I am trying to learn to use hand planes well but am having trouble preventing tearout & chatter using bench planes. I have a Record #4 & a Stanley #5. The Stanley, purchased first, works best. All I have done is flatten the sole, flatten the back of the blade & sharpen the blade. I can get light, fluffy shavings and not a lot of tear out. I think it is 50+ years old
But, the Record is another story. Bought off ebay, it was pretty clean and I’m guessing relatively new. I’ve flattened the bottom, adjusted the frog (multiple times) and flattened & sharpened the blade. It’s always been less dependable than the Stanley. By that I mean it is tough to get nice shavings and it tears up wood pretty easily.
Finally, I decided the blade had to be the problem. So now it has a new Hock blade & chip breaker. To my surprise, tearout & chatter did not go away. Playing with the depth of cut, I noticed that I can get much finer, wispier shavings but can easily get chatter & tear out if I don’t skew the plane a lot to the direction of the cut.
I’m frustrated. Is it the wood? I use a lot of birch. My technique? Is there something wrong with the plane? Is Stanley just a better plane? Should I give up on it, just buy a Veritas Smooth plane and put the Hock blade in the Stanley? Help!!
Replies
SW,
If your Record plane is a post-war thang made "down to a price" you are always going to find it troublesome. The fit and finish of frog, mouth and every other bit is poor. I had a Record smoother and a jack when I first began WW some ten years ago and they caused me grief. In fact, I was put off using hand tools for 8 years, by the chatter, tear out, constant sharpening, need for extensive fettling and the eventual tennis elbow.
David Charlesworth, Derek Cohen and others publish detailed procedures for improving these sub-standard planes, the first step of which you have already taken with the Hock blade-substitute. But there is all sorts of other long-winded fettling needed, none of which will get the thing as good as you want.
I read here on Knots that the older Record planes are much better made and can be brought up to good functionality with much less effort. (I have no experience of that myself).
Another consideration is the cutting angle of the blade. Difficult timbers with roiling or rising grain here and there (so you cannot avoid some planing agin' the grain) are better planed with a higher cutting angle of 50 - 60 degrees, whereas the standard bevel-down planing angle is 45 degrees. A tight yet relieved mouth, well-bedded thick blade, soundly-seated cap-iron, flat frog, flat sole, etc. are also needed, all of which have to be fettled on them Records.
I confess to having given my Records away to an unsuspecting victim. I have Veritas, Lie-Nielsen and Marcous now. All of those work well "out of the box". The LVs and LNs can be also tweaked by tiny amounts (eg by a hone of the already sharp blade or making the sole dead flat everywhere) to work extremely well. They offer blades with different bevel angle (for bevel-up planes) and LN offer frogs of a higher angle for their bevel-down planes.
Planes like the Marcous are heavy, made to very fine tolerances and have "over-engineered" immovable working parts. Their rigidity and precision make them a joy to use and give superb results. You will pay for the priviledge, though. :-)
Bevel-up designs allow an easy blade-swap to get higher or lower cutting angles for different types of planing tasks or timbers. Making a back bevel on a bevel-down blade, or buying one of those higher-angled frogs, can achieve a higher (but not lower) cutting angle than the standard angle.
Lataxe
Lataxe,
Thanks for the reply. After reading it I became convinced that I should take the plunge and take a deep dive into tuning the plane. If the performance will always be low in its current state, why not see what I can do. If I ruin the plane, too bad, it wasn't that good anyway.
I'm going to break out Garrett Hack's hand plane book & read up on tuning a plane. I'll also look at Derek from Perth's website and see what I can find there.
I imagine my next steps will be flattening the top of the frog and then try to improve where the frog seats on the plane. In truth, it makes me a little nervous fooling around with how the frog seats on the plane. My bravado in the 1st paragraph is already waining.
I'd be more than happy to take tips on how to properly fit up a frog to the plane.
Even with my bench plane issue, I'm already a dedicated hand tool user. I just love working the wood by hand & not by machine. That's why my hand plane collection (of user planes) is growing. I really like my LV shoulder plane & router plane. I'm going to replace my Anant plough plane with a Stanley 50 or Record 050 (I'll never buy an Anant plane again). The Stanley 78 is fun. I have a really old Sargent #422 (#7), haven't used it yet, but now think I should not have bought it (There are reasons some things are inexpensive). I also have a nice Stanley 79 side rabbet plane. Oh, I can't forget the Stanley 9 1/2. I think with a new Hock blade that will be a really nice plane. Who knows what next is coming.
Anyway, thank you for the advice.
Hack's book on handplanes will give you detailed instructions on how to tune the plane, including the mating surfaces of the bed and frog.
Those newer Record planes were made from very rough castings, and nothing was done at the factory to get them working properly. I had a few of them, and the english version newer Stanley's that I was lending out to students in classes I was teaching. I have to honestly say that the hours spent tuning them all to work properly were not worth the money I saved. However, since you're doing just one, go for it. It will give you an excellent experience of how, as you make improvements to the plane and its parts, the performance of the plane increases.
I could never get them working as well as older Stanley Bedrock planes (pre-war), but they were quite functional enough to not discourage use.
File down the mating surfaces of the bed and frog, and use blue chalk to see how well they are mating up. Once those two surfaces are mated properly, the plane shouldn't chatter anywhere near as much as you've described.
Good luck
Jeff
I would take a hard look at the frog: First, how is it adjusted? Take a small steel rule and lay it on top of the frog to make sure the frog and sole are lined up to fully support the blade (you can experiment with tightening the mouth via the frog at a later time). You want the frog to be tight, but do not over-tighten as you will distort the sole of the plane. Are the evident burrs at the end of the frog? If you are inclined to try to seat the frog better, then remove the blade, etc., and the frog. Any burrs under there? If so stone them off carefully. Then get some automotive valve grinding compound (Clover) and put a couple of dabs between the frog and sole and gently move back and forth (don't worry, you don't have lots of room to move very much, so your chances of doing damage are minimal). Clean out the muss and put everything back together and have a go at it.
If the plane still exhibits poor performance, I would suspect (and would have looked here first) that the sole is flattened improperly. To me, it sounds as if there is a hollow in front of the mouth, or worse the mouth area is concave (sunk lower than the toe and heel). What kind of reference surface are you using to check flatness? Screwing up the sole of a plane while flattening is pretty easy to do if you do not follow a proven technique. I would suggest taking a peak at Garret Hack's book or similar authority (David Charlesworth) to make sure you get the right scoop.
I would suggest taking the time to go through all the fettling exercises with this plane before buying a premium tool. You'll learn more this way and appreciate the top of the line tool when you finally make that move. Plus, if you use your tools, eventually you'll have to tune the premium tool also, so may as well learn on the cheapie!
Most of all, have fun while you're learning. Take baby steps and see what works and what doesn't.
T.Z.
I spent time on the frog of the newer Record #4 this morning. I was shocked what I found out.
I flattened the bottom of the frog using a glass plate & sand paper. The surface was very uneven. There is no doubt that it kinked the top of the frog in one direction of the other. So, that was flattened to a uniform plane.
Then I took a good look at the frog's mating surface with the blade. The surface had rough grinding grooves all over it lining up top to bottom. Taking that to the glass plate & sand paper, I was amazed at what I found out. More than a 1/3 of the frog was out of parallel. So I lapped it until the blade had a bearing surface all the way across the frog. There are still grooves in the 1/3 but between them is a surface in the same plane as the rest.
Next, I dusted the mating surface of the bed & the frog with that blue chalk line powder and put them together. That told me that those surfaces seemed to have a pretty good connection. So, I didn't do anything to the bed of the plane.
It was time to test the plane. It was assembled, adjusted and put to the test on the boards that were giving me trouble. The verdict... a distinct differernce for the better. No chatter or tear out, only a nice smooth surface.
I'll have to try on some different wood, but I think I made a real difference in the performance.
Thanks for the advice to all. It made a real difference.
Steve
Play around with these vintage planes to learn your likes and dislikes and then, should you so desire, try a modern, premium plane. It also helps if you have someone close by to demostrate some fettling techniques and even better, if that person has a LN, LV and maybe a Marcou to try.
T.Z.
I forgot to mention that the cap iron had a problem too. The surface closest to the edge of the blade was left in a rough cast condition & was no where close to putting even pressure across the width of the blade.
So, that was flattened into uniform surface.
This plane must have been a newer one. I never thought that the name "Record" would have so many problems.
Lataxe,
I read your response on planes. Quite good. Very incisive. Didn't pull any punches. It was a complex issue, so you devoted the time,energy and words necessary to cover the important parameters of the issue. Glad to see that you are becoming like me, necessarily wordy. I knew you would do so. I just needed to let you have the time to ripen. Please continue to write in this manner. It is a joy to read. Also it is good to find someone who is willing to make full and knowledgeable explanations rather than to merely give a glossy two sentence "sound bite".A couple of more years of his and you are really going to hit your stride. Keep it up.
Bravo.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
Although I cannot match you for keybosity I must come close. I'll take the slightest opportunity to twitter on and on and on.
I like these kind of threads best - tech talk where one may offer a contribution but probably get 10X more by reading the other responses.
I notice that there is a Highly Commended marking from an actual practitioner of the David Charlesworth plane fettling regime. I just bought all three of Mr C's books and can report that they are detailed, explicit and (based on the three do-thises I've followed so far) extremely effective. That's a recommendation. :-)
Of course, one may buy his DVDs on the same subjects, if one is visually-oriented and not adverse to spending relatively large amounts on DVD rather than much smaller amounts on book, with essentially the same information. Some prefer to watch the physical demo rather than have to grasp the wordy stuff. I am too mean to spend all that dosh on DVDs, expecially as I enjoy esoteric technical tomes (with pictures).
One may even pay many hundreds of £s to attend Mr C's regular plane-fettling classes - instruction at the master's knee in lovely Devon! (You lads will have to pay that air fare as well). He does other classes on aspects of furniture making and one day I hope to be instructed in the arts of veneering with hammer and with vacuum bag.
Anyroadup, I'm happy to see that you're happy in your retirement. It's a wonderful state to be in - like being 15 again but with loads of pocket money, bigger toys and no parent tetching or sending one up with no supper after the adventure. However, even unalloyed happiness requires a counterpoint now and then, so I am trying to think how to discomfit you from a distance (only for a minute or ten). :-)
Lataxe, a fellow keyboard abuser.
Lataxe,
Well said!By the way, i really enjoy a good disussion. I enjoy dialectic. I look forward to intelligent conversation in which both sides are really looking to make progress. I enjoy having someone say "Here is why you are wrong, and here is what is correct." Finding out if they are correct is fun. I have a Bachelor of Science in Math and a Masters of Science in Math. For all those years, we put our theorems and proofs on the blackboard and we critiqued each other. GOOD STUFF. What I don't enjoy, and thus ignore, is someone attacking another PERSON, not an idea. Going after ideas is great sport. Going after people is just not my style. So please don't get me wrong or oversimplify. I look forward to a good discussion. If someone tells me there is a better way of making bowls, or that my way will cause them to crack or or or....., I am ready and waiting. If someone assails my character, I just move on. I didn't do that with Charles. I tried to help him see the error of his ways. It was not a useful thing to do. I don't do it anymore. Truck on, Lataxe. You are alright.
Enjoy,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
SW,
since you are "trying to learn" the use of planes, lets look for the simplest solution to the problem of tearout - planing into the grain. Before you blame the plane or your planing technique, verify that you are planing with the grain. That is, look at the edge of the board, you should be planing in the direction that the grain is rising to meet you. Think of it like fur on a pet, with the grain, the pet is happy, against the grain, the fur is ruffled.
Next is to be sure that you are applying downward pressure properly. Yes, you need downward pressure as well as forward pressure. Start with the toe on the board and most of the pressure on the knob, then as the plane comes fully onto the board, pressure should be roughly equal on knob and tote, finally as the toe comes off the board, pressure is shifted to the tote.
Finally, the board must be flat enough for your plane to function well, like working through the grits of sandpaper. You need to start with a rough plane, such as a jack or powered jointer/planer, then a try plane such as a stanley 7 or 8 or equivalent, and then a smoother such as a stanley 4,5 or equivalent.
If you skip the long try plane, the surface may have sufficient dips in it to cause the smoother to tear out wood as it comes off a dip and the wood is not supported in front of the blade.
These are the basics. The best way is to find someone to show you in person. Are there any clubs or stores in your area where you could hook up with someone who has some experience. Even having a friend at your own beginning level to work with will help.
Mike
Mike,
I appreciate your tips. I had noticed that planing in one direction gave better results than in the other and remembered reading something somewhere that planing in a direction relative to the grain was the right thing to do. I just couldn't remember which direction it was. I will remember your advice from now on by thinking of the cat's fur. Good Tip!
I was also wondering if I was planing too high relative to my waist. Now I'm pretty sure that I should keep that in consideration.
You've got me thinking about breaking out the Seargent #7 equivlent & seeing if I can get that working.
Thanks, I'm going to go down stairs now & play.
Steve
I would (gently) disagree with your assessment. This sounds like a problem with the plane, not with the planer. A well fettled, decent jack - say a pre-WWII Bailey #5 (not talking Bedrock here) should be able to plane satisfactorily with, against and diagonal to the grain, if it is not highly figured. When four-squaring maple, I get no chatter and no tearout knocking down stock before using a LN #7 to joint. If the wood is figured, or tricky, that is another matter. But for most standard woods, tear out is not much of a problem. I would definitely make my final passes with a smoother with the grain, but that is to minimize (or avoid) sanding.When Record and Stanley bailed on quality, the major hit was on the machining and careful fitting of the frog and the mouth- that was time and labor intensive, and it was largely eliminated in the post-WWII planes. The soles were none too flat, as well. I'd suspect the frog and the seating near the mouth.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
You have posed a really tough question. Probably the best way to learn about planes is to find some one who has been using them for 20 years. An hour of one on one help from someone with practical experience is worth more than 5 years of reading and screwing around.
A second aproach is to throw both of the ones you have away and buy one good one. Twenty years as a Stanley collector and antique tool dealer and woodworker causes me to make this statement. The rememberance of quality lives on long after price is forgotten. One Good! tool is worth more than two bad ones.
I have tried to use almost every plane you have ever heard of. Some are quite good once you know how to use them. So: What to Do!
Buy a Veritas Bevel up Bench Plane and all four blades. About $400.00 bucks The good stuff ain't cheap. Refer to above statement about quality and price. This plane will do everything you want to do and it will do it straight out of the box. Yes, straight out of the box!!!!!
Remember that the hand plane no matter how good it is will not solve every problem. Scrapers in many cases will work highly figured wood far better that a plane and, yes, there are time when you have to resort to sandpaper. UGHH!!
Read carefully and give some thought to the above as I have been where you are at now. Regards--Ken Kline
Amen to "works right out of the box".
Amen, also to "buy all 4 blades".
The Veritas planes actually work as advertised.
Enjoy.
Mike D
SwartzWuest:
http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/FWNPDF/011172036.pdf
This link will take you to David Charlesworth's article on tuning a plane, far better than the information ni Hack's book. Follow David's steps exactly and you will end up with a fully functioning plane that works as well as possible. I have feddled dozens of planes using David's techniques and the difference in performance is unbelievable. Friends I have tuned plans for have accused me of switch planes on them because they couldn't believe their plane was now capable of highly refined work. David's steps take your through flattening the frog, aligning the frog to the base, fixing the mouth, and flattening/truing the sole, fixing the lever cap, and flattening/sharpening the iron and chipbreaker. These steps are not hard to follow and anybody can do them. Take your time and go slowing through all of the steps until you get the fit you should have between all of the plane parts.
I love the look on a friends face when they suddenly realize that within this piece of junk they gave me "to fix" was one sweet functioning plane. If you have trouble email me and I will try to help. I have tuned up dozens of planes and only had one who's body was so twisted I really couldn't "fix it". I used the good parts off of it to make a nicely functioning #5 that I sold cheap to a young man making his first plane purchase.
Thank you for the link to the article on tuning a plane well. I read it with great interest. It turns out that I had done most of what he recommended in my improvement attempts. I don't have the proper tools to adjust the bed / frog mating surface on the bed. So, I'm too chicken to mess with it.
The plane seems to be working well in its new current state. So, it will stay that way until I decide its performance is not good enough (or I buy the Veristas).
Steve
I guess I just don't get it.
A new Veritas bevel up jack is $206. A jointer is $265.
On e-bay you can find a decent older #51/2 or a #7 or 8 for about $85 if you lurk long enough, plus $15 h&s - say $100. Add $$70 plus h&s = $80 for a replacement Hock blade and chip breaker and you have $180 into something that requires about 4 hours of skilled work or 8 hours of newbie work to be useful.
Minimum wage is $5.15. For a skilled person, that's $20.45. For the rest of us that's $40.90.
So we have $200.45 to $220.90 into a used tool that may or may not work well according to our skill level.
Or we can spend $206 to $265 for a superb tool that just requires using.
Why????? What is the allure of turning a sow's ear into a nylon purse?
(INCOMING!!!!),
Mike D
Edited 5/28/2008 10:23 pm ET by Mike_D
I bought my Bailey #5 (ca 1888) from a local dealer here in PA for $35. The tote was a bit worn, but the sole was nearly flat, and there was plenty of plane iron left. I spent ~2 hours fettling it- lapped the sole to dead flat, sharpened the blade, eased the mouth and honed the chip breaker. My total investment to date is $35, plus 2 hours of my time (part of which was spent making coffee and listening to Miles Davis). I might buy a Hock blade in the future, but maybe not.The plane works great- I have both LV and LN- I see no reason to buy another #5.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Mike,
There are many pleasures derived from woodworking one of which is to take an old tool and make it into a pleasure to use. Not to mention the experience one gains that may be very difficult, if not impossible to get any other way.
The pride and satisfaction that one gets........ Oh yeah, it's also one less piece to end up in the landfill!
Now, what price would you place on that?
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Ah, you and Glaucon are both gentlemen.
Perhaps I suffer from a bit of sour grapes. I actually would like to play around with a decent #7 and see what I could do with it. But, so far as I can determine, the $35 #6 or #7 in reasonably good shape is a rare find, indeed. Certainly they aren't on ebay as they are "sniped" to $85 (or more) in the last second of bidding, and the ones I've found at local fleamarkets are "no Scottish", i.e., pitted, cracked, mishmash of parts.
And, I really have no excuse for not getting it. I'm busy making a cabinet for my wife that I could easily have had a local shop make for far less cost in terms of dollars, tools, time, and materials. But I like doing it.
Best Regards,
Mike D
Different strokes........
Hey, it's all good, right?
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Mike,I don't buy my tools on eBay- I like to look at them first, and I always bring a try square. Bedrocks will price ~LN, as they are valued by collectors. Baileys can be had for $25-75, depending on the model. FWW had an issue a few years back that discussed local dealers of vintage tools. There were a fair amount in the Northeast, Midwest and elsewhere. A local dealer who has a barn full of stock that you can pick up and take apart is a better bet for a good deal than either eBay or a flea market, IMHO.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Thanks, Glaucon,
I'll snoop around and see if there are any such dealers here in the Louisville area.
Mike D
Mike,I would think given that since Louisville and surrounds were developed in a big way in the late 19th and 20th C, you should be in luck. Some strategies: go to a flea market- if you see tools, you can talk to the vendor, he will often tell you of the guy who has a barn full (word of mouth amongst these folks is their preferred advertising method). If you have antique shops that handle less than the carriage trade furniture (e.g. quilts, depression glass, antique bottles)- they will likely know somebody who does tools. Also I think northern Kentucky has/had some Amish and Mennonite communities, another possible source.What you want is the guy who is a pack rat with a barn full- not the one selling a Stanley #1 in the original box, or a Norris smoother- but the guy who has 17 Bailey #5s, and 120 Disston carcass saws, etc... It'll be a scratch and dent sale- but if the sole is near flat (esp around the mouth and forward), if the plane disassembles and all the parts fit back and mate together easily (hybrid parts are to be avoided), and there are no cracks near the mouth and frog assembly- then you're good to go. For Baileys, you shouldn't need to go much above $50-75, a #7 or #8 might be higher as they are harder to find.All else fails, tell you better half that you are flying to PA "to save money on tools..."Good luck,
Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Hi Glaucon,
Well, the weekend is upon us, so I'll take your advise and poke around the antique shops in our area. Maybe I'll hit the jackpot!
Mike D
Hi Mike,
I actually would like to play around with a decent #7 and see what I could do with it.
If I happen upon a decent #7 I'd be more than happy to send it your way. I have 2 right now; one in dreadful shape (meaning that it's rusty and dirty but everything else is in good shape) and another that I have only started working on (started on last winter when it was too cold in the woodshop).
I also have several folks that I'll be visiting over the weekend who have numerous planes I will be looking at - hoping to find either some Millers Falls or Bedrock(s).......
Soooooooooooo, if you're interested I'm confident I can get you a #7 to play around with. Let me know and if you'll pay the postage we'll see ya on that slippery slope.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Hi Bob,
I would like to play around with a decent #7 depending on the cost, and I would certainly pay the postage. What would you expect to pay for one in reasonable shape? I need an idea before I ask you to commit.
However, based on my recent experience, I'm not sure that my price expectation is reasonable. My main issue is that as the cost of purchasing and refurbishing a plane starts approaching the $100 point, my wallet starts skootching over to the Lee Valley catalog and casting eyes at the low angle jacks and jointers.
Best Regards,
Mike D
Mike,
What would you expect to pay for one in reasonable shape? I need an idea before I ask you to commit.
OK, let's try and clear the air, at least from my perspective anyway. To me price is not the issue but rather the goal(s).
If the goal(s) is/are to experience the fettling process, resurrect and old tool, experience the pride of restoration and/or learn a ton about old tools and how they might have worked, then I'm all over that.
They're are those that can't be bothered with all this so called nonsense and that's fine too - wanna work wood and see fettling beyond function as a waste of time then that's ok too. Like I've said, different strokes.....
Now to compare the low angle jacks and jointers to these old tools is a fools errend at best - they are not in the same ballpark with each other. I don't mean that to be condescending but rather the comparison is well, no comparison at all. But again I emphasize that's just my opinion and we all have those, right?
So the ball is in your court. As for me, my motivation is quite simple; sharing. Hey, after messing with an old plane you may find that to be a fools errand also. That's ok too. Just promise me one thing - you won't let it languish in a junk heap and rust into oblivion.
Also, both of these were basically given to me so I have 0$$ in them and maybe a few more heading in my general direction! :-)
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Hi Bob, Clearing's the air's good. I appear to have annoyed you, and I'm sorry that I have.
I think that your offer to locate a plane for me is a generous one, but I also have a limited budget and I don't want to be irresponsible. I didn't presume that you were going to give me a plane, thus my question into what might it cost?
My motivation when I restore an old tool is either so that I can get a better tool than one that I can buy off the shelf, or so I can get what I need up and working until I can afford the tool that I want.
The case for handplanes is a little more complicated. I'm learning to really like them, but since I work in figured maple, the plane needs to be about perfect to compensate for my limited skills. I have a post WWII Stanley #4 that was just worthless before I followed someone here on Knots' instructions and fettled it into usefulness. It now works fine on most woods, but is still hopeless on figured maple due to tear-out - the blade's too thin (chatters), and the angle is too low. Now that I've got a LV BUS for Christmas (with all three blades!), I mostly now use the Stanley as scrub plane, and to make one edge of long rough-sawn boards safe for ripping on my table saw.
I followed Leonard Lee's directions (in "Sharpening") for fettling a Stanley block plane that I'd had for years as well, and now it works very nicely. Great sense of accomplishment, but I'm still curious, so someday when I'm able to afford a LV Low Angle block plane I'll learn if my much improved $12 plane works as well as the LV one.
Now I'm at the point when I think that I need a jointer plane )and then a jack plane). But I can't afford the LV offering just yet, so it would be interesting to see if I can restore an old Bailey to usefulness. In my case "usefulness" means able to work figured maple without tearout. I don't know if I can or not, so my motivation to spend very much money on the experiment is limited.
Hope this helps to clarify where I'm at.
Oh, I forgot. I'm the child of Depression Era parents, so nothing usefull goes into the dust bin around here. I either use it or give it to someone who can use it.
I enjoy our conversations,
Best Regards,
Mike Dyer
Edited 5/30/2008 1:28 pm ET by Mike_D
Mike,
No way on this Earth did I mean to convey the impression you annoyed me - just the opposite.
I thought I heard a desire to learn more about these old relics and the enjoyment anticipated. I have an extra and saw where I felt it would be put to good use by you.
Maybe my choice of words lead you to believe I was annoyed but I guess I was trying to clearly state how I feel about these tools. It's all too easy to get mislead on digital talkies like Knots. The nice part is dealing with real people like yourself. We misunderstand, have some more discussion, then we understand each other, and life is good.
Oh, and the offer still stands and will if and when you decide what direction you want to go. I'd just like you to know I'm confident the plane will be a source of enjoyment.
Best Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Mike,
In my case "usefulness" means able to work figured maple without tearout. I don't know if I can or not, so my motivation to spend very much money on the experiment is limited.
Ahhh, I see. Hmmm that's a different scenario, maybe.
I'm still on the fence about which is better for highly figured woods - low angle or high angle. I'm kinda sidestepping that a bit and using abrasives to get me where I need to go for the time being. Also finding out what I can do with a well tuned scraper too.
You can no doubt restore an old Bailey to usefullness but for highly figured wood I'm not so sure. I can honestly say that is no doubt from lack of experience on my part.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Assuming you've properly fettled your planes (and all planes need it, including LN and LV, just a whole lot less work than a cheap Record or a beat-up antique), there's a relatively simple, quick and cheap way to plane figured maple without tearout:
1) Plane cross-grain, then clean up with a scraper. Cross-grain planing always works, regardless of the grain's squirreliness, though it isn't as satisfying as planing the length of the board. Of course, planing cross-grain is not for truing (unless the board is cupped or twisted), it's for the final step before the finishing pass with a scraper plane or an infill smoother.
2) Wet the board with alcohol (denatured ethanol). This trick is more universally applicable than #1, above, because you can also use it with powered planers and jointers. The alcohol softens the wood fibers and makes them easier to cut - the plane chatters less and produces significantly less tear-out.
For more on this topic, see Chris Schwarz's Lost Art Press Blog - http://blog.lostartpress.com/default,month,2007-12.aspx
(this link is for the December 2007 posts, which contain the majority of his entries on taming tear-out. The series started in November 2007, with a couple of addendums in February 2008. You can access these by clicking on the "Archives" link on the left side of the page)
Plane cross-grain, then clean up with a scraper.
Excellent advice!
I have just finished planing a drawer front made from Sepiature. This had got to be one of the most difficult in recent years to clean up. The grain reverses within inches, and to top this it appears to have striations of opposing grain as well.
I tried to plane it with a LV BUS set with a 62 degree cutting angle. It did not make it. Tear out city!
So I plane across the board (across the grain). No tear out. And finished with cabinet scrapers. Smoooth.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Thank you, 4 times.
1. I hadn't heard about planing cross grain. I will certainly try that.
2. I had heard about wetting the wood - just hadn't heard about using denatured alcohol to do it with. This is one that I use with my power jointer and planer, but not with a hand plane. The little grey cells should have made that leap, but, alas, did not.
3. Great articles on tearout by Christopher Schwarz. Very clarifying. I really like his philosophy towards woodworking - he is my favorite writer about woodworking.
4. Thanks for the url to LostArtPress. Now on my favorites list.
Regards,
Mike D
P.S. I've not fettled my LV BUS for two reasons - 1. It cuts like I always imagined a plane would cut, right out of the box, and 2. I fear that any screwing around with it at all would change that for the worst. So I just sharpen the blade scary sharp, keep it honed to the point where the individual atoms on the edge pop in and out of reality in random time, and quietly hum "OMMMmmm" as I make shavings, both thick and thin.
Edited 6/1/2008 7:40 pm ET by Mike_D
Hi Mike,
I'm curious to know if these techniques would work with birds eye maple? Cross grain smoothing and wetting with DNA. Also, when cross grain smoothing do you go at it on a 90° or 45° attack? Haven't yet read Chris' info.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob,They've worked for me. I use a LN 4 1/2 with a York-pitch and denatured alcohol. "Cross-grain" with bird's-eye is a bit of a misnomer, but if you plane 45-30 degrees with the grain, I find it minimizes tear out. I finish with a card scraper. There will still be some tear out, but it is much less and this reduces frustration (and sanding).Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
"Cross-grain" with bird's-eye is a bit of a misnomer, but if you plane 45-30 degrees with the grain, I find it minimizes tear out. I finish with a card scraper. There will still be some tear out, but it is much less and this reduces frustration (and sanding).
Hi Glaucon
In situations where a high angled plane is not working, I will plane at 90 degrees to the grain. Although probably not new to many (what is new?), I came up with this myself after thinking about the way to minimise tearout with a scrub plane (I will often need to plane across the grain with that as well) and the effect on the surface when planing across the grain when flattening a panel. When planing this way, I often prefer a low cutting angle over a high one.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,Thanks for your suggestion. I think my remark about "cross-grain" in bird's eye was tongue-in-cheek... when planing small, highly figured BE panels for boxes, it can be hard to tell if the grain is going in any particular direction. But you probably don't see such woods in Antipodia...(LOL)Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Hi Bob,
Well, I haven't tried it yet, but I thought it meant at 90 degrees. But Glaucon suggests that angled might be the better term. My maple project vacillates between curly and quilted maple - beautiful, if a little challenging.
Mike D
Re: Fettling your BUS - So long as you take a file to the blade seat, there's little chance you're going to really screw it up by flattening the sole.
On a LV or LN product, it's unlikely you'd need to fettle the frog (or the blade seat in the case of a BUS), though you could check this with a magic marker - completely darken the blade contact area, re-install the blade, then plane some scrap for 5-10 minutes. Disassemble, and you should have transfer well-distributed on the back of the blade. If not, a (little) file work with a #0 smooth-cut file might be in order. One caution - DO NOT use a "mill-cut bastard" file - otherwise known as a "file" by the goofball behind the hardware store counter. They are far, far too coarse for all but the most radical metal removal jobs - sharpening lawn mower blades is a much better application for these files.
For sole flattening, buy some #77 3M spray adhesive (available at most home improvement stores) and some 400 grit wet/dry silicon carbide sandpaper. Lightly spray the back of a couple of sheets of this paper with the adhesive, then stick them down short edge to short edge on either your table saw table (if it's machined steel or cast iron) or your jointer outfeed table (if your table saw is a contractor type). Darken the plane sole with a magic marker, install the blade, frog, lever cap, etc... with the same tension as you normally use it, back the blade off a bit, and, applying even pressure on the front and back totes, take 4 or 5 passes on the sandpaper.
Re-examine the sole. If all of the black marks are gone all over the sole, it's dead flat and you're done. If not, repeat until at least the front of the throat, the front of the plane, and the heel of the plane are all at the same level (i.e., the black magic marker marks dissappear first in these areas).
When finished, you can easily peel the paper back off of your jointer/table saw bed, and low-odor mineral spirits or kerosene easily dissolves the glue. Definitely don't get interrupted and leave the paper stuck down for several days - it'll be considerably harder to remove.
It's worth doing this to even a high-end plane when it's first put into commission and then again every couple of years if you're a casual user, or about every 6 months if you make heavy use of the plane.
While I understand and appreciate your perspective, one of the hardest lessons for an engineer to learn is "if it isn't broken, leave it alone". In the distant past, in search of perfection I have 'tweaked' perfectly fine tools and machines into things of sad disaster.
My BUS works. I tweaketh it not.
Best regards,
Mike D
Ha! - "Tweaketh it not" I'm going to have to remember that one.
Of course, the more common way to say "if it isn't broken, leave it alone" is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" (I'm also an engineer - a Pin-Headed Dope (PhD) in fact). I'm also quite fond of "If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway."
One thing to remember, though, is that you WILL have to flatten the sole on your planes eventually. All planes will go out of true from wear and use, though made of iron they may be. And they must be flat within a couple of thousandths over the entire length of the sole.
Whatever plane is in use, one rarely sees mention of a form of lubrication, yet this can make the world of difference to performance and results. Now I am using Rocol as a sole dressing (it was given to me) and there is no effort to getting good shavings. Before, it was just not so easy.
No matter how well the plane works, lubrication will enhance performance.
Mufti
Do you believe that lubrication of the plane's sole aides the prevention of tearout, or just ease in planing? I was of the opinion that lubricating the wood reduces the risk of tearout, but may not do much for the plane action.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I speak only from my experience Derek, but the progress of my planes is noticeably improved by lubrication of the sole. Tear out I try to deal with in closing the mouth, planing across the grain or using a York (or steeper) pitch to the iron.
Interlocked grain is a bummer, and I have tried dampening the surface, applying coats of thin superglue, thin hide glue or shellac with varying degrees of success or failure depending upon your view of the world. It does seem to be taking pot luck and I get more than my share of the good. If all fails I will rip the board and reassemble at 90 degrees to lose the problem.
I use metal and wood planes, I hope the above makes sense.
Best wishes, David
I do lubricate the sole with something that sounds like Camellia oil - wish I could be more definitive, but the label is gone. Smells nice, makes the sole go "whoosh" on the wood, and doesn't seem to affect the adherence of finish.
I've got to try this cross-grain plaining the next time I get into trouble. I met a piece that would NOT behave even with a 62 degree setting using my BUS. Had just as bad of luck with scrapers on that one, and finally gave up and ROS'd it into a sort of submission.
Mike D
I know that feeling, bought camelia oil and, as you say, it smells nice! Iroko sometimes gives me problems since the rowed bands are crumbly to start with and the options are limited. I have filled the grain of those bands before starting which can work, but it limits finishing options.
We cannot all have perfect wood, if we posted what does not work as well as what does it might help.
Best wishes, David
Hi,
At the turn of the 19 century an oil resorvoir was patened to replace the front tote on some Stanley planes. The plane (tote) is quite rare suggesting that it didn't work. This in an era when planes were used by other than hobbyists. Wax your tools to keep them in good condition and slick.
The only plane I have ever used that works is the Veritas bevel up smoother. Get the 50 degree and 50 degree toothed blades. Use the toothed blade for knots followed by a scraper.
If you are one who uses planes eight hours a day and hold ceramonies befor each use you will probably diagree.
I'll look forward to reading some of the other answers. Regards--Ken
"The only plane I have ever used that works is the Veritas bevel up smoother."
!!!???
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
"The only plane I have ever used that works is the Veritas bevel up smoother. Get the 50 degree and 50 degree toothed blades. Use the toothed blade for knots followed by a scraper."
Hopefully that's a bit of an exaggeration. If not, you're seriously missing out on what a good bench plane can do. All that's required to make a Lie-Nielsen or Lee Valley bevel-down plane work like a champ is honing the back of the blade to a mirror polish (pretty easy because both firm's blades come from the factory very, very flat), and hone a slight camber on the bevel to prevent the corners from digging in.
Hi,
Thanks for the heads up on using a bevel on the other side of the iron. I have read something about that technique but have never tried it. I did exagerate a bit about the Veritas plane. Hard to explain all of the nuances involved in using planes.
Twenty year collector and dealer of antiques planes so I have been fortunate enough to have been able to try or own most of the popular English and American planes. For a beginner (I'm bullheaded) I would still recommend the Veritas. Best regards--Ken
"Twenty year collector and dealer of antiques planes so I have been fortunate enough to have been able to try or own most of the popular English and American planes. For a beginner (I'm bullheaded) I would still recommend the Veritas"
I would lean towards a Veritas or L/N for use by a beginner , too.
But I think you should try out and own other planes of note.Philip Marcou
Derek,
Just chiming in and noticed you said "I was of the opinion that lubricating the wood reduces the risk of tearout, but may not do much for the plane action."
I am surprised that you have not noticed the salient benefit of using a lubricant on the sole, as from what I know about Australian timbers they are many and diverse, and some are bound to be "sticky". I can't see how a lubricant would reduce tearout but certainly some timbers are very difficult to plane if one doesn't use some sort of lubricant to reduce drag. Iroko is one such timber, and no matter whether it is a steel or a cast iron sole the use of a lubricant is most helpful.
I have always used a candle-which is just paraffin wax. Very convenient and causes no complications with finishes. In factories we used to order slabs of this "wax" for use on planer tables etc.Philip Marcou
Hi Philip
I fear I was misunderstood. I use a little candle on the soles of my metal planes all the time. The woodies do not need it. What I meant by lubricating the sole not making a difference was that it does not prevent tear out. The point I was making was that wetting the wood could help in this regard, but wetting the plane's sole will not.
Perhaps I need FreeTranslation.com to help me out in the future? :)
Regards from Perth
Derek
Hello Mike,
Nothing wrong with you economics, BuT----Sometime you have to walk before you can run. You have to hit a lot of golf balls before you learn that a better club will make you a better golfer. The more we know about fettleing a plane the more we come to appreciate one that does it all. I love my Veritas. Regards--Ken
Glad you enjoyed the article. Mating the frog to the plane body isn't as hard as it seems. You can turn a 6" flat file into a metal scraper in about ten minutes on any bench grinder. Just grind off the teeth on each side about an inch back from the business end of the file. Then grind the end into a slight convex. Following Charlesworth's instructions, use a light touch when scraping the frog mating surfaces. You wouldn't think it, but getting the frog fully seated makes a huge difference in a plane's performance.
It might be worth it to look for a nice old stanley #4 that will work with your blade.
I think you can probably find one on ebay for less than you spent on the blade- I found mine for $10 plus $7 shipping. Cleaned it up and refinished the rosewood handles and it can handle even the toughest woods like curly maple with little to no tear-out.
I think you will enjoy the process of tuning an old plane... it just might be worth you time to get a better one to start off with. Look for a stanley that is at least old enough to have wooden handles. A little rust is ok so long as everything looks solid.
I did all the tune ups you have done (hock blade, flatten the sole, file the mouth and adjust the frog, etc)
In addition to that I checked the fit between the chip breaker and the blade very carefully.
I am using the thick hock chip breaker, but that should not make that big of a difference.
You need a very nice fit between these two pieces or the blade will chatter. I used a 1000 grit water stone to shape the chip breaker, but sandpaper on glass will do as well. Just work the edge with the rest of the chip breaker hanging off the stone at a slight negative angle (you want only the very tip of the chip breaker to rest on the blade)
Screw them together and look for light between the blade and the breaker. If you see any, try to work that spot some more.
Check to make sure your cap iron is putting a decent amount of pressure on your blade. Use the #5 stanley as a reference.
Lastly, make sure your sharpening is up to snuff. The Hock guide to sharpening that came with your blade (your blade was wrapped in it) is the best basic guide I've ever found. Read it and practice.
Good luck, and keep up the hard work... it will pay off when everything is properly tuned and you have a tool that will perform well for the rest of your life.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled