I fancy myself a reproduction furniture maker and I have my ideas about what a ‘reproduction’ is, but I am curious about what others think. What do you think is the most significant thing to reproduce? The look…feel….technique…etc???
Chris
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
Good question.
I have spent 35 years making reproductions and my house is full. My wife and I concured on Queen Anne. I have a LARGE collection of plan books that are published plans of furniture from museums. I figured, if it's in a museum and has survived the test of time, if I like it and my wife likes it, it goes on the "do list". When we were young it went on the "gotta survive list."
Enjoy your search for your favorite style. Remember...your local library can be a great help.
I have favorite authors but that isn't any help to you. Pick your favorite, do some research with the help of library, put those several "on free loan"books on your nightstand and read,read,read.
I also really enjoy and appreciate contempory studio furniture as well as the museum pieces. Wendal Castle's pieces are near me at the Art Institute in Chicago. Milwaukee has tons of furniture of all styles and has sooooo much furniture that only 1/5 of the collection is on display at any one time. This is representitive of most all major cities. Near you are the same offerings as near me. Search them out.
Enjoy, I wish you the best in your search for YOUR favorite.
Don
Chris,
Here is an admittedly crude differentiator, from a disinterested woodworker (I have no personal interest in reproductions and hence no axe to grind):
Lataxe
1 A fake is not necessrily a good fake. Just because it doesn't fool an evaluator doesn't mean it can't be a fake - it's then just a poor fake.
I think it is quite legitimate to reproduce marks of age, usage, patina, and period tool marks on the visible aspects of the item, as long as inspection can clearly demonstrate that it is not of the period, also assuming that that inspection doesn't require specialist knowledge or tests--ie. if you have to Xray it, or to microscopic analysis to tell that's fakery, not reproduction. Many buyers quite legitimately want furniture that can blend in unobtrusively with genuine period pieces. The only time that being clearly distinquishable from a genuine period piece matters is when the time comes for it to be sold.
Steve,
I agree that it's perfectly legitimate to seek (and to make) a reproduction that is copying an extant piece - i.e. including the effects of aging and even toolmarks or olde worlde joinery of a sub-standard kind - if this fake (for that is what it then is) has some easy means to identify it as a fake. One motive for making fakes is that you describe - to fit in with existing stuff or to emulate such pieces as they are now rather than when they were made. Another motive is to cheat, bamboozle or otherwise fool folk - perhaps for financial gain.
At least let use give the correct nomenclature and also arrange the sets and subsets aright. All reproductions are not fakes but all fakes are reproductions. DK gives as good a set of differentiators as any between types (or degrees) of reproduction.
One final point. When furniture making seeks to make fakes, we have moved from mere woodwork to include some other type of constructive activity. I don't know what to call it - except "fakery".
Lataxe, more flake than fake.
I think you'd be surprised how much this sort of work is done by museums around the world. And they really fit your definition. They are intending to mislead, and it may even reward the museum financially. I'm very impressed by this sort of work and think it would be very exciting to see one of my pieces on auction in Christies (though I wouldn't want the money or to defraud anyone- I'd just want to see if I could do it).I know that there are more than a few reproduction makers whose work has been purchased by folks who have then distressed it and sold it as originals. My friends in the PMoA have expressed some concern about my pieces since the construction and tool marks are all accurate. Such pieces rarely make it in front of the Keno brothers. This reminds me of an old favorite TV show from your side of the pond, Lataxe, called "Lovejoy". Anyone?Adam
Adam,
You haven't quite got the charm of a Lovejoy - but you do have your moments. Whi is your Tink? :-)
If I'm stringently honest, I don't mind if folk want to make fakes and pass them off as real. I find the whole antiques idea, with it's associated hothead market, a real hoot. Folk in this domain seem to buy stuff for every and any reason other than it's intrinsic utility or beauty. Of course, many espouse a liking for the queer olde stuff and wax lyrical about its greatness; I think they rationalise-after-the-fact their desire to hoard, "win" auctions and make money from a later resale. Then there's the snobbery thang.
No doubt one or two antique buyers really do enjoy the antique thang itself, especially if they live in an old house with associated architecture and gardens. It must annoy the bajeez out of them that all the hoarders, snobs and profit-makers are driving up the prices of what is, after all, largely old junk.
If a naughty boy or girl can make a fake so good that the avaricious or snobby buyer is happy with their "investment" this is fine with me, whether they keeps it in a dark vault, a dusty old museum or in their living room. But let's not pretend that fakery is a wonerful high-art and enviable skill. It's a form of lying and practiced for all sorts of motives, many of which are unpleasant. Also, one feels it a shame that perfectly good new furniture is deliberately junkified in order to fool the gulls.
Of course you, Adam, attempt this kind of thing because you enjoy playing really really hard at that part the museum gave you; and there's nothing wrong with this, especially as peasants and philostines like me can gain a giggle or two from all the poses, pontifications and antics.
But if I move to that Georgian house the ladywife keeps eyeing up, I'll be making reproductions of the other sort - no dodgy joinery, badly-planed bits or faux-patina for me, just woodwork of the approriate style using a full range of tools, electric and otherwise. (But I'd rather stay here with the honest A&C stuff).
Lataxe, often amazed at hooman beans and their mental cavortings.
I don't think that just because the details are such that a buyer can put on airs for their house guests should classify the piece as a fake or convict the maker of fakery. It really has to be in relationship to the market and a financial transaction based on a misrepresentation of the age.
And, when a second party modifies a reproduction to eliminate the indicia of modern manufacture, that is the person committing the fakery, not the original maker. Sure there is a grey area where the maker may suspect a buyer of having further intent to defraud at the next level down. But life is full of grey areas.
Good point. Seems there has to be a line between "exact copy" and "fake".
The line is this. The exact reproduction remains an exact reproduction until it is passed off (sold) as an original. It then becomes a fake.Best regards,Joe
I think it can be argued that all reproduction is fakery. I think the call it plagiarism in the academic world!
It's only plagerism if you claim authorship. Quoting with attribution certainly is OK, and so for that matter is publication. After all, publishing a book reproduces it a great many times. That's all that is happening with a reproduction: an item, whose copyright is clearly in the public domain, is being reprinted.
Truly original design is one of the most difficult tasks imaginable. If that were a requirement what would you be making these days.
The line between exact copy and fake could be as simple as a makers mark. Put on your makers mark, preferably in a relatively indelible fashion, and you are not making a fake.
Edited 7/24/2008 4:44 pm ET by SteveSchoene
Blah, Blah, Blah...The unfortunate circumstance of "Reproduction" furniture, or if you prefer "Period" furniture, is that those who choose to make it are building from a limited pool of information.Most pieces available to the public are those which are esteemed as "Masterpieces" or "Significant" to the period of which they are made.Therefore folks who build such pieces are drawn to the ones that have the most publicity or are deemed as being worthy of being shown in museum collections.No one really chooses to make the ordinary or the mundane.So much "Period" work was done under the radar of current collectors and dealers that the everyday pieces of utility are relegated to folks who build pieces part time as historical reenactors.There are a lot of pieces that will never be reproduced simply because they were poorly made, or just ugly. Which may be a good thing?In the arena of period furniture there seems to be one constant. Better.I am better than him. I am faster than her. My carving is more realistic. I use period tools. I work by candle light. My master treats me poorly. I sleep in a haystack...Blah, Blah Blah...F.
There are plenty of more ordinary pieces available to the public. Typically in the study collections of the great museums. I don't think availability is the reason.
You seem to be suggesting that designations as Masterpieces or Significant are purely a matter of random selection plus a publicity campaign. While there certainly are fads and such in art criticism, it's still the case that there may be good aesthetic reasons for preferring some pieces to other. A good example of the process may be seen in an excellent, and influentional book Early American Furniture by John T. Kirk.
Given the reality that it takes nearly as much time, expense, and energy to reproduce a mediocre piece as to do a finer one, it wouldn't be sensible to reproduce mediocre examples. When you have the experience of two hundred years to winnow wheat from chaff, don't go harvesting the chaff.
Steve, I have great respect for Mr. Kirk. I have read most of what he has written on the scholarship of period furniture.My comment comes more from the aspect of interpretation.So, rather than recreating a piece from a picture. Why not incorporate the forms of the period and use that as a starting point to make a piece of your own design. This type of work is barely on the scope of period makers. Most seem to want to faithfully reproduce an original and that is that. There seems to be so little inventiveness in the field that is a bore to see alot of the work produced because it becomes, more or less, an exercise in technique.Is there not any more out there?How many reproductions of a Goddard Townsend nine shell blockfront secretary can one see before it becomes tiresome?F.
I think there is a lot of that making in the style of going on. I see lots of posts to that effect in the gallery section. Look at the ChipN'Dale threads.
But I've also seen that done very badly, where it has been design elements --pad feet, or shells, or bracket feet, or what ever, that have been put together--often by manufacturers of factory furniture, that only have the period details, but not the period forms and proportions. Queen Anne coffee tables abound.
I'd also bet that all the 9 shell Secretaries haven't been reproductions, but interpretations--not many have the ceilings for it without scaling down. If I'm recalling correctly, it's not even a Newport piece, but Providence by Lisle according to more recent scholarship.
For that matter, an exercise in technique is what Craft is, inventiveness is only required for Art.
I love it when my master treats me poorly. "Treat me ill, master. I used my rabbet plane to trim tenon shoulders again. I planed end grain with my smoother, Oh treat me poorly, master. I deserve punishment!"I apologize for that outburst. It was very wrong of me. AdamSeriously, I agree with you. I think what you wrote is true. I'm not convinced any of it is a bad thing. But yours were good observations.
Edited 7/24/2008 10:38 pm ET by AdamCherubini
I bet you have the blade in you're fore plane ground straight across too!And you probably use the short little beastie for jointing edges.Shame, shame, shame.No soup for you!I do like your work Adam. Even if you can't saw to the line while listening to your period i-pod. I would think the cord may get caught in the poofy sleeves of your shirt.Eventhough you may border on the obssesive side of technique, I think your attitude to making the pieces is right on. Make it and get it out the door, "warts and all".F.
So what exactly would an 'unlimited' pool of information look like? I've read, seen, own countless books and journals with all kinds of technical and artistic information. For the most part, all I need is a picture and I'm off to the races. Though I agree with your sentiment about what people choose to reproduce and not, Im not sure whether you meant it as an insight or a critique. 'Taste' is as viral as any video on youtube. As for the everyday mundane - how many of us can make a living reproducing butter churns? And how many clients want to spend significant money on the mundane?I really don't understand the part about being 'better' - isn't that the human condition, independent of woodworking? blah, blah, blah...
You can't really build a really proper reproduction unless you have physical access to the museum piece or pieces in a private collection. And then once you have this access, you have to know what to do with the privilege. Measuring, note taking, and sketching an original is no mean feat especially with somebody from the museum breathing down your neck making sure you don't commit some faux pas.
I've built more than a few 'reproductions' from measured drawings but looking back on that aspect of my woodworking experience I no longer consider them to have been done particularly well.
My point was the lack or willingness to experiment with period forms.If you can take a photo and then use that as inspiration then make a piece, I say good on you.Most period makers I talk to are building well known documented pieces that have become part of the period vocabulary for years.As I said to Steve, how many Goddard Townsend block front secretaries can you look at and not get bored?I go to auctions and antique dealers and see many pieces that are nice simple functional pieces, but would probably never be reproduced or even written about.However most folks can not or will not have an opportunity to do such research and are locked into publications that show many of the same pieces over and over from the same collections. And they are afraid to try and just design a piece on their own for fear of mucking something up.The better part is a response to the lack of designs in period furniture which ends up leaving one with the challenges of technique and how well one may emulate the proceses of the past. Check out this guys site.http://www.robin-wood.co.uk/He makes mostly bowls. Maybe a step down from butter churns.F.
Floss, I must say your comments pretty much sum up my feelings on this Question , in a respectful way. I have very little knowledge of period furniture, Much less the desire to replicate anothers work , I see it for what it is , Art.
As much as I enjoy the work of a Maloof, I dare not copy his chair, nor do I condemn those who do. What I see fit to take from him are elements of his work , The hardline, his use of the cove etc.... From a krenov, his shear genius with the tinkering of lines and balance .
Maloof did not invent the rocker nor Krenov the cabinet. What they did do was make it their own, Just as Goddard, Townsend, Chippendale and others have done. We are all the better for them.
We all want to belong in this woodworking thing, Be it repros, Studio, cabinets, its all good.
Thanks for the great post, Tom.
Floss,
You make a good point, about the same pieces being copied over and over again. And yet...Those pieces, the ones that have gone up the chain of collectors, and ended in the museums, are there arguably because they are among the best available of their form, in terms of style, and execution. Granted, there are many examples out there, nearly as nice, maybe even nicer, in private hands, that may never be available for someone to copy. Why not then, take the advice of someone like Albert Sack, and choose to build a piece from the "best" column?
Further, your criticism seems to me like criticising a violinist's playing the same piece of music that was written in the 18th century, and has been a part of the music vocabulary for years. No two people will play it the same way, and although it may be recognisable as the same music, each will, perhaps even unwittingly, make it "their own". How many versions of a Mozart concerto can you listen to and not get bored?
I've been in the position of being asked to copy someone else's work, and am here to tell you, it is one thing to make a "copy" for someone who will never place it side by side with its "twin"; another thing entirely, to make a copy that will succeed in being just another face in the crowd when placed amongst its mates.
In the past I have been commissioned to make duplicates of chairs in particular, either period ones, or more recently, those from a shop now out of business. In that case, I copied a chair that was itself a copy of an antique. (Since I was once an employee of that shop, it might be said that my reproduction of their reproduction was in fact, a replica.)
And, as is the case of many others who have put their work on display, I've heard the plans of others to reproduce my work: "Aw, I can build one just like that, and for a lot less money!" And was once asked by a potential customer, "So-and-so told me he can build a bed that looks just like yours for $800 less, what's the difference?" I told the man, that the difference was, so-and-so couldn't see the differences.
Point of all this rambling, is that there are far fewer exact reproductions (isn't that redundant?) out there, than you might think.
Ray
For me, a reproduction is a piece of furniture that matches the original in appearance both inside and out, when that original was new. I don't seek to age a piece, other than the color of the exterior wood. I certainly don't nor could I, make a piece to fool a collector, but I'd like to think that in a 100 years or so, mine could be taken for an original ( I brand my work with a date stamp).
I really don't care how I get to this point as far as construction methods go. I make use of power tools whenever they won't leave behind evidence of their use. In order to gain an appreciation of period techniques, and the way they effect the finished appearance, I have used these techniques at least once, to preform a certain task (i.e. inlays etc.)
Rob Millard
http://www.americanfederalperiod.com
That's a really tough question, and one that could be debated endlessly.
In my opinion, a reproduction is a piece that employs the surface, joinery, wood selection, and tool marks (be that sandpaper or handplanes) appropriate to the period when the original was produced.
In the case of a reproduction Sam Maloof rocker, that means bandsaws and power sanders for production, pinned mortise and tenon joints in the typical Maloof style and an oil finish. For an early Shaker piece, that means hand tool marks and perhaps some circular saw marks left on the inside of tertiary surfaces (the bottoms of drawers and the inside of a case), and dovetails.
For a colonial reproduction, that means no evidence of power tool usage whatsoever, and no modern materials either (like plywood drawer bottoms).
What I'd propose is that there are 3-4 "classes" of reproductions:
1). A true reproduction - a piece constructed with a careful selection of materials available to the maker (for example, wide boards (no glue-ups), no sapwood visible on the exterior), faithful in every dimension to the original, made with period tools, and with a finish applied that's true to the period (i.e., no polyurethane or alkyd varnish on a colonial example). This includes potentially problematic original cross-grain construction methods (such as drawer runners nailed to the inside of cases).
2). An "ordinary" reproduction - a piece faithful to the original's dimensions, made with whatever tools the maker is comfortable with, some compromises to the original materials (like panel glue-ups), but no modern materials, a period correct finish, and with no immediate evidence of modern tool marks visible to the viewer.
3). A period representation - a piece that is faithful to the external characteristics of the piece to be reproduced, with modern production methods, modern materials (plywood backs and drawer bottoms), modern joinery, and modern finishes, like spray laquer, polyurethane or conversion varnish.
4). An "in the style of" period representation - a piece that may combine aspects from different periods in either hardware, proportions, ornamentation, or all three, made with modern production methods and materials, and with a modern finish.
Some examples:
1) Most anything made in the Colonial Williamsburg shops (the current CW, not the historic one) falls into this category. For an individual maker, Eugene Langdon is a good example, as is Adam Cherubini.
2) This is the class in which most high-end reproductions fall. Some of the pieces that come from Jeff Headley's shop fall into this class (though some fall into class #1, above). The pieces in Norm Vandal's book "Queen Anne Furniture" typically fall into this class.
3) This class includes the vast majority of pieces made today. Glen Huey's work typically falls into this class, though more towards the #2 classification than the #4 classification. THe pieces that Norm Abrams produces definitely fall into this class (and more towards #4 than #2) - his pieces are not reproductions, they're representations.
4) This is the class that modern factory furniture makers fall into (think Ethan Allen, for example). Other examples would include forms that didn't exist in the period, like "Chippendale" entertainment centers and "Queen Anne" coffee tables.
As to whether to reproduce the signs of age and wear, I consider that a completely separate subject to the classifications above. You can easily have a class #4 that has been artificially aged (and often is by the major furniture companies), and #1s that are as pristine as one coming out of a shop in the 1750's.
From the standpoint of what constitutes a fake, I take a slightly different tact than other posters have expressed. So long as I don't sell it to somone under false pretenses (i.e., I found this 18th century cabinet at a garage sale), it's a reproduction, not a fake. That's regardless of the degree of scrutiny required to determine whether it's a true antique or not.
I also don't have a problem with pieces eventually making it into the antique trade as originals. I regret that it's necessary, but I think this is important to depress the zeal that collectors have for such pieces, and therefore depress the prices somewhat. The reason I think this is that in the last 15 years or so, the market for American colonial high-tyle antiques has gotten to the point where museums (even extraordinarily generously endowed museums) have been priced out of the market, and I find that completely unacceptable. Our histoical heritage should not be the sole purview of the super-wealthy.
Interesting classifications. I wouldn't have thought that so many were available. I also like the examples.
A true reproduction would be an exact copy down to every little nuance and detail, as the original was done. Does that mean you have to shoot a cannon at your Holmes bookcase? Does it mean your axe marks have to be the same on the corner blocks, I don't think so, in either case. However, is it a reproduction if the corner blocks are cut with a saw or if you substitute Honduran mahogany for Cuban?
Reproduction isn't easy to define. Is it a copy, imitation, duplication or a representation. For most of us, it would be an imitation or representation done in the manner of. I think a true reproduction would have to be faithful to the original in all of it's aspects, otherwise, it's an imitation.
How would you do a reproduction of this piece? Nailed on drawer bottoms and beading, large dovetails, rough surfaces or would you choose joinery and methods that are more modern, knowing that there are issues with the original methods?
Years ago, FWW had an article about these issues. Langdon was doing things like the original while Ionsen was improving known joinery failures. Langdon was mitering ogee bracket feet with a glue block in back while Ionsen was using blind dovetails. This was just one memorable time when the magazine frustrated me. Two masters with vastly different approaches and the editor didn't follow up or ask any pertinent questions. Personally, I think reproduction involves scholarly effort that is true to the original regardless of the inherent problems. Anything else is imitation. For functionality, durability and the marketplace, imitation is probably a better choice. Besides, who has a good source for copal, sandarac and Cuban mahogany?
Beat it to fit / Paint it to match
"How would you do a reproduction of this piece? Nailed on drawer bottoms and beading, large dovetails, rough surfaces or would you choose joinery and methods that are more modern, knowing that there are issues with the original methods?"
That's easy - I'd make it with nailed on drawer bottoms and beading, large dovetails and rough surfaces, no question about it. To me, those details make a critical portion of what the piece is, and it's a slippery slope to factory-made look alikes with CNC-turned legs, "fly-speck" 15-step finishing process, and an MDF back.
And, you can get Sandarac and Copal from The Olde Mill Cabinet shop (http://www.oldemill.com/). Cuban Mahogany can be had here: http://www.bluemoonexoticwood.com/. Brasses indistinguishable from the originals can be had from http://www.londonderry-brasses.com
Though I agree with Louis Irion - very high quality bigleaf (honduran) and cuban mahogany is virtually indistiguishable, both in appearance, density and workability as well as on the microscopic level.
Really cool William and Mary highboy, by the way - did you go to the auction and get to examine it up close? It's interesting that it's made of walnut and southern yellow pine (at least it sure looks like syp on the drawer bottoms).
"How would you do a reproduction of this piece? Nailed on drawer bottoms and beading, large dovetails, rough surfaces or would you choose joinery and methods that are more modern, knowing that there are issues with the original methods?"There are issues with all sorts of methods. Yellow glue hasn't got 200 year track record but rest assured, it will give furniture restorers much more trouble than hide glue. (I'm just throwing this in there- it's not what I wanted to say).All that stuff mentioned is really FUN to do. There are lots of really cool tools to make, buy and restore to do it and the process is a hoot. No noise, no dust, plenty of challenges, it's everything we look for in a fun project. I love nailing things together. I like using match planes and beads. I get to use my fancy early hammer and bradawls and precious reproduction nails. It's a hoot. We often get too technical with this subject (I guess I should say I). Not sure I've done a great job at reminding folks exactly how much fun this is.Adam
Edited 7/24/2008 5:15 pm ET by AdamCherubini
I've done the piece with the drawer bottoms nailed on. The original was made by a cabinetmaker surely on most people's short list of the finest in America, John Townsend. On all the museum examples of similar drawers by Townsend that I've seen (3-4), all the drawer bottoms have splits. Mine, after 10 years, give or take hasn't. (It's the Pembroke table, in the chinese style.) Winterthur has one, as does the Boston Fine Arts Museum.
If it were to be in someone elses livingroom I almost certainly would have made the drawer with more conventional construction, unless they showed suitable signs of fanaticism.
Ha, ha
Well, Adam, you're not the only one that's been seduced by working with period tools and materials. The attached (admittedly poor, quick snapshot - I'll post a much bette one on the Knots gallery when I get around to hauling out the background, flash umbrellas and light meter taking it) was made completely with hand tools, including re-sawing the stock (I would only do that in eastern white pine, however - I can't imagine re-sawing a 22" wide 12/4 mahogany board with my antique disston. Perhaps if I can get my hands on a 2 tpi bucksaw or framesaw, that'll be different).
It was made completely with hide glue (quite a challenge with 4 corners of dovetails), the moldings were created with several english planes from the 18th century, and they're nailed on. The face frame is attached to the carcass with riven oak pins, and the center panel was made with a panel raising plane.
There are certainly things I'll change if I make this again, and some definite mistakes I made in design and construction, but you're right, it was a heck of a lot more fun than with my table saw, router, and a biscuit joiner.
Hi Dkeller,You really shouldn't apologize for the photo. There's a lot worse out there in some of the other threads. It's in focus and looks like the work of a DSLR :)I have a question. You made the moldings with wooden molding planes? Do you have any tips on reworking the blades to match the soles. I have a few that either slide straight across the work after planing halfway down the profile, or dig in and stop mid push if I extend the blade to compensate.Any info will be gladly received and will earn you a pint if we ever meet.Many thanks in advance,
Paul
Edited 7/25/2008 11:35 pm ET by prbayliss
At first glance, re-profiling an iron would seem a daunting task. In reality, it's really easy, and I can't believe I put up with poorly-performing molding planes for a few years until I took the plunge one day and re-profiled the iron on one of my more common side-bead planes.
The procedure is as follows:
1). Remove the wedge and iron.
2). Coat the non-beveled side of the iron (that faces forward when the plane is in use) with either machinist's dye (like Dykem) or a sharpie.
3). Insert a wooden shim (the shims they sell in Home Depot in packs of 20 work very well) between the back of the iron and the back of the molding plane mouth, thus wedging the iron in place against the front of the mouth.
4). Scribe a line with a sharpened awl on the dye-coated front of the iron that follows the profile of the sole of the plane. Naturally, you want to remove as little as possible of the iron, so make sure the iron is adjusted so that the bare minimum is exposed all along the profile of the sole.
5). Remove the iron and place it in a vise. Maintaining the approximately 25 degree bevel, file the iron so that the blade edge just matches the scribed profile. Note that you must back-relieve hollows in the profile. For example, on a bead the bevel extends all the way around the circle cut into the iron, not just behind the vertical parts.
6). Sharpen your newly- rehabilitated profiled iron by polishing the back and with carver's slips (profiled sharpening stones - I like the Japanese WaterStone slips that Woodcraft sells in the 1000 grit and 4000 grit) on the bevel. Note that you may not achieve a perfectly flat back the way you can on a plane iron. These irons were all hand-forged, and are rarely flat. If that's the case, use the carver's slips to just touch the edge up from the non-beveled side. These planes do not need to be scary sharp to work well. In fact, they will work best if they're sharp, but not so sharp that you can shave hair off of your arm.
Hi Dkeller,Thank you for the concise procedure. The bit that I was really missing is to shim the blade against the front edge of the mouth in order to mark a line to file to. I'd previously been working from trial and error with mixed results. I.e. plane until it rides on the sole, then take off a little on the bit that had been cutting and try again.I'll give your method a go and see how it goes. From my experience so far, I agree that it doesn't matter too much about the back of the blade being perfectly flat. As long as it's reasonably sharp.Once again, many thanks for your response.Best regards,
Paul
Paul -
One other comment based on a few years of using these antiques. In well worn (or sometimes not well worn, just a funky piece of lumber that the plane was made from) planes, the front and rear beds may not be in the same plane, and may also be twisted.
If that's the case, and the front -to-back alignment is off by no more than about 1/32", you can still use the plane by just advancing the iron a bit until the plane cuts. They don't perform as well as planes that don't have this defect, as the unsupported iron chatters a bit in harder wood.
If the front and back beds are twisted out of parallel, and they are not out by much, you can cut out the profile with the plane, coat the profile with ink (preferably water-soluble ink!), run the plane over the profile again, and see which parts of the sole contact the profile and which ones do not. You can then very carefully pare away a bit of the sole that's contacting the profile. After repeating this procedure a few times, substantially more of the sole should be in contact with the profile, which makes a world of difference in the plane's performance.
Obviously, I would never do this to a plane that is rare or was made in the 18th century, as it's not only extremely disrespectful to an important historical artifact, it also ruins the collector value of the piece. Those that were made in the 18th century (particularly American examples) that are unusable get retired on the display shelf. Ones from the late 19th century, particularly by common makers like Ohio Tool, Auburn Tool, or Sandusky, I don't feel bad about "tuning" - there are hundreds of thousands of them out there.
Hi DKeller,Thank you for the further information. I think that I'm fortunate in that most of the molding planes that I own (10 or so, but a slippery slope) are fairly straight and their soles are in the same plane. A couple purchased for use from http://www.thebestthings.com are dead on. I have complex molder that has shrunk in width a little, but based on your instruction I may be able to correct that some with the reshaping the blade. If it looks like it needs too much shaping I may stick it behind the glass in my cabinet and call it a display piece rather than a user.I think that the paring away the sole sounds a good idea on the simpler more common profiles; hollows, rounds, beads, etc. I'm not sure I'd want to try it on something complex either for the fear of making a dogs breakfast of it and ending up with neither a user or a display piece. I also wouldn't do it to an 18th century plane as a matter of principle.There's certainly something about these planes when using them that is very very satisfying. So far they've mostly been used to replicate missing trim in my apartment in an 1860s brownstone building. Finding matching profiles is half the fun!Many thanks again,
Paul
You're quite right - there is no end to the number of molding planes you will find useful in the shop. I own approximately 400.
From the stanpoint of re-profiling the sole of a plane - you're very correct when you say it must be done very carefully, and very slowly to avoid taking off too much. I find it useful to make scrapers that match the profile to use for this purpose, and it's nigh on impossible to take off way too much with a single pass. Carving tools are also very useful in this regard, provided you have a sweep that matches the curve you're trying to fair.
My goodness, 400! That's some collection you have there. I mentioned it to my wife who reminded me that we live in an apartment. Still, I can dream!Carving tools. Hmm. I'm sure that could end up being a very large, steep, slippery slope too.I wouldn't have thought of tuning the body if you hadn't brought it up. I can see that home made scrapers shaped to the profile would be the way to go. I think that you're right that it would be difficult to do much damage without seeing it coming a mile off.Thank you so much for the enlightening posts. It's encouraging for me to know that you are out there and that you're very willing to share your experiences.It's been a pleasure exchanging posts with you.Best regards,
Paul
You have to be careful shaping the body because you'll change the size of the mouth. This causes me some problems. I think the areas with the wider mouth gets a thicker shaving which can throw off the profile.Also, a lot o guys don't perfectly match the iron to the sole. If you do that with a simple molder you will get "gutters". With simple planes I like to either camber the blade or have the blade fade to nothing on the fence side.I'm not telling you what you should do, only reminding you to keep your wits about you when you are doing this tuning. You can screw up your planes if you are not careful.Lastly, if you want to be stewardly, replace your irons if there are too far out with new irons and put the oldies in a plastic bag smeared with grease (the iron, not the bag). I think it's easier to bring an iron to the plane than vice versa. This way you don't have to touch either. Adam
Hi Adam,Thank you for the post. I like the idea of replacing a blade and saving the original. I see Lie Nielsen recently started selling blanks. Would that be what you recommend, or are there other sources?I'm not sure that I understood what you mean by "gutters" in this context, or why you would 'fade the blade to nothing at the fence'. I'd certainly like to understand further.I'm with you on keeping my wits about me. I'll think long and hard about even re-profiling a blade before actually attempting the execution. My personal philosophy is that we are custodians rather than owners of certain objects. Molding planes are on that list. I'd like to think that I can pass these things to my son when he's old enough to understand (Granted he's only 8 months now). I'd hate to have to tell him - this one, well, Dad screwed it up a bit :)Once again, thank you for the post and I appreciate the advice.Best regards,
Paul
If you are planing any board that is wider than the plane you have, and that plane's iron is not cambered in any way, the result will be a shallow groove in the wood with little sides (Moxon called them gutters). So I've taken Moxon's advise and I camber my plane blades such that the blade only cuts in the middle and the edges fade to nothing. (This is hard to explain) Well i apply the same logic to my hollows and rounds and some other planes (like beads). On my beads for example, on the left or fence side the iron fades away into the sole. If it was proud of the sole there- a perfect match, you'd get a little crease in the wood.Adam
Hi Adam,I got it!Thanks,
Paul
Adam -
Your experience is a bit different than mine. When I use these planes, the shaving thickness is primarily controlled by the extension of the iron from the sole, regardless of the mouth width. The mouth width does affect tear-out against the grain, though, so I try not to do that if possible.
One note I mentioned earlier on is that I don't tune or use 18th century American planes at all, and I will only re-profile the iron to fit properly in an 18th century British plane (i.e., no tuning of the sole or messing with the wood in any way, shape or form). I don't feel the same compunction about messing with late 19th century molding planes by one of the big factories like Ohio Tools or Sandusky. There are hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of them out there, and they were largely machine made, in contrast to the hand work of the earlier tools. Besides, I feel like I give them a better home putting them to work in my shop instead of sitting on the wall of a Cracker Barrel by the interstate. ;-)
One thought about replacing the irons in a molding plane - whether replacing the blade with a newly-manufactured Lie-Nielsen, or a period original "spare", I often find that the thickness is sufficiently off to require making a new wedge. That's a lot of labor to restore a common side-bead - I would only do this for an unusual (and useful) profile, like a bolection.
My view on this has changed over the years. Unless you are a craftsman of world-class skill the harder you try to make a 'fake' the closer you'll probably come to a decent reproduction. There are a relative handful of people who could get a fake by bona fide experts and, don't take this the wrong way, I doubt you are one of them.
Read about how Gene Landon goes about building a reproduction and the lengths he goes to when dealing with secondary surfaces.
If you do get good enough to make a world-class fake, and I believe it's a worthy goal if you like to build historical furniture, all you have to do is sign and date the piece so nobody can be actually fooled.
And once you get that good it is entirely your option if you want to go all the way with surface distressing, cooking varnishes with old recipes, etc.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled