*
Phil Lowe’s article that appeared in the December 2001 issue of
i Fine WoodWorking,
entitled “Surface Prep: Why Sanding Isn’t Enough”. Sanding
b after
the use of smoothing planes, cabinet scrapers, and card scrapers defeats the purpose, IMO, and runs counter to all I’ve been taught….
Normally, I would have posted something like this in the “Finishing” folder but, this has given me a slight case of the “jaws”…….I just thought I would “throw” this out to you folks here…..
Dano
Replies
*
Well Steve,
i if
I'm going to sand, it sure as hell isn't
b after
I've planed....Unless, of course, it's to rehone my irons or between finish coats.
b :-)
By the way, don't feel bad about smoking the yahoo...
Dano
*I agree Dano. When I read that article I did a double-take.
*Charles,Actually, I didn't see the article, just heard about it. The problem really is, in my view, when a magazine of i Fine WoodWorking's "stature" prints such an article. When a "newbie" sees something like this, you end up having to spend time to "explain" and "refute" such missives.....Hell, I still get astounded by the number of folks whosei only source of wood working information comes just from this one magazine.Dano
*Danford,If you look in the “What do you think of our current issue” folder, you’ll see where this same topic was discussed some time ago. In my work, some sanding is necessary after using the scraper. Since the majority of my work features veneer, I have to scrape more than I would like to. I will hit planed surfaces with some 320-grit paper just prior to putting on the finish. In the discussion that I referred to above, I said Mr. Lowe’s method is like driving from New York to Chicago by way of Los Angeles, you get there, but man the miles you put on the car.
*Rob,Hmmmm, that's one folder I never "open". Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse but......Dano
*What is it about the use of sandpaper that sends some people into an apoplectic swoon? Sandpaper is a bunch of little particles that cut wood. Scrapers and planes are bigger objects (though composed of small grains of metal) that cut wood. Isn't it the final state of the wood finish that counts? If planing is superior, then it should be evident to the observer, and nobody would have to gas about one method or the other. Sometimes the purists protest too much, in my opinion. Take satisfaction in your craft and don't feel so threatened by someone who may be satisfied with a method that you don't use.
*Donald, I agree with the theory of your post, but I do want to disagree with some of the basic "facts". planes and scrapers cut wood. sandpaper particles tear wood. they are two different things. both are appropriate in different situations, and for different people's aesthetics. Each done at their best, they are both capable of an excellent result. I do think, though, that each done at their best, they ARE noticeably different side by side. Whether one feels either is better is up to them, but I think that most people WOULD see the difference when compared...SB
*Scott- I probably agree with you, but I don't understand how sandpaper "tears" wood. I think of tearing as somehow involving grasping and pulling. My understanding is that the particles (of whatever mineral or man-made crystal) on sandpaper actually cut the wood when their edges are sharp. They erode the wood when the edges are dull.
*Donald,First off, I didn't go into an "apoplectic swoon". What methods one uses are really of no concern to me. As Scott already stated there is a big difference between abrading wood fibers and slicing them. Take a sanding block of 100 grit and give your fore arm a few strokes if you are having a hard time visualizing the difference.My case of the "jaws" is in regard to sanding b after final smoothing in surface preparation. This is "unconventional", to say the least, and contrary to how many of us were trained. As Rob pointed out there are exceptions and would suggest that you also check out the original discussion, it was an excellent one and I regret that it took place in another folder. Had I seen it, I wouldn't have started this discussion......Dano
*Dano-...there is a big difference between abrading wood fibers and slicing them.Rather than just asserting it, would you care to explain the big difference and how that difference relates to the finished product?My question remains: if one technique is self-evidently superior to another (smoothing with a plane rather than an axe, just to pick a random esample,or, in this case, sanding before or after planing), then why all the defensive posturing?
*Donald,Tell ya' what, Scott already indicated the differences, I have done so on other occasions. It's not an assertion, it's a fact. Look up the word "abrade" and the word "slice", if you're still confused do a search here in the forum, there is a discussion I started awhile back that goes into the whys in the "Finishing" folder.I'm not defensive at all, just tired of you and your postings.Dano
*Donald,Keep those posts coming. It is sometimes good to stirthe pot a bit. It is easy rehashing some of these semi-scientific argumentsEddy
*Dano-The question was how the difference relates to the finished product.But I guess rule one of discourse is: If you can't answer the question, attack the questioner.
*Dano & Donald,If you want to keep throwing barbs at each other, please take it offline. Thanks. Tim
*Donald,The best example that I can give in the way it affects finishing is to to repeat a discussion on Cherry and the "perception" that it is prone to blotching that I asked you to look for in the "Finishing" folder.Regardless of how fine a grit one uses in their sanding, the wood fibers are essentially abraded, hence the word "abrasives" when applied to sand paper. As a result, minute as they may be, the fibers are still left frayed. This makes it more difficult to control the finish process whether stain is used or not.On the other hand, when the wood fibers are cleanly sliced, there is no fraying. The surface becomes uniformly smooth, when properly done almost like glass. This makes it much easier to control the finish process and a superior finish will result with far less effort.Surface preparation has always been the key to a good finish, this is basic, I'm sure you will agree. While a good finish can be achieved entirely by the use of abrasives, it will take far longer and down to at least 320 grit, than it does to take with smoothing planes, cabinet scrapers, etc.I know you would prefer a more scientific explanation but, I'm not a scientist, just a furniture maker with 40 years of wood working experience and over 25 years getting paid for it. Not once have I experienced Cherry blotching, nor any other wood using planes as opposed to abrasives. You will also see replies to that discussion where other's have tried my suggestions and obtained the same results.No, I'm not "attacking" the questioner; I do have answers, though apparently not to your liking. Please feel free to go your way, I will continue to go my way.Dano
*Donald,I'd be more than happy to explain what I mean. I can only explain it the way I see it:Sandpaper is a whole bunch of abrasive particles which basically dig a series of grooves into the surface of the wood as you drag them across. As you go up through the grits, those grooves get smaller and closer together. After proper sanding through a series of grits, you can accomplish a surface in which the grooves are so close together and so fine, that it both looks and feels "smooth." Particularly when sanded to a high grit and finished well, we often can't see these individual grooves at all. But the surface has still been "abraded", and the edges around each pore are ragged, if only microscopically. When this surface is dampened, those torn fibers are what we call 'raised grain' - they're tiny ragged bits of wood surrounding each pore.Now, when we plane a surface (again, let's assume it's done at it's best - razor sharp blades, proper technique, etc...), the blade literally slices the top layer clean off. No torn fibers, no ragged edges. If you wet it, no grain will rise, because there is nothing to rise. The point is, the surface may not feel or even look any more or less "smooth" than a well sanded surface, but it should look DIFFERENT, because it is. Personally, I think the grain is crisper, more clear, and the color is sharper, but my opinion is just mine. What I'm trying to show is only that while both surface feel and look great to one person or another, they are achieved with different means, and so they ultimately will appear different when placed side by side. One important point: if the two surfaces are under a film finish (lacquer, shellac, varnish) as opposed to a penetrating finish (such as oil), this difference will be harder to see. I think that someone who has spent a lot of time looking at the clarity of grain will still be able to see it, and something undetected might resonate for a person with an untrained eye, but the fact is it's not necessarily a "night and day" kind of difference under a heavy film. It then becomes, in my opinion, a matter of preference to the person doing the surfacing. I feel like it's quicker for me to just plane it rather than sanding through the grits. As for the article in FWW, I honestly don't care a fig about whether someone has written an article suggesting a different set of techniques. If it works for him, that's cool. Whatever works. If I like the work, I like the work, if not, well, not. I was wandering by and only wanted to comment on your statement. Looks like I wandered into a something I'm going to avoid completely, other than to clarify what I had been unclear about...SB
*Just for jollies, here's a short list of woodworkers that sand...George Nakashima, well, his shop run by Mira now,Sam Maloof,Lee Grindinger,I'm sure there's many more. The danger you are approaching is caused by saying one is better than another or that one yields a better finish than another.Abrasives were in high demand when respected styles were at their pinacle, Queen Anne, Mission, etc.Many consider plane or scraper marks a defect in a finish but without them I would defy anyone to tell the difference between a sanded and planed surface a year down the road. A poorly prepared surface will be a problem, a properly sanded surface is a properly prepared surface.Finally, there are many surfaces that cannot be properly prepared with planes or scrapers, I make many of these surfaces in my work and if I'd have had a shop a hundred years ago I'd have had a standing order with the fishermen for shark skin, as many shops had back then. We're skinning cats you guys, one or the other is perfectly acceptable.Lee
*I'm coming back in to make sure that MY message is very clear, and not confused with someone else's:I'm not saying that I think one is BETTER. I do what I do, and I often do both, or one or the other. I do think they are different, and I personally prefer one over the other in certain situations.I just want to be clear - the techniques I use are the techniques I use to make a piece of furniture. They are the means, and NOT the end. they work for me - I have no problem with whatever someone wants to do to get to their end. I often disagree with people's opinions or attitudes and yet agree with certain technical issues. I just want my posts to be seen individually, particularly in a thread where two or more guys are arguing over unrelated issues, like which is "better"...SB
**I plane,*I frequently scrape, *I almost always sand,*in that order.*I hand sand oak, walnut, mahogany ash, et al to about 180- 220 grit. Jings, the open grain is wider than the scores left by the abrasive material, so what's the point of going beyond that?*I hand sand maple, cherry, sycamore, beech, box, yew, and other closed grained timbers to anywhere between 220-340 grit.*I'm consistent. * (a) If I can get a good surface straight off the plane- rare- everything is done to that level. * (b) If I use a random orbiting sander I use it to the same grit level on every visible piece.* (c) If I want to hand sand after that, I back off a grit or two and work back up to where I want.* (d) And I won't set the cat amongst the pigeons by mentioning that I think the panel sander and the thickness sander are good tools,......oops,------I just did. ;-) Now the heavens will crash around me!*I don't care what anyone else does. I still think my furniture is a bit better than shoddy.*Slainte, RJ.*PS. The random orbiting sander might have been designed with birds eye maple and other interestingly figured timbers in mind. The perfect tool.
*Lee,First off, I didn't make a value judgment of one over method over the other and I did state that there were exceptions as noted by Rob. Guess I should have provided direct links where that was gone into detail.My whole "point" as stated previously and in my discussion topic, was sanding b after final smoothing with planes and scrapers seemed to defeat the purpose, read the second sentence under the topic heading. My intent was not to start a "sanding vs. planing" brou ha ha, nor do I see where my initial comments would even start one. I also clearly stated that what one's methods are really are of no concern to me. FWIW.Dano
*One can use sandpaper all they want, I think that's great. The one historical fact that cannot be argued with is that there was a time when there was no such thing as sandpaper, and the work from that period was astounding.It's my opinion only, but I think woodworkers of today can't stop themselves from freaking at the sight of a tool mark, hence the sandpaper.Phil Lowe builds very nice stuff from the pictures that I've seen. I don't pretend to take anything away from his obvious success and ability to satisfy a clientele.
*Regarding the abrading vs. slicing argument... my eyes tell me that planes and scrapers make shavings when set up properly. Sandpaper makes a lot of dust and nary a shaving. I happen to believe that there is a qualitative difference, but it may be only my desire to do so.I think that the reduction of noise and dust in the shop is reason enough alone to eschew sandpaper, but again that's simply where I am at the moment. I may get a wild hair and pick up the phone and order a complete, new power tool set up. I'm happy anyway.
*Scott-Thanks for the very clear explanation of the differences between planing and sanding.Don
*Let me kick at this dead horse too.Don, a very simple way to see how a planed surface and a sanded surface are different is to do this. Take one board, plane one half (with a good sharp plane) and sand the other half with grits up to 240 (or 320, whatever). If you then apply stain to the whole board, you should observe that the sanded surface takes the stain quite differently than the planed surface. Sometimes it is almost impossible to stain a planed surface. The surface tension is different.But to echo nearly everyone here, this does not imply any value judgment. They are simply two different cutting actions on the medium.I hope this answers the question you originally asked.Scott MurrayProud member of the "Order of Woodworking Scotts" (tho you're missing a "t", Sgian, you can be a member too!)
*I have very clearly read this thread wrong by thinking anyone said one method is better or worse than another.I'm not going to bother rereading it either.Lee
*Gentlemen,If I may, I would like to wade in a little. The article that Dano mentioned did confuse me somewhat(not hard to do). Since I was making matching bedside tables, I decided to experiment a little. One is being prepared completly by sanding, while the other is prepared by planing and scraping. I appears that the open grain of the quartersawn oak reveals more character having been planed rather than sanded(to 180 grit only).But my level of experience in hand planing has left some surface tearout whis has been somewhat dissapointing. Anyway, I hope to get a finish applied within a month(I'm very slow) and see which way I prefer. I probably am leaning toward some sort of combination of the two, sanding and then scraping perhaps, but this being a hobby, I don't have to worry about pleasing anyone except myself. I have to admit that planing and scraping is a whole lot more satisfying to do. Thanks to all for the info and indulging my thoughts.Have fun-Rocky
*ditto
*Assuming that one is adept with planes and scrapers I am having trouble figuring out at what stage sandpaper is introduced into the mix and what it adds beyond the attributes added by planes and scrapers.If the last thing that touches a project is sandpaper then what do/did planes and scrapers add to the mix?Are we really talking about the use of sandpaper after the relatively unsuccessful use of planes and scrapers?I think so.
*FWIW, one of my goals in woodowrking is to not need to use sandpaper. Rocky
*Charles,Thank you. That is precisely what my intent was for this "discussion" to be about as I originally posted.As I understand the article; he clearly states "step one, two, three," as "plane, cabinet scraper, hand scrape AND sand. After the sections on planing and scraping I quote: i Okay, break out the sandpaper. To bring the panel to it's final smoothness, go through a few grits of sandpaper. Start with 120 wrapped around a block of wood that has a thin piece of cork glued to the surface. Be careful to make all strokes in the direction of the grain. Next, raise the grain by wetting the surface with a damp rag. Let it dry and jump to the next grit of sandpaper (150) and continue through 180 and 220 grits. Each of these steps is essential to the process, and together they will produce the finest surface possible for staining and finishing...Dano
*Dano, Just so you know, I didn't read that article. Was there any mention of the types of wood this method was used for. As you know, I recently found that when staining Hem Fir this process would have worked well. However, personaly, I think I might forgo the planing and scraping unless this was the only method available to me.
*Steve,As I indicated further on up, I didn't see the entire article. The quote was given to me by a friend and what was the intended subject of this discussion. There is more on this in the folder that Rob mentioned and b again; had I known that this article was the subject of another discussion I would have never started this one.... Dano
*Dano, .. Oh..didnt realize that. Probably should catch up on my reading. I'd do a little less writing wouldnt I. LOLS
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled