My landlord, who is a farmer, but likes to be known to do “some woodworking now and again, since I was apprenticed in the building trade” (read: he knows how to nail wooden houses together), and whose Grand Pappy was a cabinet maker, came up with these two planes, one of which he says he used all his life.
“Could they be cleaned up a bit, the #6 doesn’t cut very well now, and the #8 was my Granddad’s so I would like to keep it nice”.
Warning: don’t look unless under suitable supervision.
Strangely enough I can’t see much of Larry’s wear around that mouth. (;)
Philip Marcou
Replies
Looks like he's been planing the leavings of ruminants "all his life".
................................................
Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
~ Denis Diderot
Don,
I hate to say it, but maybe I could ask him to return the #8 to the hen coop. Maybe if they sit on it some they could hatch a #9.(;)Philip Marcou
I would dig around in the straw and chicken shat, it looks like it's been there long enough for any progeny to have already hatched!
................................................
Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.~ Denis Diderot
So what have you done to them, Philip?
Malcolm
"Strangely enough I can't see much of Larry's wear around that mouth."
Evidently we're still having comprehension or clarity problems. I don't recall suggesting the back edge of the mouth had much impact on a plane's performance. That is the back of the mouth at the top, right?
If you want to show the wear to the mouth, turn that plane around and take a similar photo at the same angle. It's hard to see that wear surface when it's facing the same direction as the camera--it's kinda hidden that way.
You know Philip, old Stanleys are pretty common in the US. I don't need to convince people mouth wear is an issue, most people here probably have a few in their shop they can check themselves. Or they can just start looking for a crisp mouth when shopping for old planes; Stanley, Norris or whatever. I've always been sure that putting a crisp mouth on the list of critical features when shopping for old planes would radically change the definition of "user" grade tools.
My experience with old Stanley's from 1880 - 1935 or so is that most - especially of the later vintages - were apprently owned as parts of farm or homeowner tool kits and were rather lightly used. Some no doubt were used by cabinet shops and finish carpenters etc. where they were daily, but the overwhelming majority of common bench planes seem to have had much easier lives where rust was a much bigger threat than sole wear.
Relax, Larry,
I am well aware of which end of the mouth is prone to wear-and there is nothing significant there, and it is clear from any angle of the photo.Given its history and state of the blade etc, I would have expected to see wear at the mouth. It would clean up with minimal grinding: but I won't bother because that plane is doomed to continue being abused- may even join the #8 in the hen coop.
I couldn't agree more that a crisp mouth is necessary -that is one reason for surface grinding .
Edited 3/5/2009 2:15 pm by philip
Sorry, forgot the picture.Philip Marcou
Philip,Your #6, as you said, has seen very little use. One can look at the amount of slot visible above the cap iron and see the iron virtually at factory length. Now look at the leading edge of the mouth. On the right one can see what a crisp mouth should look like--a crisp transition between the sole and the vertical portion of the mouth, what would be called the wear if it was a wooden plane. Now look at the center of the mouth. See that relatively wide bright spot where there should be a crisp transition? That's wear to the mouth.That wear, if it extends back from the mouth only the thickness of a piece of paper, would effectively double the mouth opening if one was to try to set the mouth at .004". It looks to me like that's about how much wear is present in your little-used plane with a nearly full factory length iron.Like I've been saying, wear to the mouth of a metal plane is a significant issue. Thanks for illustrating that.
Larry,not so fast....
"Your #6, as you said, has seen very little use."
On the contrary, I said it has seen a lot of use- the fellow has had it all his working life, most of which was in the building/joinery trade-he only recently retired to "farm".
In the picture you can compare my used Stanley blade with his- clearly his is not by any means "virtually at factory length".Given that the guy is naturally frugal, and not armed with a battery of powered sharpening devices,I would say that that plane in particular has been used to hell and back (albeit on softwoods and non abrasive types).
Using that straight edge right on the arris shows virtually no wear-and I am surprised.
There are other indications of heavy use such as the y lever tip and the base of the handle wear the hand has worn the wood.I think I can reliably state that it has seen a life time of use, given that he got it in 1959, and made a living in the trade.
"Now look at the center of the mouth. See that relatively wide bright spot where there should be a crisp transition? That's wear to the mouth."
Actually it is not- it is where I rubbed a steel rule in an effort to remove crud etc when taking the photos! Remember that the photos accentuate things, often.And I had to use a flash .
I am beginning to wonder if the American Stanleys were made of cast iron different to the English ones (mostly British ones here naturally).
I have more pictures of an antique # 4-before surface grinding and during-at a first pass of 1.5thou you can see that the mouth area is crisp.Have a look at my next post, and try to be less defensive- I am merely pointing out things as I see them, and comparing with what you are saying.Philip Marcou
Edited 3/6/2009 12:26 am by philip
Larry and all who may be interested:
The pictures show stages in surfacing the sole of an old #4- if not 100 years it must be close. Two generations of full time cabinet makers and that is not the original blade.
At first glance it is clear the mouth is "good", but there seems to be wear at toe and heel (frantic planing method, or what (;)). This is confirmed when a first pass of less than 11/2thou is taken. I left it at 2.5thou.Time taken to do the sole and sides-28 minutes, without getting frantic.Philip Marcou
Edited 3/6/2009 3:10 am by philip
Philip,I'm sure there must be a pea under one of these shells, I just wish you'd stop adding shells.Maybe we should start at the end and work back. First, the number 4 you show looks to be a type 9 US production Stanley. These were made between 1902 and 1907 which, I believe, predates any production of Stanley planes outside the US. Hmmm, I don't consider a 20th Century plane ancient but that may be just my perspective.So you could remove the wear to the mouth in 28 minutes on your surface grinder when taking one and a half thousandths per pass. Okay, all you woodworkers out there who have a surface grinder in your shops raise your hands. Hey, no problem. Grizzly sells one for a mere $1,800. But wait, that grinder might take three or four ten thousandths per pass and will only handle things 12" long so we're not going to fix the sole of that #6 we were discussing. Not a problem, Grizzly has one that'll do 18" for only $4,000. Just goes to show how stupid I am, I've always had to resort to lapping soles on sand paper.The time when I had a surface grinder to work with the only metal plane I tuned was a coffin sided Norris A-5 and it would have taken longer to make a fixture to hold that plane than to spend several hours lapping it by hand.Can we go back to that #6? To me, that plane looks to be a 1970s or 1980's production British Stanley but then I'm no expert about the British made Stanley planes. Those planes have a notorious reputation for poor machining and my experience verifies that. I'm sure if someone were to ask about the British Stanley planes here, they'd be advised to save their money. It's really difficult to look at this in photos and discuss it here. What would be easy is to ask people to tell us about their crisp Stanley mouths. Of all the Stanley planes I've had in my life, I only have nine of the old bench planes left. Not a single one has what I would consider a crisp mouth but my #3 is close.
Edited 3/6/2009 10:24 am by lwilliams
To Larry and Philip,"To me, that plane looks to be a 1970s or 1980's production British Stanley"It is understandable that it would be a British plane given Philip's part of the world, but what is there discernable in Philip's photos that exactly defines it as a British version vs. U.S. and what is the difference visually of a circa 1975 version that would be different in a circa 1900s version that can be discerned in these shots?Just trying to see what you guys are seeing.Boiler
Boiler,Look at the shape of the frog and its cast in recesses. The rounded apex of the angles of the iron and cap iron and the minimal shaping of the lever cap are also indications of a late 20th Century British Stanley. The real issue with them though is the incredibly sloppy machining. The frogs rarely, if ever, match the seats in the body of the plane which creates all kinds of problems with the quality of the cut. Actually, they started using plastic totes and knobs in the mid 80's so Philip's plane was made before then. Those planes made in Great Britain also have "Made in England" cast into them. You'll see that between the knob and the escapement in Philip's plane. I was under the impression that Stanley moved its plane production to Great Britain in the early 1960's but I'm not sure if any of their planes were made there before then. I'd look it up but I don't really care.The funny thing is that it appears the iron in the #6 still bears part the original factory bevel. If you look, you'll see where the auto feed grinder had some the back lash slop at the start of the grind. You can see where it bites in then raises and settles in again which creates a low spot at the side then a high spot before the uniform grind. I can't say for sure, I'd actually have to see the iron. I don't think the same person honed the iron that honed it, the grind appears uniform and pretty fine for a normal shop grinder and the honing isn't uniform. If things are what they look like they may be, Philip's neighbor might have honed the iron three or four times over the last 30 or 40 years. It must have been a real b!tch to use that plane as much as is claimed.You can find type studies of Stanley planes on the Internet but I don't know of any that include the British Stanleys made after Stanley moved production to Great Britain in the 1960s. The later British planes are of no interest to collectors and they're the ones that do all the research. These type studies show the various features of the planes and how they changed over the years. As for what Philip is seeing, I haven't a clue and it seems to change as conditions dictate.I've attached a blow up of that #6 iron and mouth. I think I'm seeing the classic pattern of mouth wear and you can see the bevel grind I mentioned. I'm still waiting for all the reports of crisp mouths to come flowing in.
The funny thing is that it appears the iron in the #6 still bears part the original factory bevel .... things are what they look like they may be, Philip's neighbor might have honed the iron three or four times over the last 30 or 40 years.
Larry
They did supply awfully short irons back then. Stingy, doncha think?
View Image
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 3/6/2009 7:57 pm ET by derekcohen
Derek,I hate to tell you this but that is the iron from the #4 as near as I can tell. I was thinking about posting both the photo I put up and an enlarged one of the iron photo you just posted. They're not the same irons. The one you posted lacks the grinding backlash and has an entirely different pattern of dark rust. I originally thought Philip was posting a photo of that #6 iron too but when I re-read his post I decided he was just showing the #4 iron. Maybe I'll just put both photos together into one so people can compare them for themselves.
Larry,
Don't be ridiculous: both those irons are the same width-one from the #6 and the other from my own #41/2 or #51/2 or #6-all interchangeable
Is there any point of discussing with you ?This shows that you have an unhealthy attitude indeed.
Tip: print that photo out and it will be clearer-or do I have to include a #4 iron for you?
Edited 3/6/2009 9:02 pm by philip
Thank you, I'll look at Stanley's more closely in the future. If I get enough of them - one of each, I can have dueling planes. Re-fight the revolution as it were :)
Larry,
I have no idea why you feel the need to be so combative-do you ever re-read what you write?
"So you could remove the wear to the mouth in 28 minutes on your surface grinder when taking one and a half thousandths per pass. Okay, all you woodworkers out there who have a surface grinder in your shops raise your hands. Hey, no problem. Grizzly sells one for a mere $1,800. But wait, that grinder might take three or four ten thousandths per pass and will only handle things 12" long so we're not going to fix the sole of that #6 we were discussing. Not a problem, Grizzly has one that'll do 18" for only $4,000. Just goes to show how stupid I am, I've always had to resort to lapping soles on sand paper."
I am not suggesting for one moment that all woodworkers have , or should have, a surface grinder in their shops. I put up those pictures for interest purposes and TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOU that even though that #4 was close to if not over 100 years old, it took very little to clean up the sole-and the mouth wear was negligible, certainly nothing that would make a fig of difference to the owner .I would have expected you to consider why this is so , when I have already said the plane was much used by two generations of cabinet makers and showed wear at the toe and heel.
That Browne and Sharp grinder can handle a length in excess of 18 inches-which means that I can handle a #6 if need be, but not a #7 or #8.Where do you get the 12 inches from? The #6 in question is not going to be ground because it is a waste of time considering the type of use it will be put to. See the picture of another #6 that I surfaced and reclaimed: a #6 is 18 inches long last time I looked
I said it took 28 minutes- to do the whole job including set up and the sides-not just to do the sole. The owner insisted on it being ground all over-that is what he got, but I noticed points of interest whilst doing it which are at odds with what you say you observe.Try to be objective.
"The time when I had a surface grinder to work with the only metal plane I tuned was a coffin sided Norris A-5 and it would have taken longer to make a fixture to hold that plane than to spend several hours lapping it by hand."
-----So what? That tells me that you were unable to come up with a simple method of holding the work (apart from being silly enough to spend so long hand lapping a sole). I showed a picture of one method, using standard tool room tools. I use a second vice if the plane is longer eg a #6. A Norris would be much easier to hold than the Stanley types, and not so prone to distortion. The vice I show is merely holding the plane in place (and not clamping the life out of it) and the two jacks keep it parallel to the grinding wheel travel. Getting it parallel is a simple job, well worth any extra time. Any machinist harping on about set up time for a simple job like that is bulldusting to avoid the job-this would be of interest to those who would want to have any sole surfacing done by a shop- they should pick another shop.
"I'm sure if someone were to ask about the British Stanley planes here, they'd be advised to save their money."
-----That is akin to saying that the only motorcycle worthwhile is a Harley Davidson. Both sides of Stanley made some good ones and bad ones at various times.I couldn't give a fig which, simply interested in a good one when I see it. There is nothing wrong with the #6 in question as far as manufacturing standards go - why can't you accept that from me? You have just said that you are "no expert about the British made Stanley planes".....
See: there are differences between you and I. I would like to discuss, compare, show alternative methods which may be of interest to others, whilst you would simply instruct from your own rigid point of view-and regard most folk as knowing nowt, be they hobbyists or professionals, especially if they merely make observations which do not coincide with yours. I think this is unfortunate-for you.
Philip Marcou
Philip,Beautiful restoration. Very Beautiful.Two questions.2. How do you mill the frog seat (is there an easier method than surface grinding - if you don't have a grinder) and,2. What is your process for the Japanning ?Thanks Boiler
Boiler,
The frog seat i.e the part on the sole: one cannot reach that with a surface grinder, only with a mill as far as I know. However, despite the blanket condemnation of these planes made at various times, I haven't seen one , not one, that could not be rectified, smoothed , evened up or whatever, by a few minutes of filing , or scraping with a simple woodworking chisel ground off at 90 degrees.It's just cast iron which is easy to file and scrape-as you know I think because of your background? Often it is just some paint in the way.
The frog seat: that part of the frog itself which fits against the sole: a simple filing is all that would ever be needed, if at all.
---This mantra about them being useless because of sloppy machining etc is exaggeration-by "them" I mean both Record and Stanley. Sure , they can and do have other faults, which are not worth rectifying.
---I would not bother to mill one- should I come across one that bad I would use it for parts.
Japanning: I don't bother about that with ordinary workers- I use fast drying auto lacquers or enamels.If I had a valuable one like some of those I pictured belonging to that collector, I would either leave it as is, or use a baking lacquer which is more durable and nobody can tell the difference unless they analyse it.
I must just point out that planes like that #6 that I fix up for resale provide a challenge in the form of the need to get them into good working order as fast as possible i.e the emphasis is not on making them look nice.Philip Marcou
Philip,
Maybe I was mistaken about the iron. I didn't realize when Stanley was cheapening their planes for British production they shortened the cap iron by an inch or so. I used to belong to some of the tool collectors groups and attended a lot of tool meets over the years. I learned how to spot a good little used and easy to resell plane at a glance but I never even gave the British made Stanleys a bit of attention because very few would buy them. I sure didn't want them myself and I wasn't interested in anything I'd be hauling around for years.
So why would I think the plane was little used. Here's your photo:
View Image
Notice the amount of blade slot showing above the cap iron on your #6.
Here's a similar photo of a #6 and #608. My #6 has more of the original iron than yours but notice that there's almost no blade slot showing above the cap iron. My #608 was a good find that I don't think had ever touched wood before I got it. The only thing I've used it for is modifying the factory bevels on architectural doors so I could hang the doors the way I wanted. I quit doing carpentry shortly after getting the plane so it has virtually the full factory length to the iron. You can see how much slot is visible above the cap iron.
View Image
Here's your photo of your iron:
View Image
And here's a similar photo of the iron from my #6:
View Image
So unless Derek was right and even the British Stanley irons were shortened by Stanley being "stingy." My #6 looks to have less use than yours. So what does the mouth wear look like on my #6?
View Image
It's actually less wear than I would expect given the shortness of the iron. I guess the guy who used it knew what he was doing and used it as a traditional fore plane with the mouth pretty open?
Now, as to surface grinding a sole. In the old tool world surface grinding a sole is considered very risky if not a sin. Just as it does in any machining process, metal deflects ahead of the cutting edge or grinding wheel. Unlike wood, metal doesn't completely spring back and this leaves a stressed surface that can distort the sole and force it out of flat. Since one can't grind both surfaces of a plane's sole these stresses can't be balanced. Lapping is required after surface grinding a sole, or at least that's the way it's been explained to me and I'm no expert in machining.
I do remember thinking about surface grinding that Norris but I also was concerned about doing more harm than good and expected to still have to do considerable lapping anyway. I was a guest in that shop and wasn't about to break down their set-up and change things. I was also trying to be as little disruption as possible, I wanted to be able to use the shop again. It didn't seem to me I was giving up much by not surface grinding the sole of that plane.
Do I read what I post? Oh yeah, do you? Am I combative? I think most anyone would be after seeing posts like your first in this thread or like the first in your 601 thread or even like your posts in your "more old or unusual planes" thread. I do encourage you to continue to make contacts with your new collector friend. There's a whole world and a bunch of knowledge out there. You might even come to realize how much they had figured out a long time ago.
Larry,
You were mistaken and it would have been more appropriate to accept what I was saying as I was the one actually observing the plane....
It is easy enough to be mistaken, especially if you can only look at the top ends. I have other Stanley blades, both American and British, which are long at the top. All the Record ones seem to be long at the top. That is why I compare the remaining distance from the Y lever slot to the sharp end, or the distance from sharp end to the hole at the end of the slot in the blade. Referring to the back iron it seems that the distance form the slot to the sharp end is consistent in the various sizes.
In theory what you say about stress and grinding soles may be true, but I haven't found one that has gone bad after a grind, especially as it is only a few thou, so I am not worried about it. I always give a quick hand lap anyway to remove most of the grind marks: I cross feed by hand which is quicker (and the cross feed on my old machine is unreliable), but this leaves an uneven grind pattern.A strong reason for me to surface grind those is that I find it a lot quicker than doing it by hand- and still finding it is not straight.I have done a few that have been hand flattened by their owners and it was instructive to see how much , and where, they were out by.
Looking at that mouth wear you show: I am still wondering if there could be local conditions influencing this (such as wood types), or differences in the type of cast iron.It just does not seem to be so prevalent here.
Actually I can't see anything combative in any of my posts that you mention- vaguely teasing, possibly. And---- you've done it again: what on earth makes you think that I don't already appreciate "how much they had figured out a long time ago." ?
Anyway- what are your impressions on the state of that Jennings #7 sole ? How common are they in the States?
Philip Marcou
Edited 3/9/2009 2:42 am by philip
Phillip and Larry,
Is it possible that perhaps Stanley had some issues with their lanishing or other finishing methods? I bought a Bailey 5-1/2 from Patrick Leach several years ago (can't remember the type, maybe end of WWII vintage) that was virtually unused. Sole was corrugate but would take a cut worth a damn. Examination of the mouth showed a condition similar to what Larry categorizied as wear.
I surface ground the sole and removed most of the problem area, and the plane performs as it is supposed to. Maybe if we could find someone who had a Stanley raw casting, then we could understand what finishing methods were needed and how those methods may have resulted in a mouth that looked wore out.
T.Z.
Tony,
You could be right. I have seen a few newer ones that looked as though they had been belt ground with something like a 36 grit belt. Actually I recall mentioning in the past that "when they resorted to belt grinding with very coarse belts, it signified the end of them", or something similar. The scratches are so deep that it is impossible to have a proper arris at the mouth, and any smoothing or wear would make it worse.
In the seventies that was one reason why we preferred Record- they were solid wheel ground or machined , not rough belt ground, which can be inaccurate.Philip Marcou
It IS wear, Tony.I'm sitting here a little stunned. Does anyone out there actually look at their planes? Do they even have any? I've attended tool meets from coast to coast and probably handled and looked at thousands of planes. I've found it much more difficult to find planes without wear to the mouth than with it. I would guess that 75 to 80% of those I've looked at had significant wear and I was pretty selective about those I bothered to even turn over.It's not just Stanley planes, infills have it, Sargents have it, and so do all the other iron soled planes I've looked at. It's not a lanishing problem. Maybe I should have used a corrugated plane to show the wear. Here's a 607C I still have around from when I used to sell a few. I'm not sure if I got it as part of a lot or if it was given to me but I wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't some unusual circumstance.
Philip,It didn't take me long to learn to be skeptical when it comes to anything about old tools. To check an iron the way you suggest would require removing it from the plane. Have you ever been in a room with four or five thousand planes? I found it important to develop and trust my own instincts about old tools which I will continue to do. I certainly wouldn't have taken the time to look at a British made Stanley or a Record plane, they have no resale value. Perhaps I don't know as much as I should about British Stanleys or Records but I don't think they're worth the effort to study.That's not really true. For my own use, I had the British made #10 and 10 1/2. I think I sold the #10 at a garage sale but I still have the #10 1/2. They were made of ductile iron and the old cast iron Stanleys were too expensive and too brittle for me to take out on job sites. I'm convinced Stanley made that one improvement because of a high manufacturing or shipping loss problems. I doubt and have seen no evidence they did anything for the benefit of the end user at the time. Both those planes took an extraordinary amount of time to tune and get working right. At the time, Stanley was the only source for such planes.I'm not surprised at the condition of the rosewood infilled sole. It and the sole of the Steers are completely predictable. Rosewood can be pretty brittle stuff. When one material is encased in a material with radically different expansion and contraction characteristics something is likely to fail. The Steers was obviously kept in a damp location at some point. These infilled sole planes are scarce here and obviously weren't commercially successful. For that reason collectors seem to like them. I was never into rare and collectible metal planes, especially when nice examples of real early and hand-made wooden planes were available at reasonable prices.
Larry,
I believe that if you were in fact suitably interested in either British Stanley or Record planes you would have the knowledge to stimulate some research -which would prove worthwhile. I can't speak for America, but I do say with confidence that examples from either of these makers are both valued and collected by users and collectors alike in other parts of the world.
"I doubt and have seen no evidence they did anything for the benefit of the end user at the time."
-----Phew, that is a sweeping statement not based on reality. A fat book could be written on the pros and cons of the debut of mass produced metal planes initiated by Stanley , but suffice to say that they made working planes available all over the world at reasonable cost, when wooden plane production was unable to cope with demand or technical requirements.
Re the Jennings: I don't know what you see there, but there is no evidence of failure in either the wood or the metal. There is plenty of wear on the wood and the metal as well, as I would expect. The use of dovetails can accommodate much expansion whilst shrinkage would simply leave the strips tending towards looseness. Strips of wood that small in cross section would have minimal movement, especially if the grain is suitably orientated and a more stable Rosewood is chosen. There is also the hysteresis thing.But you are right about it being kept in a "damp location at some point": it has existed and worked in New Zealand.
I suspect that particular design never made it big commercially because it was too expensive to produce and could not compete against the Stanley types.Nonetheless, that one and a couple of other sole infills I saw were clearly used to hell and back so the owner(s) must have liked them .Philip Marcou
""I doubt and have seen no evidence they did anything for the benefit of the end user at the time."
-----Phew, that is a sweeping statement not based on reality. A fat book could be written on the pros and cons of the debut of mass produced metal planes initiated by Stanley , but suffice to say that they made working planes available all over the world at reasonable cost, when wooden plane production was unable to cope with demand or technical requirements."Again Philip, you're reading what you want to read rather than what was written. Did you miss the "at the time" in my comment? One of the early hand plane articles in Fine Woodworking describes what Stanley did to their product quality and product line in the early 1960's as a "massacre." I've yet to meet anyone knowledgeable about old tools that doesn't share that sentiment.A "fat book" about Stanley was written. Can I suggest you look for John Walter's book on Stanley tools? Yes, they did try to make improvements to their line up until World War II. Here's a little hint for you, when you see someone recommending a "pre-war Stanley" they're not talking about the war in Iraq.Your apparent admiration for Record planes does explain your fondness for googaboola metals. Record is notoriously famous for their soft, folding-edge, high vanadium content irons. If these irons are the bench-mark standard for plane irons in New Zealand and Australia one can see the reason behind the reputation of woods from there as being difficult to work.
Edited 3/10/2009 10:09 am by lwilliams
You know, guys, usually the hand tools forum is a fairly collegial place. Friendly, even. Right now there are various threads running that seem to have been commandeered by people who just want a good fight. Is it the recession or the weather?J
I does rather remind one of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Thanks!
There goes another keyboard down the hopper. Know of a food proof keyboard? Either that or I'll have to stop reading your posts!
Thanks for the belly laugh though.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Naw,It does kind of grind on you but I think it's just a case of whooz got the bigger arris.Fun to read the joust.
I don't mind the "joust" either, and think the topic is interesting, but...
It's just the built in tension between a maker of metal planes and a maker of wood planes. Everybody in the neighborhood knows it's just a matter of time before the two toughest kids on the block duke it out.
Are we talking about jack planes at dawn?
Yup, an old fashioned jack off.
Joe,
Your question reminds me of the one posed and answered by a museum employee:
Q: Why are scholarly debates so very heated, and acrimonious?
A: Because the stakes are so low.
Ray
>> Your apparent admiration for Record planes does explain your fondness for googaboola metals.I might've missed something. What does "googaboola metals" mean?>> Record is notoriously famous for their soft, folding-edge, high vanadium content irons. If these irons are the bench-mark standard for plane irons in New Zealand and Australia one can see the reason behind the reputation of woods from there as being difficult to work.Nope, some of those woods are just hard, mate. Sometimes I think it would be easier to plane metal or glass than some of those woods. Derek constantly lists Jarrah as a very hard and difficult wood (not sure where he gets that from actually. I would list jarrah in the same category as hard rock maple), but jarrah is a veritable kitten to plane compared to a lot of other Aussie woods.I'm trying to wrap my mind around the "flats created on the leading edge of the mouth due to heat" thing. I'll work it out eventually. :-)
Handplane Central
Record Planes
Nope, some of those woods are just hard, mate. Sometimes I think it would be easier to plane metal or glass than some of those woods. Derek constantly lists Jarrah as a very hard and difficult wood (not sure where he gets that from actually. I would list jarrah in the same category as hard rock maple), but jarrah is a veritable kitten to plane compared to a lot of other Aussie woods.
Hi Cameron
I totally agree.
I use a lot of Jarrah because it is indigenous to Western Australia and I find salvaged roof trusses both a conservation and relatively cheap. Jarrah can vary from medium hard (in Aussie terminology) to rock hard. There are MUCH harder woods around - many where a plane just - literally - bounces off, where chisel edges just fold as they are like chopping into concrete! What makes Jarrah a testing timber is that it has much interlinked grain and a high level of silica, which rapidly wear the edges of blades.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Cameron,"Googaboola metals" is my extending a Stephen Proctor term to metals. Stephen is one of the premiere contemporary woodworkers, maybe the most brilliant woodworker around today. He's an incredibly good designer, a skilled woodworker, his work is cutting edge contemporary and his methods are thoroughly grounded in traditional trade practice. The couple weeks I've been around him have been all too brief.Googaboola is his generic term for exotic woods, rosewood and such. He doesn't use the term in a flattering way. It's implied rather than stated about how these woods are viewed as adding some mystical property giving work some precious quality and, most often, in lieu of good design or even consideration of what properties material might add or take away.I see a similar thing happening with tool steels today. Those who struggle with sharpening or have made sharpening into a barrier and paraphernalia laden ordeal are eager to find some magic bullet steel that rarely or never needs sharpening. There are trade-offs but no magic bullets, every small increase in red hardness (heat resistance) or abrasion resistance comes at the expense of difficulty sharpening and/or grain size. I'm completely convinced people would be much better served by getting rid of all the sharpening paraphernalia, gimmicks and barriers. Just learning simple techniques will quickly change sharpening from an awful ordeal to a pleasant, easy and very brief break. The plain old tool steels work just fine, it's hard for me to imagine wishing for a better edge than one easily and quickly created on plain old high carbon steel.
Larry,
When you say " I'm completely convinced people would be much better served by getting rid of all the sharpening paraphernalia, gimmicks and barriers. Just learning simple techniques will quickly change sharpening from an awful ordeal to a pleasant, easy and very brief break "------ I couldn't agree more, with only one small exception, not to be mentioned at this point.But when you say, " every small increase in red hardness (heat resistance) or abrasion resistance comes at the expense of difficulty sharpening and/or grain size"------ I think you are mistaken if you include the likes of D2 which , incidentally is not a new fangled or exotic steel but is an old tool steel, and it has a finer grain size than O1-and it does not need to be as hard as O1 to easily surpass it for edge holding ability. Much the same comments apply to A2.
And I don't believe there is any added difficulty in sharpening-provided one has a suitable properly conditioned stone and or a good quality diamond plate- not exactly high technology.
If you include M2 etc as googaboola then I agree-it is over the top for hand woodworking tools but may be useful in some woodworking machines.
Your comments about Australian timber would indicate that you don't want to consider the fact that there are folk in various [parts of the world who have to work with very difficult timbers and therefore would benefit from tools and steels which are better able to cope.Philip Marcou
Those who struggle with sharpening or have made sharpening into a barrier and paraphernalia laden ordeal are eager to find some magic bullet steel that rarely or never needs sharpening. There are trade-offs but no magic bullets, every small increase in red hardness (heat resistance) or abrasion resistance comes at the expense of difficulty sharpening and/or grain size. I'm completely convinced people would be much better served by getting rid of all the sharpening paraphernalia, gimmicks and barriers. Just learning simple techniques will quickly change sharpening from an awful ordeal to a pleasant, easy and very brief break.
Hi Larry
I don't have to tell you that there are as many methods of sharpening as there are woodworkers. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone is convinced that they have something valuable to teach another.
One of the things that interest me (and no doubt betrays my profession) is looking at this from a developmental perspective. That is, is there a sequence that woodworkers tend to follow in learning how to sharpen?
For example, when I first began to hone blades I tried to work freehand with full, flat bevels on an oilstone. I had no one to show me what to do, and I struggled. Later I found that sandpaper was better at creating a finer edge. And then I discovered that a honing guide (the Eclipse) helped me obtain more consistent edges ..... however, this method of sharpening was very ineffecient and time consuming. So in time along came secondary bevels, microbevels, hollow grinding, different mediums (stones), different grinders, etc, etc. It was an expensive education, but not one that I regret paying for. I consider it just education.
The question is not whether a teacher might provide information to short-cut this process, but whether the student is (developmentally) ready to understand the information imparted by the teacher. To a greater extent the student is their own teacher and learns the lessons the hard way - through physical experience. Mel often tries to teach this but veers to far to the left - teachers are still needed to provide some guidelines.
I have noted on forums how poor advice may sometimes be better received than good advice. The good teacher gauges who is ready and who is not. The corollary to this is that the good teacher lets it be when the advice is not taken (...yet).
The plain old tool steels work just fine, it's hard for me to imagine wishing for a better edge than one easily and quickly created on plain old high carbon steel.
This blanket statement is one that creates confusion. I like old tool steel as well, but it does not work well with many Australian timbers. Obtaining a good edge is one thing - maintaining it for a decent length of time is another. It is a case of horses for courses - A2 is a decent compromise when seen to lie in the middle of O1 and D2.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited to add that this post was written before Philips' was read. The similarities support the statements made.
Edited 3/19/2009 4:43 am ET by derekcohen
derek,
You ask," is there a sequence that woodworkers tend to follow in learning how to sharpen? " Then follows a tale of your quest for that holy grail of amateur craftsmen, the perfect edge.
Indeed, I think that your post does betray your profession; ie, a profession other than "woodworker", both from your need to analyse everything, and from a self confessed lack of training when it comes to sharpening. It is not necessary that everyone be their own teacher and learn the "hard way".
Let me explain. The first shop I worked in, early on I was taught the "right way" to sharpen a chisel, plane iron, and spokeshave iron. That was the method I used there, and to a large degree still use today. It may be summarised as, "put an edge on the tool and get back to work, with as little fol-de-rol as possible." Do this, do this, and then do this. The shop was owned by a third generation woodworker, so one may safely assume he knew whereof he spoke.
As I worked in three different shops before starting my own, I was taught in some cases, three different "right" ways to do things.
As a beginner, I may not have been in a position to understand the theory behind the practice. And, as an employee, I was in no position to argue. That was not necessary for the process of sharpening to be successful. Simply being mindful over the years has allowed me some insight into some of the finer points (heh, heh), reading and experimentation on my own has supported some of the arbitrary rules of the craft as they were imparted to me by my betters, and led me to reject other tenets in favor of my own prejudices-I mean, well thought out preferences.
My point is that as a neophyte, one stands a better chance of getting off on the right foot in learning any skill (not just putting an edge on a tool) if he has the benefit of an experienced practitioner as a teacher. The theory behind the practice can come later, much later, or, not at all. Just as one need not be a mechanical engineer to operate a motor vehicle, one need not be a metallurgist to sharpen a tool.
Ray
Hi Ray
I don't dispute anything you say. However I will point out that I believe that most forum members more than likely have a background closer to mine than yours. That is, they are self taught hobbiests.
Often the self-taught factor is from necessity, as in my case, as there were no part-time or short training courses available in my area a few decades ago, and nor was there the internet. I leaned my habits - good and bad - from myself. I wonder if this has really improved with all the information available on the internet, that is, what percentage of hobbiests have the time to upgrade skills using resources around today, or whether they accept shortcuts that limit them in this area?
What has changed for me has been my desire for "the perfect edge", as you put it, to be achieved faster and more efficiently. What I find interesting here is that I have increasingly leaned in the direction of "traditional" methods where BD planes and chisels are involved (while continuing to alliying this to a more "modern" approach - which BU planes demand).
Regards from Perth
Derek
I agree with both you and Ray. Your points are not mutually exclusive.
It's easy to forget how daunting and frustrating sharpening seemed as beginners standing in our shops trying to make chisels and planes work without being able to get good or consistent results in sharpening.
Strangley though, once we figure it out and seems second nature, many of us think our way is the obvious best way for everyone. It's all with good intentions, no doubt - just wanting to help someone get over the hump.
One way to get over it is to have a teacher standing there in person.
Another way is to dope out a method yourself and stick with it - refine it.
On a side note, I'm often bemused by folks who seem to have such strong prejudices against honing guides. They dismiss them as taking too much time or somehow being an illegitimate crutch. I find them to be the opposite. They make sharpening quick and almost fullproof. Freehanding holds out the distinct possibility (at least for me) of one errant stroke dubbing over or otherwise queering the edge. In just the same way, trying to split a line on a tenon shoulder with a back saw rather than leaving a few sheets of papers' thickness to pare away risks a stray into the good side of the line with major consequences. I guess I'm lazy and unskilled.
Samson,
"I guess I'm lazy and unskilled".
Hee hee - me too! Where's my naughty crutches? I have all sorts including adjusters on planes and motors on sawblades. I even use a straight edge guide sometmes! (Fences, they calls them). After all this sinning, a little bit of a honing guide seems hardly worthy of notice by the WW Inquistion.
So many ways to do things but some lads will put their blinkers on and curl their lips at those without a fixed forward stare. I have always liked your free and open approach so will never let those blinker-men get a harness on me. (Oops, a mixed metaphor).
Lataxe
Me, too.If I were a tradesman of old who did this stuff every day for a living, doubtless I would have many hand skills that I lack. However, I wasn't apprenticed and have limited time even now.Gimme those crutches!J
Samson
You have described EXACTLY me,my current state of expertise [not!],and feelings about freehanding.[NOT by those who are able to do this with ease and accuracy.. I just wish I had their expertise] I find my Veritas Mk II a constant source of joy,my Scheppach a great source of consistency,and I do not begrudge the moments they both take to set up to give ME repeatable,excellent results.[That is,of course,to MY way of thinking!]
When I grow up,and am able to run with the big boys,maybe some things will change..for the better,one hopes....In the meantime,:-)
Cheers from Bowral,
Robin
Damn,
Should've read on to the end before I leapt up & pranced around!
I'll do better in future.
R
Robin,
"When I grow up,and am able to run with the big boys,maybe some things will change..for the better,one hopes.."
Well - in this modern world there is not necessarily much virtue in growing up. One who seeks to be a big boy tends to lose the child-like capacity for play, wonder, learning of all kinds. This is a distinct disadvantage in the face of modern life and its incredible rate of change. One who seeks "the right way" often becomes a grey and angry person with very fixed views; adulthood as a sort of precursor to senile dementia. The capacity to adapt and learn has gone.
******
I confess to stropping freehand, which generally seems to work well for me even though I am a novice at such practices. I even make a new micro-bevel freehand on the easy, straight edges - although it's probably a more accurate approach to spend an extra minute putting the blade into that Veritas guide. Do I recommend this? Well, only as a vague possibility. There are several other approaches equally as valid as mine.
Despite what various "adult" woodworkers will try to tell you, there is no Right Way. There are several methods all of which work to some degree or other, all of which have various advantages, disadvantages, time requirements, tool requirements, etc.. We are free to choose the methods we prefer.
I don't mind in the least if a self-proclaimed big boy wants to rub his soft steel blades on a kerbstone, if this gets him the "sharp" he needs or wants. I prefer it if the big boy doesn't sneer at my diamond plates and honing guide; but even there, who cares what angry grey men have to say? Often the pompous ones are quite amusing, from the viewpoint of an irreverent child.
Lataxe, who never wears a suit or tie (cuts the blood off to the brain).
A properly adjusted cravat will not cut of the blood supply to the brain., other than to instill a sense of inferiority in them who refuse to wear one I see no purpose to it.
................................................
Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.~ Denis Diderot
David, good to read you back from your obviously enjoyable berfdee bash.Whilst it is a fair time since I last saw Tewksbury, I own a twinge of nostalgia on seeing your shots..very nice.
Your response to my spontaneous erruption serves to underline my inability to express mesel' clearly!
My reference to 'growing up' to ME means the gaining of wisdom,the process of learning and adding to my [currently small] compendium of woody-type knowledge.I have long been disabused of the idea that there is only ONE way.." and that is MY way"sort of thinking.
Whilst I revel in me clever doo-dads,I would like to think that one day I shall discover the secret of 'freehandedness',and be able to join those of you who practise this skill,even as I often think of me ole'dad,seeing him fettle his chisels on his single oil stone... EVERYthing got a go on that stone at some point in its life,from plane blades to kitchen knives and scissors. I don't remember there ever being a flat bit of metal that didn't have that Walt Disney "glint" on its edge...but I digress,...aaaah,um ramble,more like. I must smile gently,tho',as after the stone always came th' strop,freehand of course.It was the remains of a barbers strop nailed to the end of the bench.
Ah,well.. something to aim for is always good,I feel.
Finally, I do so agree that pomposity has little to do with constructive thinking.I feel that,on the contrary,it is a mask for something unsavoury best left in the dark recessess of whatever it's in.[The noise you can probably hear is me ole' English teacher turning in her grave at this lot!!]
As I added last, I'll be keepin' me trap shut 'till I've read all the posts in future..It was boyish enthusiasm that brought me undone when Samson's words banged a very loud "BONG" somewhere in the near vicinity!
Robin.
Here are some more pictures of the collection I referred to in the other thread "Some more old planes".
I will just post them as I took them at random, in his billiard room.If anyone has a spare #444 he needs one (;). Also note the JPG # 040 which is a steel Stanley-and note the shape of the sides.How common are these in the USA?
I have posted only half of the pictures ...Philip Marcou
hey philip,quite the collection, and you say that's not all?maybe it is for want of my own skill with hand planes, but it seems kind of a shame if all that potential just sits on the shelf, never getting any use.nice pictures, thanks for posting.eef
Ye Gods,Philip,
And that's not ALL,you say?
Great effort getting all those down for us,thank you
Robin
I too am bemused and must be as lazy and unskilled as Samson himself since I find a simple honing guide a time effort and steel saver which gives consistent results .
I note that fellows such as Charles Hayward, Leonard Lee, Jim Kingshott, Other Lees also are lazy turkeys, even Professor Charlesworth himself.
In fact I have been lazy for nigh on 40 year now and it don't seem a day too long. I've made lots of furniture and still have the chisels and plane irons I started with as a boy since the use of an Eclipse guide minimises the honing required and maximises the time between grindings.
Come to think of it: I think this very guide is to blame for me not constantly searching for that holy grail thing that was mentioned (by a Prejudiced Person). (;)Philip Marcou
Just as one need not be a mechanical engineer to operate a motor vehicle, one need not be a metallurgist to sharpen a tool.
Well, that's just flippin' crazy talk.
TTM,
Crazy, huh? Well I've been called worse than that, by better people than you. ;-)
Hahah, take it easy,
Ray
"...That is, is there a sequence that woodworkers tend to follow in learning how to sharpen?
For example, when I first began to hone blades I tried to work freehand with full, flat bevels on an oilstone. I had no one to show me what to do, and I struggled. Later I found that sandpaper was better at creating a finer edge. And then I discovered that a honing guide (the Eclipse) helped me obtain more consistent edges ..... however, this method of sharpening was very ineffecient and time consuming. So in time along came secondary bevels, microbevels, hollow grinding, different mediums (stones), different grinders, etc, etc. It was an expensive education, but not one that I regret paying for. I consider it just education."
I don't disagree with a lot you've said here, you just haven't looked far enough into the learning process. My experience teaching a number of workshops and individuals how to sharpen leads me to a different conclusion than you've made. Problems in sharpening almost without exception come from failure to maintain the flat face of the tool. The only times the honing of the bevel was a problem was in profiled tools like molding planes or gouges where it's easy to fail to completely hone small sections.
Honing the bevel is the easy part, people don't have a problem with that. Those times they do have a problem with profiled tools, the honing guide is no help. Honing guides are useless as soon as the sharpening gets beyond a straight edge. Not only can't honing guides help with profiled tools; when used on straight edges, they cause people to focus on the bevel at the expense of the more difficult maintenance of the flat face completely to the edge.
You really should be familiar with this, you're one of the best examples of it I can think of. Remember that Lie-Nielsen iron you posted about a couple years ago? You were ready to declare that iron defective. You even posted a photo of your reflection in the polished face of that iron. For an instant I was impressed at the effort you'd made then I looked at the area just behind the edge. The polish didn't go to the edge, just behind the edge was a matte dubbed area. For all the good your polishing effort did to that iron, you might have gotten more benefit from polishing the handle on your vise.
Derek, the problem you were having is exactly the same problem I see others struggle with. Sharpening with sandpaper, makes this nearly impossible and is an almost sure method of dubbing the flat face at the edge because of the way sandpaper stretches and rolls ahead of the tool. The results you showed in your photo is exactly what I would expect from trying to sharpen with sandpaper.
I can guarantee that if you can teach people how to easily and quickly maintain the flat face of their edge tools, you can dramatically cut their learning curve when it comes to sharpening. That's what I try to explain and teach. I don't need a honing guide for the somewhere around ten total strokes I take on the bevel when honing straight edges on my stones, I don't think anyone else does either.
Honing the bevel is the easy part, people don't have a problem with that. Those times they do have a problem with profiled tools, the honing guide is no help. Honing guides are useless as soon as the sharpening gets beyond a straight edge. Not only can't honing guides help with profiled tools; when used on straight edges, they cause people to focus on the bevel at the expense of the more difficult maintenance of the flat face completely to the edge.
Hi Larry
I appreciate your view, but you are off on a tangent (again).
Firstly, I don't disagree with with some of what you say about honing guides, but there are many different guides and these can do a superlative job. For example, they can be great for adding a micro- or repeatable secondary bevel on a flat or a camber. Further, there are times when a honing guide is absolutely essential, such as with bevel up plane blades. Honing guides have a definite place - and this comes from someone who mainly hones freehand.
Secondly, I totally agree with the need to ensure flat - coplanar - bevels. I recently wrote an artcile about this for The Woodworking Life blog. I look forward to your opinion.
You really should be familiar with this, you're one of the best examples of it I can think of. Remember that Lie-Nielsen iron you posted about a couple years ago? You were ready to declare that iron defective. You even posted a photo of your reflection in the polished face of that iron. For an instant I was impressed at the effort you'd made then I looked at the area just behind the edge. The polish didn't go to the edge, just behind the edge was a matte dubbed area. For all the good your polishing effort did to that iron, you might have gotten more benefit from polishing the handle on your vise.
Larry, you made the same mistake about this once before - confusing two threads and combining them into one.
(1) I had a problem with a LN blade. It puzzled me enough to discuss it on forum. The blade was replaced by LN. (2) I wrote an article on flattening plane blades. It included a fun picture of a mirrored back. These were two different articles. The link is above. You do not want to go there again.
Sharpening with sandpaper, makes this nearly impossible and is an almost sure method of dubbing the flat face at the edge because of the way sandpaper stretches and rolls ahead of the tool. The results you showed in your photo is exactly what I would expect from trying to sharpen with sandpaper.
Larry, I do not use sandpaper to sharpen, for these reasons (and the photo you refer to is a figment of your imagination, as noted above). I will use sandpaper to flatten the back of a blade, but then glue it down to a flat substrate and replace it often. I prefer to hone on waterstones - Shaptons - and I keep them flat - just as you do with your oilstones - using a diamond stone.
I can guarantee that if you can teach people how to easily and quickly maintain the flat face of their edge tools, you can dramatically cut their learning curve when it comes to sharpening. That's what I try to explain and teach. I don't need a honing guide for the somewhere around ten total strokes I take on the bevel when honing straight edges on my stones, I don't think anyone else does either.
The point I was making in my original reply to your previous post was that some people are not receptive, no matter how good the advice. I too believe that it takes but seconds to hone an edge using my methods - which are essentially the same as yours - but not everyone wants to do it this way. And you know what - viva le difference. It makes for an interesting world.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,You're right, I was mistaken. It wasn't that polished iron and I remembered wrong, I'm sorry. The image you posted of the iron is attached and the dubbing at the edge is very clear. The problem you were having is still exactly the same problem I see others have. I didn't hunt the thread down on Knots because the search function is so clumsy. You started the exact same thread on WoodCentral and here's the link to your post with the images:http://tinyurl.com/c6tq6b
Larry
I'm pleased that you found the article because it shows that you are once again recalling or perceiving a situation as you wish it to be, not as it actually was.
It you look carefully at the blade's edge you will see blue. That is not a dubbed edge (as you believe) but sharpie/texta (residure from monitoring the flattening process), which I mentioned in my post. A dubbed edge would show silver - yes? That photo was taken during the process (Had I attempted to use the blade as it in the photo, I could not have taken the shavings in the photo that demonstrated what was occuring).
Here is the picture of the back of the blade as I was flattening it. Look for the blue ..
View Image
In my original post I wrote: I checked the sole of the LN by covering it in a blue sharpie (Texta or felt tip to us Aussies), and lapped in on 180 and 360 grit W&D. It was absolutely flat...
Here is the picture of the shavings that occur only at the outer edges of the blade - which was the puzzle (since my waterstones used for honing were flat) ...
View Image
Now I know that you are trying to prove that I dubbed the blade by flattening in on sandpaper, but I just cannot see this as the evidence you believe it to be.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 3/20/2009 10:27 am ET by derekcohen
Derek,I don't recall saying you dubbed the iron with sandpaper or that you did it at all. I did remember it was a borrowed plane you were trying to get working.That iron has all the appearance of being dubbed. One can see the different abrasive signatures yet none extend to the edge which isn't coplanar with the other sections. Dubbing can come from several causes but most common are wear, sandpaper sharpening or out of flat honing stones. I think others can look at the photo and see for themselves.You said that Thomas Lie-Nielsen replaced the iron. I'm sure he did, you had announced you were planning a head-to-head review of comparing his plane to another. He probably also made sure it was properly sharpened and ready to go.You once mentioned this whole affair was an embarrassment to you. Well, it was for me as well. I posted in that thread on WoodCentral and it was one of those posts dashed out in a hurry as I was on my way out the door to work. During lunch others here saw my post. I was thoroughly chastised for not even looking at your photos and completely missing the dubbing that should have been obvious to the most casual observer.
Just learning simple techniques will quickly change sharpening from an awful ordeal to a pleasant, easy and very brief break.
Amen.
Don't know Phillip,
Seeing that one still has part of the decal on the tote, I suspect most of the wear in these planes occurred by moving them around the barn and dropping into the occassional pile of chicken crap!
Give Larry his due on this one. My father was a house carpenter after WWII and the planes he carried were a Bailey #5 and a block plane. I got both of those and he did use the #5. I'll have to examine to sole of the #5 to see what wear is there as I have never really used the plane or tried to flatten the sole.
When I received it there was not a speck of rust anywhere, probably because of the coat of yellow paint on most of the plane. This was his identifying color among his co-workers. I removed the paint a few years before he died (2004) and now I wish I would have left it on! Fortunately I have a few of his other tools that were also marked.
T.Z.
Tony,
I don't know what that decal is on the #8 but it is not Stanley- it is a British Stanley anyway.No way to see any wear on that mouth unless the rust etc is removed, but the #6 is clear enough from any angle.
It was meant to be a joke.Philip Marcou
I'd just repaint them as-is, using Crustoleum. ;-)
Phillip
I promise mine are in better condition, or at least there are no chickens nesting in them....
Rgds
John
Is that what happens when you apply 10,00 coats of Boeshield or candle wax without ever removing the previous layer?
Chris @ www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
(soon to be www.flairwoodworks.com)
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
Hello
I have done a few of this "Plane" and yes you NEED to make sure it worth it - or is it art:)
Now if you can unsrcew it and move it then you are half way there. If your sole of the planes are not in bad shape then you are still ready to "rebuild them".
Now we have check to make sure all parts are there and eveything can move / will move "don't" force things will break.
Put eveything other then wood in a tub of Solvent and leave it there for a day or in your case two.
This will show you what you realy have, then start the hand work. Finewood Working has a get information on this.
Here are my planes that I rebuild.
Beaver,
I am pretty sure that I won't be giving either of those a make over. The #6 will get the iron correctly ground and honed (it is not even square at the cutting end) and that's it, apart from slapping on a handle taken off another re-build, which at least is all there and not cracked.
If the owner wants to part with the #8 I would buy it for my own use in which case I would give it a make over,as I don't have a #8. In fact it looks worse than it is- there is little actual pitting of the sole, but once the rust is off I can see if it would be worth the bother. All other #8's seen here have been beyond recovery due to cracked/welded/castings etc.
I actually don't do any of this make over stuff unless it can be done chop chop and the plane is to be sold. Most of it is dull work which I won't do unless I have the means to speed it up-so no messing with sandpaper etc.Philip Marcou
Hello
Yes:) Quick is the only way of doing the job.
Thank you
Chris
>one of which he says he used all his life<
What did he use it for ? Chocking a wheel on his construction supply trailer ?
roc
Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )
Supporting a broken bench leg...or door stop for the outhouse...or
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled