based on some big fraud.
I think we can help you out, Adam. There are still a couple openings in our workshop at Marc Adams this summer and you'd learn all you need to know about tuning your molding and joinery planes or even making your own.
I don't understand the desire by so many to make 18th Century woodworking primitive and crude. I'm not talking about pedestrian efforts of settlers, farmers or even house wrights, but the work of trained and skilled cabinet makers. Artistically, structurally and technically their work was as good as anything done since. They weren't working with tools that were one step removed from a flint ax.
For a long time, I struggled through your articles. It wasn't until I realized the articles were simply a chronical of your mental wresting with your own misconceptions that I became comfortable with them. I doubt you'll have trouble finding material for a good number of future articles. Maybe others have similar misconceptions, who knows? Your last was a good article with a lot of good information. I just wish you hadn’t started with the photo of that reproduction plane and assumptions about it. I doubt Plumley, a British trained cabinet maker working in the Philadelphia (the cultural center of a major British colony), would have been using a plane with such clearly Germanic influences. I suggest you look at the Jennion trade card with block cuts that probably date from the period for an idea of what Plumley's planes would have looked like. Perhaps you'd prefer to work a little closer to the time of the plane represented in your photo? Have a look at Albrecht Durer's etching "Melancholia" done in Germany in 1514.
http://www.math.umd.edu/~atma/durer23.jpg
I think you've missed the mark here by a continent and a couple centuries. Is the plane in the etching your "ideal plane" that Malcolm should be shooting for? From your post, I'd guess maybe not. You seem to be wisely saying there are more than just smoothers. You're right, limiting woodworkers to a single plane is like telling a carpenter they can only have one type and size of nail to build a house. I was pleased you recognized the wide range of planes available to Plumley and other 18th Century woodworkers. The had them and used them.
I'm sorry we seem too traditional for some people. We don't have the lifetimes available it would take to reinvent the wheel. Would we like to increase production? You bet but it won't be at the expense of the end product.
Here's an example of what we do. The following is the current run in the shop. It includes sash ovolos, Grecian ovolos, quirked cyma planes, cove and fillet planes, gunstockers' planes, follow-on reeding planes, ogees, table planes, side beads, snipes bills, plow planes, sash fillisters, a coach ovolo and a set of hollows and rounds.
View Image
Larry,My idea about injection molding planes was to make one body, then machine its profile to different molding plane shapes. Its just an idea. Obviously this wouldn't be a way to supply every custom option. And i never claimed such. But in this context, we're talking about a maker of custom high end infill planes. My advice is to make other planes.Someone else suggested that the old ways were simpler. Why not just use wood? I admit (and admitted) I didn't know jack about your business, but that my understanding was that traditional planemaking is far from simple. Pretty sure I made that point clear. I don't choose opening pictures for articles. I thought the chair we paid a lot of money to reproduce would have been the opener. I'm not responsible for page layout, but as the article was about tools and not chairs, I think the plane picture was a good choice.The plane depicted is my best effort copying a tool from a tiny reprint of Felibien's 1676 publication, which itself was copied by Moxon in 1687. The Jennion trade card dates from the 1740's. While its possible planes like yours existed before 1740, there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest so. As this plane was built for use in a museum, I feel comfortable with the consistent approach of going with what is documented.
Sorry you don't like my work or articles. And while I remain thoroughly impressed by your work, I'll be sure not to mention it again. I shouldn't speak for you or your company. You certainly don't need my endorsement. So let this be my final word about C&W: I was eyeballing one of your moving fillisters, serving as an unlikely table decoration at the conference in Wmsburg. Its such a beautiful looking plane, obviously made with tremendous care. One can't help but be impressed by your work.I wish you continued success,
Adam
Though this is a different picture, here's the plane Larry and I were discussing.
Adam,
Just curious, do you have a photo or link to your reproduction plane?
dave
Adam,
It wasn't my intent to insult you but I do think you need to more carefully research your information. I regret you have taken offense at what was intended as constructive criticism.
In part you wrote: "...The plane depicted is my best effort copying a tool from a tiny reprint of Felibien's 1676 publication, which itself was copied by Moxon in 1687. The Jennion trade card dates from the 1740's. While its possible planes like yours existed before 1740, there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest so. As this plane was built for use in a museum, I feel comfortable with the consistent approach of going with what is documented."
The problem is that Felibien is French and was illustrating French planes. The single illustration Moxon added was of a smooth plane which looks very much like British smooth planes from a few years later. If you look at the evolution of French and German planes, those illustrated by Felibien fit neatly in. However there is not a single documented British plane that looks like those illustrated in Felibien. Assuming British planes looked like those illustrated assumes a huge stylistic leap that doesn’t exist anywhere else in plane making and left no trace of the earlier style.
There is substantial evidence the Dutch were exporting planes to Great Britain in the 1600's. This evidence shows planes in the more plain British style which very closely represents documented British planes of the early 18th Century. See Early Planemakers of London by Don & Anne Wing.
It is generally accepted the sign illustrated on Jennion's trade card was actually left by Jennion's predecessor, Robert Wooding, if not Wooding's predecessor Thomas Granford. Wooding began trade under his own name in 1706. It's commonly believed the planes illustrated on Jennion's trade card date from at least 1706.
My respect and admiration for you prevents me from responding publically. This subject has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.Adam
Mr Williams,
Pretty work. Would you mind giving your web address? And where are you located?
Ray Pine
GREAT POST.. Thanks for the pictures too!
Well said, BRAVO.
You would not need any kind of modeller to reproduce any molding planes. The dimensions have been known for years. It could be done on MasterCam or ProE and then machined. The results would be more up front costs and then a market would be needed to recover the costs. There are two problems I would see that one might encounter.
1. The price of the molds and the injection molding machine.
2. Finding a material that has excellent abrasion resistance. CFRP would not qualify yet it is very strong and very rigid.
3. Planes work best with some weight. Composites do not provide that very well. Typically plastics are not near as good as composites in areas of strength.
4. Provide some way to eliminate shrinkage once the material cures so it does not have to be remachined.
Edited 5/14/2006 6:40 pm by gb93433
I've designed bushings out of PAI (poly amide imide) and it seemed to have the qualities one looks for in a plane. CFRP doesn't have the wear resistance or lubricity of PAI or UHMW.A lot of weight isn't really necessary in a plane. I'm not sure what the density of wood is. I'm guessing PAI would made a heavier plane. Shrinkage is something I hadn't thought of. I'm familiar with the CAD packages you mentioned. Frankly, this idea sounds like Lee Valley to me. They have an "outside the box" design department. And they also understand old planes and mix in old features (like Norris adjuster say) with otherwise very new technologies. Rob Lee has already said he won't make plastic planes, but I wouldn't bet against his making some sort of joinery planes in the future. I think a manufacturer would find a market for a new T&G plane/pair, and a good dado. Adam
One thing about injection moulding- if you were to pursue this, you can have the mold(s) made and find a company that would make the parts under contract so you don't need to invest in the machine. There are smaller shops all over that could do this and I doubt that they're always busy. Hopefully, it may be possible to do this and make it a viable endeavor. I don't know if you have talked with a tool and die maker about this but if you have examples of what you might want to make, they can offer some ideas regarding the easiest/best way to use one mold for multiple bodies by using different inserts to create the various profiles.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
If I won the lottery I would own a whole cabinet full of the best planes money could buy, but unfortunately this isn't the case.
There is no perfect plane,hence all the choices on the market. As with just about every tool each serves a specific task, but some are well suited to performing multiple tasks. When it comes to planes only one comes to mind. The almighty low angle block plane. If I could only own one plane this would be my first choice, hands down every time.
An old timer showed me the virtues of this plane many years ago and now I don't leave home without it. I inherited an old, well used Stanley #60 which I worked for 20 years in the remodeling trade. Now as a furniture/cabinet maker I use a newer version and barely a day goes by that I don't reach for my trusty little workhorse. With a little practice you can make this plane perform wonders. When razor sharp, which by the the way I'm still not very good at, you can do about 80% of the normal planing tasks. This little plane will handle the edge grain up to 2" wide of the toughest wood with ease,(it's imperative that read the grain direction and go with it.) You can plane end grain, you can perform shooting tasks, produce the chamfers of any size or angle, heck you can even put a radius edge on a board with a little post sanding. The only place this plane doesn't excell is surfacing.It can be done but it doesn't work all that well and it's hell on your arm.
I recently picked up a pristine vintage Stanley # 65 at a flea market. It may soon replace my trusty #60. This plane has all the features anyone would like to see in a plane. A quick release cap, adjustable throat, side to side adjustment,etc. This may a be a good one to fashion a modern reproduction, but if I remember correctly Lee Valley may be offering one. At any rate If it were me and I had the time to make planes I would probably keep them all for my own pleasure. I personally think the plane market is already flooded with plenty of choices.
Best of luck.......
If you won a lottery and decided to buy the best handplane you could find, what would its characteristics be?
Hi Malcolm
If I won the lottery I would buy more than one plane!!
OK, I'll play along ..
I think that the problem with this subject is that it is a lot like that old chestnut about professional golf - "you drive for show and you putt for the dough". What I am saying is that when it comes to choosing that one special plane, I expect that most will want the one that finishes the job, not one that gets you onto the green. Hey, I'm not a golfer, so let's not get too carried away with the analogy here.
So the best handplane for me is a smoother.
Length? Well, it will be a finish smoother, so a little on the shorter side since I hand- not machine joint and my boards are not perfectly flat. Say about 8".
Width of blade? 2 1/4" seems to be a good compromise since the cutting angle is going to be high and we don't want too much friction. Since we on on the blade, 3/16" thick is fine (frankly, 1/8" is all one really wants, and 1/4" is overkill).
Cutting angle? Most of the Aussie hardwood I work with really benefits from a high cutting angle. This is a finish smoother, so absolutely no tearout, no half measures. It must be 60 degrees. I'd even go a touch higher, but I expect that the superb bedding, the blade's thickness and its amazing sharpness will take it that little bit further.
Bedding? Bevel up or bevel down? Given the option, I would go bevel up since I believe it offers superior dynamics (actually, so does Karl Holtey, I believe). So, what about a bed of 30 degrees, thus requiring a bevel of 30 degrees. This should provide better edge wear than a higher angled bevel.
Mass? There was a time when I preferred a light plane. I still enjoy using my woodies and smaller metal planes, but for ease of performance, heavier is better. Aim for about 5 1/2 to 6 lbs in this size.
Materials? What about stainless steel and brass set off with the starkness of Ebony infill!
I'd better stop now. I need a cold shower. :)
Regards from Perth
Derek
If you won a lottery and decided to buy the best handplane you could find, what would its characteristics be?
Made in Warren Maine..all you need to know............... just my 2 cents
Wicked Decent Woodworks
(oldest woodworking shop in NH)
Rochester NH
" If the women dont find you handsome, they should at least find you handy........yessa!"
Larry's planes work. I have a half set (18) of hollows and rounds. They are perfect in every way and do the job they were intended to do. They are not coddled in my shop. They are not in the shop for decoration. In fact, they are stored under the bench in a Rubbermaid tub (sorry Larry). I use them on virtually every project I build. Virtually every one.
Larry's knowledge of planes is practically boundless. Couple his historical knowledge with the ABILITY TO ACTUALLY MAKE AND USE THEM and you have, in essence, a national treasure. Literally.
Larry is the complete antithesis of a 'wannabe.' If the real deal ever existed, it is Larry Williams. When Larry speaks about planes and planemaking one would be wise to listen intently. I know I do.
In the age of 'reader-written' magazines one has to read articles with somewhat of a jaundiced eye. When the by-line says Larry Williams, or he takes his valuable time to post on a public forum, then rest-assured that what you are reading is reliable information.
Larry is an expert in his field. One of THE experts in the field.
A few things that I'd like to throw in here:
1) Ergonomics: Woodworkers come in all sizes, one size does not fit all. Can one build planes that are custom fit to the individual's ergonomic requirements?
2) Plane/blade mechanics: Seems to be not well understood. What's the role of the chip breaker/cap iron, blade thickness/stiffness, damping coefficient, bedding material, etc. E.g. vibration damping has been done for circular saw blades through relief laser cuts, laminated blades might have an advantage wrt. vibration characteristis (and are easier to sharpen, too)
3) Weight/inertia: there seems to be a consensus that higher weight is advantageous (in many cases). IMHO what really matters is the weight distribution (more precisely the location of the center of gravity and the inertial moments as a result of the location of the CG). Intuitvely a low CG close to the cutting edge is advantageous.
4) Engineered materials: partially discussed already. How about fiber reinforced materials (high stiffness to weight ration). Also worth considering are thin film coatings to enhance wear resistance and/or decrease friction.I guess whatever this ideal plane will be, can't be more expensive than the equivalent LN plane otherwise you probably don't have a market...Chris
> can't be more expensive than the equivalent LN plane otherwise you probably don't have a market <
Points well made, but thought I'd respond to this one: I don't think the bespoke makers are addressing the L-N market. The market for hand-built one-offs, or short runs, is quite small, maybe only a few score a year. Partly because they're almost an order of magnitude more expensive, partly because the making is so slow.
Malcolm
So how do we bottle that, Charles?
I agree that the Larry Williams (and I've never met Larry) of this world should be celebrated as national treasures, but we don't, often enough, do we?
Malcolm
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled