For anyone who surfaces any lumber by hand, I would call a scrub plane a necessity. Or atleast a plane with a radiused iron. I bought an old #4 at an antique store for $15 and radiused the iron and removed the chipbreaker. It works great, and I can’t image being without it. I can really waste away material from high spots with relatively little effort. So if you don’t have one…
Chris @ www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.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
Replies
Chris, a scrub plane gets even better (especially in hardwood) with a thick blade (1/8" or more).
Regards from Perth
Derek
Only problem with a scrub plane is you have to be careful with your choice of music, or you could, like I did, end up with just a pile of walnut shavings. ;-)
Chris,
A "scrub plane" doesn't exist in traditional Anglo/American catalogs, literature or inventories. The plane used for what you describe is a fore plane. A fore plane is the length of a jack plane or a little longer and has a cambered iron. These make a lot of sense for dimensioning stock or "thicknessing," as it was called.
The concept of thicknessing is important. Straight, flat and true is assumed and the final critical step is to plane stock to a intended and predetermined thickness. A Stanley type scrub plane used for this is an invitation to trouble. These planes are so aggressive it's easy to foul the intended thickness and end up having to use thinner than intended stock.
You can remove stock just as fast with a fore plane as with a scrub but it's more controlled because you're working with shaving width as much as depth of cut. I used to think a scrub plane was okay for very localized work but then Don McConnell pointed out that, in furniture, he wouldn't want to use a piece of stock with the kinds of stability problems that'd make the scrub plane useful.
A Stanley type scrub plane is very useful to a carpenter for uses like backing out trim or quickly leveling misaligned framing members. There just aren't a lot of uses for a scrub plane at the bench. One might use one on the edge of a piece of stock to make it slightly narrower but then that's what Stanley's old catalogs said was the intended use of their scrub planes.
Weren't these planes just basically big scrubs - with blades just as thick and, depending on the user's preference, practically just as radiused? Nothing wrong with a big scrub. Nothing wrong with a little scrub.
"
Weren't these planes just basically big scrubs..."
No Charles, they're fore planes. Both the Dutch/German and American versions are about the length of a smooth plane (or less) and have a narrow iron with a radical camber. I haven't seen any information suggesting they were originally developed or used for the same purpose as a fore plane. The length of a fore plane is functional and is an aid in preparing stock. Thinking of them as being the same appears to be an Internet "innovation" that leads to things like suggesting people start with 5/4 stock when they want to end up with 7/8" or 3/4" thickness. There's a lot of wasted effort and wood there. It's the kind of waste that assures no one in their right mind would prepare stock by hand.
Sounds fine. We've hashed this over before I think. Not that validation is necessary at all (it's IS a handy tool to have around) there is precedence in other woodworking traditions.
The old foreplanes with wide open mouth and thick cambered blades, other than for length (and I'm not saying that's a small thing) are virtually the same animal. What makes a scrub a scrub, IMO, is the iron. It needs to be thick and it needs to be heavily cambered. Your foreplane fits that bill as far as I'm concerned. A converted No. 4 does not because the blade lacks the requisite thickness. You can put a curve in a thin blade. It takes thickness to grind a camber into a blade. Some people confuse curve and camber and tend to use them synonymously.
Having just scrubbed about fifty board feet ( Poplar, Cherry, and Maple) yesterday I can personally attest to the effectiveness of short and light. I rather suspect that I typically process as much stock each month by hand as Chris Schwartz has done in his entire hand woodworking career. That said, I like him, he's a good guy.
It is well to remember that the Stanley style scrubber's blade can be adjusted for exposure. There is no woodworking law that says every pass has to be an ultra-rank one at 3/16ths. I lighten the exposure as I come close to my gauged line. This leaves a surface that cleans up very quickly with a No. 6 or 7.
Edited 4/15/2008 7:43 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
Hi Charlie
While I lack the experience you have with scrub planes, I do use planes in preparing boards in almost every project. And if I do not use a scrub, then it is a fore plane instead.
What you say about a thick blade is just so (in fact I stated this at the start of this thread), and I would go so far as to say that the lighter the plane, the more critical is the thickness of the blade. I started with a shop-made ECE-type woodie that I converted to a scrub. It had a nice, thick 1 3/4" wide blade. Then came a Stanley #40, which I thought was an improvement, probably because it was better balanced and easier to hold.
I consider a turning point came a couple of years ago when I received the Veritas scrub. It was much heavier and had a even thicker blade. The Veritas difference was noticable on hardwoods (and, as we are fond of saying, Aussie hardwoods are Hard). After this I could not go back to a #40, unless it was used on softwoods. It was now evident that a light scrub plane was harder work as it required more downforce to plough through the wood (instead of bouncing over it - in a sense).
The third stage was my recognition that I wanted an even heavier and longer "scrub" for hardwoods. At this point I began using a #5 1/2 with a blade cambered to a 5" radius. The thing is that it had the standard Stanley blade. I keep wondering what it would be like with a thick blade - it can only be an improvement - but the thin blade does OK. Probably because it has a lot of momentum behind it. This plane certainly motors through hardwoods.
Now I can just hear Larry and Adam saying, "you've discovered a fore plane". And this is my point. I think I have. I do most of my scrubbing now with this plane. The Veritas is reserved for medium hard woods or narrower boards. It is a very good plane.
I can also hear you say that I might change my mind about using a heavy plane if I prepared as much board feet as you do. Perhaps. But it is horses for courses. The hefty foreplane suits me better than a light scrub for most of the Jarrah, Karri, and Marri and She-oak I use. The Jarrah and Karri tend to come in the form of weathered-dry and rough sawn recycled roofing trusses. Damn, they are like steel! I guarantee that you will be quickly exhausted by forcing a scrub through these with a light plane.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I tend not to do quite as much experimenting not because I probably wouldn't find it fun, I usually just don't have the time. Perhaps if I spent less time on these forums...:-)
If I'm working 4/4 rough to 7/8 finished I usually don't use a scrubber. I just use my jack plane with no particular modifications other than the ubiquitious "gentle curve" in the iron. Otherwise, I'll usually go to the L-N scrub which is why I bought it in the first place. Sometimes if I'm going from 4/4 rough to 3/4 finished and the 4/4 stock was a bit on the scant side thickness-wise (gotta watch this stuff), I'll start with the jack in that scenario as well. I actually use the scrubber a little less than I used to but it is still a permanent fixture in my efforts to four-square stock.
I'm still convinced that the scooping action of a relatively narrow but thick, cambered blade gets me to where I need to be faster and with the least amount of effort expended. As far as I'm concerned said thick cambered blade can be mounted in whatever plane body turns you on. If one has a need or feels pressed to maintain some sort of North American 18th century precedent then good on 'em (doesn't apply to you). I personally haven't found mass to be an advantage when removing a lot of wood.
I just finished my tax return this weekend and I bought about fifteen hundred board feet of lumber last year. Had very little left on 12/31. All of it was processed by hand for specific furniture commissions, fwiw. I have found a methodology that has become rote and works for me.
Edited 4/15/2008 10:04 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
A couple of comments:
There's an excellent demonstration of how to faltten a board with a #40 Scrub in Rob Cosman's "Rough to Ready".
I use both a L-N scrub and a #6 Stanley type 11 (as a fore) plane at the bench for roughing a plank to approximate flatness, but I use them very differently. As Larry Williams described, a fore plane length will allow you to flatten one face of a board using the sole of the plane as a tool - the tool will automatically skip cutting the low spots and aggressively cut the high spots. Using the tool in this manner typically means that you need to make at least 3 passes over the whole surface of the board - once 90 degrees to the grain, once on a left 30 degree diagonal to the grain, and once on a right 30 degree diagonal to the grain. The next step is a jointer with the grain, and finally a smoother (if the application requires it).
On many boards, going over the whole board with a fore plane is tiring and unnecessary. In those cases I sight the board with winding sticks, deterimine that there's only one high corner, and use the scrub in conjunction with the winding sticks to take it down to the point where I can use the jointer with the grain.
Regardless of its historically intended purpose, I find a scrub plane to be a significant labor saver, provided that the user recognizes that the plane is too short to "automatically" flatten a large board - the user has to sight the length to determine where the high spots are, and only use the plane in those areas.
FWIW
All that talk of the historical place of scrub planes and so on overlooks the adaptibility of early workers who very often would make or modify what they had, to do whatever they needed to do. We perhaps should try to be more relaxed regarding what tool to use.
I have a continental scrub and use it for a variety of tasks, mainly because it fits nicely in the hands. It my be worked forwards or pulled with equal ease and is simple to set.
I'm hard-pressed to imagine a shop that can't use a handplane that takes off great, big chunks of wood in one pass if one so desires.
Edited 4/15/2008 3:06 pm ET by AirWoodworker
"I find a scrub plane to be a significant labor saver"
Yes, I for one can attest for that.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.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
"A converted No. 4 does not because the blade lacks the requisite thickness. You can put a curve in a thin blade. It takes thickness to grind a camber into a blade. Some people confuse curve and camber and tend to use them synonymously."
Maybe you can explain the difference between curve and camber as you see it. To me, a cambered blade has just the corners taken off so that the blade doesn't leave plane tracks. A curved blade is actually an arc (part of a circle), as found on a scrub plane.
I know that you CAN camber a thin blade - most of us sharpen our smoothers this way. The only thing that a thicker blade does, in my mind, is reduce feedback (chatter), which isn't all that important for a scrub plane.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.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
Think about cambering the end of a block of cheese vs. cambering the end of a slice of cheese.
That help?
Why would I want to camber cheese? Hey, is this the Food Network?
Somebody such as yourself might appreciate the opportunity to cut some cheese.
Edited 4/16/2008 10:24 am ET by AirWoodworker
LMAO
Glad you enjoyed it.
Just don't try it with Swiss cheese. The holes will get ya!
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Swiss cheese is for that rustic look.
-Steve
No, it doesn't help. I must be missing something obvious. Or maybe I'm just overworked and my brain's fried. Or maybe you've got me thinking about food.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.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
Larry, are you speaking from direct experience actually using a Stanley style scrub - a 40? Because your statements directly contradict my own personal experience using one routinely over a long time.
Rough dimensioned stock often twists and cups, etc. as it is either air or kiln dried. This is not the same as unstable lumber, but instead is a function of the initial drying process where a huge swing in moisture is at work. A scub is an ideal tool for knocking down the high spots to begin the surfacing process. It is not radically aggressive like some tail-less belt sander liable to instantly gouge your work in a momenet of inattentiveness.
Whether a fore works as well, I will admit to having never done any sort of side by side test, so am glad to concede it might. Being necessarily less aggressive on depth (albeit taking slightly wider bites), it seems like it would require at least a many strokes to arrive at the same point - a wash.
I agree that unstable stock is never good, but as I say above, there is a difference between unstable stock (a board that will twist back and forth as humity changes) and rough sawn dried stock (a board that has cupped in the initial drying processes, but will remain stable once flattened - in the normal humidity swings of our homes).
The assertion that "there just aren't a lot of uses for a scrub plane at the bench" may be personally true for you, but for me and many other woodworkers, we seem to use them on hardwoods in our shop productively. I offer this for the beginners out there who hear this "only for carpenters and edges ... foreplanes are better" litany from luminaries like yourself and Chris Schwarz. For anyone out there who hasn't used a scrub and wonders if it might be useful: I use one regularly, and wouldn't be without it; it may or may not be for you, but it's nonsense to say that it is not a good tool for some who work with hardwood and have occassion of dimension rough stock (especially stock too wide to get through a hobbiest's 'lectric planer).
"Because your statements directly contradict my own personal experience using one routinely over a long time."
Mine too.
For Larry, I don't recall reading the word "thicknessing" in 18th c documents (of which there are admittedly few). Nicholson talked about "facing", which in my opinion has a different and important connotation. I suspect he wasn't dramatically changing the thickness of his stock. For Samson, I suspect that the age old debate about scrub planes comes down to the difference between commercially sawn stock and craftsmen sawn or riven stock usage. I think the Northern European tradition of scrub plane usage is due to the fact that they worked with riven or poorly sawn stock. There should be no debate about the profound effect the 17th c English and Dutch steel making industry had on the wood trades. The ability to produce a long, thin, steel, saw blade was a big big deal. These saws weren't everywhere. Folks used iron saws in other places. Who knows how well an iron saw could even cut a piece of hardwood, let alone how the teeth had to be shaped to ensure the tool's longevity?Consequently, you see Northern Europeans doing a lot more frame and panel stuff that probably used riven components. Northern European deforestation may have played a role as well. You don't set up a pit sawn operation where there aren't suitable trees. For riven stock, nothing beats a scrub plane. My wooden scrub had a rounded sole to approximately match its rounded blade. I never learned whether the plane was made like this or just became that way (I suspect the latter). But I like it better than the 2 #40's I've owned (and sold).So what I'm saying is, I'm with Larry on this one. I've used all of these planes extensively and I don't see the scrub planes as being all that useful for commercially sawn lumber (and I'm including 18th c professionally pitsawn lumber in this). The long sole of the fore plane allows you to do some flattening with it, while its cambered iron and wide mouth allow the easy passage of thick shavings. Its a tool everybody should have, in my opinion. I think Chris should procure a good jack plane (if he doesn't have one already), open its throat and camber its iron. I suspect he'd be happier with a traditional fore plane than he currently is with this cleverly modified #4. A good English style fore/jack plane is a wonderful unsung hero of a hand tool shop. Mine is a real joy to use. Its wooden body is light weight, and offers little friction.So in conclusion, I think Anglo American craftsmen didn't have scrub planes because they didn't plane riven stock frequently enough to justify this tool. Where I have see riven stock usage in Anglo American 18th c furniture (drawer components for example), it looked like the progression was drawknife to fore plane (because you can kinda see evidence of both). That's my long winded take on the subject! Thanks for reading!Adam
Edited 4/18/2008 6:28 am ET by AdamCherubini
Adam, I agree that the more poorly sawn the stock - or in some cases, the more poorly dried - the greater the likelihood of needing to do some surface hoggin to release the inner four square. As the scrub excels at hogging - it would make sense that it originated or found common usage with folks who had more of that type of wood. If your stock is pretty close to start, a foreplane is likely fine.
Given the relatively sparse record of historical tools and techniques, I dunno how much it makes sense to draw conclusions from omissions. There may well be things that were so mundane and taken for granted that no one would have thought it necessary to waste effort, ink, and paper on. Maybe?
You raise a good point. But I'm really skeptical that anglo americans used scrub planes in the 18th c. I mean we do have some data. The inventory of Charles Plumley in 1708 for example, listed tools very specifically. It included jack planes, long planes, swich blocks, at least one jointer, and smooth planes. This is the earliest and most complete inventory of any american cabinetmaker. I know of at least a half dozen other inventories and none include anything that sounds like a scrub plane.But you're right we can never be 100% certain.Hey, I'm going to shut up and let you read the inventory yourself! Its pretty interesting. Nothing like facts for these sorts of discussions!Adam
Perhaps your only referring to "complete inventory of any american cabinetmaker" that you know of.
This may be true relative to Anglo-Americans but not all early American furniture wood workers were Anglo-American. Not all early American woodworking took place in the New England and middle state geographies. The use of furniture grade tools was not limited to a select few early American period furniture makers who left testaments, records, notes and examples behind nor to Northern Europe influences.
There are dated real physical examples.
I have seen one at St. Augustine's museum and also in their tool works "period" demonstrations building furniture (using a model of the museum's original, dated from first settlement). Blade and throat and blade radius extremely close in size to a Number 40 - blade perhaps thicker. Wood body length and width significantly larger.It would seem to predate Plumley by about 143 years - give or take 2-4 thousand days.
It seems that Spain used them a little earlier (not exactly Northern Europe). Perhaps they have been in use since the Hellenics.
I have seen similar tool examples at the Cluny in Paris. Italian - Circa. 950 Ad. If one assesses the fantastic capabilities of the craftsmen of Egyptian and Etruscan jewelry and cabinet work, it would follow that more coarse tools would have also evolved. Citing Plumley's list implies that everything prior to 1708 was done by --- adze? Interesting.
Need drives invention.
Although no providential list may exist, I would think it would be immoderate to suggest that in one form or another, through one culture or another, the scrub plane, as we know it and used in furniture, has not been with us from times predating Plumley. To do so, I believe, would seem to be a myopic historically parochial viewpoint.
Failing more broad and accurate information and "lists", I think we can be significantly less than less than 100% certain. More likely, 20 %.
Certainly not high enough to postulate a "first use of" scenario.
It also seems to me that if they were in use before the 18th century and in use in the 19th and 20th century, then it would follow that they were used in the 18th century.I use scrub planes on a regular basis on commercially sawn, not riven stock. i.e., slabs,RegardsBB"Everything old is new again."
Chamber pots were in use in the 18th c and with the economy going like it is may be in use in the 21st c. But that doesn't change the fact that I don't have one now and have no use for one at the moment. Now had I polished off the 12 pack of New Castle Brown Ale I picked up Friday night on sale.....I understand where you are going, but I've never seen data to support your assumption. We have several inventories, a couple tool lists, a few period images, moxon, nicholson and none discuss or reveal scrub planes.Interestingly similar, they also didn't seem to have bevel edged firming chisels. The Dutch had them. And IIRC, the English had them in the 17th c, but not in the 18th.But if your point is "one can never be too sure", I hear ya and agree. I like to think about what it would be like if I could go back in time. What would I have gotten wrong, what would surprise or disappoint me. I think about and study this time and these people so much, I wonder if having met them, I'd wish I hadn't.Adam
I think Chris should procure a good jack plane (if he doesn't have one already), open its throat and camber its iron. I suspect he'd be happier with a traditional fore plane than he currently is with this cleverly modified #4. A good English style fore/jack plane is a wonderful unsung hero of a hand tool shop.
Ah - I have a scrubby jack which I think is what's being discussed.. It works very well, and VERY fast
BugBear
Bugbear et alNew to these sites....quickly scanned the lengthy talk of scrub planes with interest. Guess that I would agree that a true scrub has limited use in most bench furniture work. But I used a wooden scrub for my hand ripped, chainsaw ripped and riven birch in bush Alaska for dogsled pieces. Especially tapers etc. If you appreciate and use drawknives, scorps, adzs, slicks etc you will appreciate a scrub. I still use it to rough out thick stock for outdoor tools like a shaving horse and heavy furniture. Or to clean up adz work on crafted beams and the like. Also like the look of light passes on buttery wood to contrast with smoothness in some funiture. It is a great handtool if your needs run the gamut of practical woodworking seems to me.
I luv it... I just sorted through all the postings on this thread and seen some really mighty fine tool cabinets, even if they was all to small.. But I am really curious as to why folks is so po that they aint got but one fret saw, maybe only one handsaw, and hardly a hammer to be seen.As well, I still ain't seen in 100+ postings anything that says a 40,40.5 or 340 scrubitational tools is better than the next, and ya know that theres a buncha moulding applicators lurking about, and modern MDF moulding is often devoid of back relief, the cure for which is a 220 block plane blade ground to an agressive curve. No mention whatsoever. A 5$ flea market purchase fufilling a practical purpose. Wanna heftier scurb plane. A 10 buck #4 ground to a curve. Maybe you gotta open the throat a tad. But there's no doubt them tool cabinets look impressive. Just not anywhere near big enuf.Eric in Cowtown
I've never quite figured out how to best use drawknives. I don't find that I have very good control, even with straight-grained softwoods. Maybe I just need more practise. My spokeshaves, on the other hand, work like charms.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.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
Morning Chris,
I've never quite figured out how to best use drawknives.
Well I wanna tell ya they are fun! By no means an expert but a while back I was faced with shaping some cabriole legs for the piece I'm working on. Without a working spokeshave, the weapon of choice for many, I decided to try drawknives.
I have 3 of them, one a humongo 12" with flat sole and a 9" with flat sole. The little fella is 6" and has a slightly convex sole. I chose the little fella and honed it on a 1" belt sander to a razor edge. MUST BE RAZOR SHARP.
It worked like a charm, 'cept the handles were getting in the way at first. Then I began skewing the blade and using what I call a shearing stroke. Held the blade in a skew angle to the cut and and drew the blade from the back to the tip as I drew the knife across the wood. Nice long curly shaving off the wood and I could ride the bevel as it were, on the convex sole; thus controlling the depth of cut.
The one thing I've learned so far is you MUST read the grain! If you go against the grain it will either tear out or the grain will pull the blade into the wood, taking deep gouges! No, no, I don't want that! Look at the grain first numbscull I kept saying to meself.
On curves I found that if you ride down the curve such that you're cutting across the grain at an angle the knife leaves the wood smooth as a babies patoot.
Again I emphasize I'm just beginning to appreciate these drawknives but through my OJT I have to say they're a lot of fun. Be aware that they can remove a LOT of wood in a hurry so ya jes havta develop a finess with em, I think!?
So grab a piece of wood, clamp it in yer vise and have some fun!
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 6/11/2008 10:01 am ET by KiddervilleAcres
Bob,
I don't yet own a drawknife, but think that one would certainly be a usefull addition to my arsenal, even if it is relegated to stripping bark. Any advice on what to get in regards to blade length and handle style? I'll probably use it for roughing out turning blanks and carvings as well as peeling bark. Kind of general purpose - atleast until I figure out what I can do with it.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.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
Chris,
Wish I could help you but I'm a neophyte when it comes to drawknives. In my case I had a need to shape me legs and just grabbed the tool I thought would work. Most folks suggest a spokeshave and so the closest thing I had was the small 6" drawknife - and it worked.
It would seem to me though that you might need more than one. For prepping turning blamks I would think a small one like the 6" would work good. As for removing bark mebbe a larger one, but am not sure.
I'd also like to learn more about these versatile tools, so I'll put up a discussion in Hand Tools.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
I have this one: http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=20115&cat=1,41131,41140
It's relatively inexpensive, and it works well for what I use it for, which is basically stripping bark and little else.
-Steve
Edited 6/12/2008 9:33 am ET by saschafer
Samson,
Do what ever trips your trigger. I can tell you that even Chris Schwarz; who starts his video, Coarse, Medium and Fine, by whacking away at a piece of rough stock with a scrub plane; will now tell you a scrub plane doesn't have much use in preparing stock.
Even Chris Schwarz??? Wow.
Seriously though. I like Chris' writing a lot. He's taught me plenty of things by sharing his first hand experiences of trying different tools and techniques, especially in Woodworking magazine. That doesn't mean I agree with every one of his opinions or feel the need to throw out my personal preferences in favor of his.
As for him telling you that a scrub plane "doesn't have much use in preparing stock," it makes as little sense when he says it as when you do.
And I take it that you are citing Chris because you have no personal experience?
Actually Samson, I sold old #40 Stanleys to several of the carpenters I worked with over the years. I made my living for more than 25 years as a finish carpenter and cabinet maker. We were general contractors and did all of our own finish work and cabinets. I found a lot of uses for a scrub plane on construction sites.We bought our hardwoods in the rough so we could work with straight and true stock of appropriate dimensions. Any time we needed stock wider than our 8" jointer one side was flattened first by hand. We had scrub planes but used what would have traditionally been called fore planes.Have prepared stock by hand? Yeah, there was I time my table saw, jointer and planer were in the company shop and I did small around-the-house jobs with hand prepared stock. My wife expects me to do the carpentry we need done. I did try to avoid stock preparation by hand, I had and still have a jointer and planer.My partner, Don McConnell, is one of the few people I know of who worked professionally by hand both in his job at Ohio Village and, later, in his own furniture shop. Funny thing, he says the same thing I do--he had a scrub plane but didn't find much use for it at the bench.
Well, thanks for taking the time to explain where you're coming from, Larry. I've met plenty of woodworkers who just put down the scrub, having never really tried one, because they read some famous type poo poo it.
There must of been some magic in that 40 blade Ron Hock sold me, cause mine works a treat. As you said, each to their own I guess.
Thanks again.
O.K., I'm not in you guy's league by a long shot, but based on a recent article by Chris Swartz on putting a mighty camber on a plane blade and using it to rapidly remove stock, I modified an otherwise useless old #4's blade with said mighty camber into a scrub plane, and now use it to rapidly straighten the edge of boards that are just too darn long for my wienie 4" jointer.
Fast and easy, and I joint the other edge with the table saw.
It has a place on MY bench.
Mike D
I think that what Larry is saying is that, by dimension and definition, you made a fore plane and not a scrub plane. As he said, he does have use for a fore plane, which you made. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I also think Larry is stating that once you have a fore plane you will have little to no use for a scrub plane due to the dimensions of the fore allowing for a higher level of control. Larry probably quoted Chris Schwarz due to the fact that many people base their opinions on his. I'd like to think that Mr. Williams does not.
I think Larry has stated before that a fore plane is able to remove more volume in a single pass than a scrub. A fore plane's shaving will be wider but not as deep. This leads to faster and more accurate dimensioning. Again, I may be wrong.
A scrub plane user not actively looking to purchase a fore, Matt
Hummm. I get tangled up in my shoe laces at this point when talking about planes by name rather than size (newbie to planes).
According to the Lie-Nelson site, a #4 and a scrub plane are both about 10 inches long, a jack plane is 14 inches long, and a fore plane is 18 inches long. So, if I "convert" a #4 to a scrub plane, at least the length is "correct" for a scrub plane.
I did use the old thin blade that came with the #4. And I put a 3" curve on it and not camber as the blade isn't thick enough for camber. But it seems to work just fine with the thin blade. Admittedly, I don't make huge deep gouges with it. However it does cut far more aggressively than the same plane with a blade shaped with no curve, and I can straighten the edge of a rough sawn board with it very quickly. So quickly, in fact that I haven't yet taken the time to make one of the very clever jigs recently talked about for accomplishing the same thing with the table saw.
Re camber vs curve, yep, I can see that a thick blade with camber vs curve would cut with little chatter and quite aggressively, but I'm not to that point yet. I've much more to learn about this subject!!!
Thanks for the dialogue.
Mike D
I would say you have more control with a short plane than a long one. For even more control you might want to go with an adze. With the longer planes It's the length and flatness of the plane's sole that gives precision in flattening a board but it also less useful. If longer or wider is always better why is the #4 usually the recommended first plane? I have seen some recommend the #6. I wouldn't use a scrub to flatten or thickness stock but it is quite useful for taking the crown off a rough-cut board. It will remove a lot or a little wood; exactly where you want to take it off. It's not a necessity. You can probably get by with one plane, three chisels, a panel saw and a dovetail saw, but we all know that's not going to happen.
"Well, thanks for taking the time to explain where you're coming from..."
Samson,
While I was frustrated by your question and viewed it as a distraction, it's a valid one. On the Internet, the volume of woodworking advise generated by air-woodworkers seems pretty high. It's a question that ought to be asked more often around here since all one needs to be an instant expert is a keyboard and a little of the vocabulary.
Larry:
To me, two things matter in hand preparing stock, accuracy and speed. To this end I'm always looking to learn from someone who knows his subject, especially from experience. I would like to know what you consider to be the most functional configuration for a fore plane. Length and general weight of plane; open or closed tote; and width, thickness, and amount of camber on the iron. I am assuming you prefer a wooden plane to a metal one. Throw in anything else you think would be helpful for those of us who don't own a planer or massive jointer. Thanks.
gd,Let me start by saying most of my work was in a machine oriented shop. The main reason I developed a dislike for hand preparing stock is that I only did it when the stock I needed was bigger than the machines would handle. Hand preparing large pieces is the most difficult and labor intensive part of hand stock preparation. Most stock is reduced to rough dimension before getting it ready for use regardless of whether you work by hand or machine. Hand preparing smaller pieces isn't a big deal or all that difficult.I assume you're looking for practical information and not a post about the evolution of jack planes and fore planes and their probable uses. If you're looking for historical perspective, I should ask Don to respond.The first place to start, after reducing stock to rough dimensions, is to look at each piece and develop a strategy as to how you can get the needed thickness from that piece. Generally, for hand work, you'll probably be looking for something like 7/8" finish thickness from 4/4 stock. One advantage you'll quickly find is that the extra 1/8" thickness you get from hand prepared stock is more appropriately sized for furniture scale work than the 3/4" stock most machine shops use as a finish thickness. The difference in visual weight can be dramatic and a real bonus when it comes to design.Fore/jack planes will range from about 14" to 20" long and have irons about 1 3/4 to 2 1/2" wide. It's helpful to have a couple sizes and to size the plane used to the size of the material being worked. Some people suggest an 8" radius camber for a fore/jack plane. I suggest you consider 12" radius unless the iron is narrow and in a relatively short plane. The length of the plane combined with how it's working can be a great indicator of how flat you're getting but monitoring your progress with winding sticks and a straight edge is important.The plane and camber you find best is a personal choice. It'll depend on your endurance and the woods you most often work. It won't take you long to understand why Stanley's light wood-bottom planes were so popular or to cringe a little when someone says they prefer heavy planes with a lot of mass.A plane that's too short for your work can get you into trouble by making it easy to reduce the thickness too much locally and a plane that's too long makes for extra work. Don McConnell, who's done a lot more of this kind of work than me, prefers a fore plane of about 16" long for most work.When you're getting good full length shavings, your winding sticks agree with each other and your straight edges tell you you're flat (across the width, length wise and diagonally); do your final clean up with a try plane. If you can, save any slight clean-up with a smooth plane until after cutting to length or any joints that need to be cut.The first face and edge you'll do should be your reference face and edge. These need to be the most accurate, mark these as you make them. Every thing else is laid out from these so, in casework, they're most often the backs or non-show surfaces. You won't end up with square casework if these surfaces aren't true. This isn't intuitive and I suspect most people have to learn this lesson the hard way.Once you have your reference face flat, you can create a reference edge. You can't do the edge first because it'd be unlikely it'll end up square to your face. The second edge should really be gaged and created next because it makes gaging for final thickness more useful and accurate. Some people have suggest planing a slight chamfer on the second face ending on the gage line as a visual indicator of where you are. I've used a sash fillister to do this and, now that I have a good one, I could use a plow plane. However, after watching Don work, I think this is probably a lot of extra work. When he works to a gage line with a plane the last pass will usually produce a thin narrow ribbon of wood standing at the gage line.A little experience will tell you how close you can work to your gage lines when roughing to final thickness on the second face. It'll depend on the plane you use and the camber of the iron. Initially it's a good idea to leave yourself a little room until you get used to your fore plane and switch to the try plane sooner than you might think you should. As near as I can tell, what I've described is pretty much traditional trade practice. It could be that I'm missing something but I've watched Cosman's DVD and I don't see it as helpful. He really doesn't address the critical issue of final stock thickness and starts out by whacking away at the whole piece of stock with a scrub plane, arbitrarily reducing the thickness of the stock by a thirty second of an inch or more. I may have Cosman's DVD confused with another and it could be that he does briefly talk about thickness. If he does, I think it's way too late by the time it's mentioned. I don't think it takes a lot of experience with planes to know when they're behaving like they're cutting on a relatively flat surface. The performance of the fore plane will tell you a lot more than burnishing a board with a bench top. (Or was it the other way around?) I don't think a person would have to prepare much stock by hand and have some doubt about whether Cosman really works the way he shows. But then, like I said earlier, what ever trips your trigger.
Thanks Larry:
I guess I wasn't specific enough. My question is in regard to the tool itself. I've been dimensioning stock with handplanes for 40 years. I have every size Stanley from #3 to #7 including two #5 1/2, plus several Lie-Nielsen planes, including the bevel up jack and smoother. Over the last couple of years I have been having a go with wooden bodied planes (a jointer & a smoother). There are three advantages I see to wooden bodied planes over metal bodied planes. First, they tend to use thicker irons which, in my opinion, work better on all levels than thin irons. Second, the wooden bed and mechanical action of the wooden wedge pressing down on the iron does a better job of preventing and dampening vibration in the iron than does a metal bed (frog) and level cap. Third, wooden soles seem to glide across a board more smoothly than do metal soles.
I don't as yet have a wooden fore plane, but from reading your's and Adam's postings I think it will be my next tool. I have looked at the fore plane on your website. It is listed with a 20" long sole and 2 1/2" wide cambered iron. In your post you suggest starting with a 12" radius on the iron, is that about what your fore plane comes with? Also, how thick is the iron? Looking at the picture of the plane, it appears that the mouth is set about a third of the way back from the toe, though I'm not sure. I would love to know how you decided on that configuration, is it to be historically correct, or did you design your plane around your own experience using the tool? Plus, could you comment on the advantage or disadvantage of a razee styled fore plane? I know I am asking a lot, I appreciate your patience.
I can't recommend purchasing a plane based on the curvature of its iron. That's like choosing a chisel because it comes "out of the box" sharper than its competitors. So let's forget about camber for a moment. For someone like you who has a bunch of planes and a bunch of experience, I'd really recommend you procure 2 additionally woodies: I'd get a nice short, light jack plane you can throw around. Its wooden sole will slide easily as you say and you can do nice quick work with this plane. The 19th c planes were all 16". I guess Bill, Larry's partner, is saying the 18th c versions were shorter. Makes no difference. I think 14-16" is fine. I think C&W's are also narrower than what I find at the flea markets, and that's nice too. So the traditional anglo-american jack gives you a light weight low friction body, single iron that's easy to deal with. It should have a fairly open mouth (of course that's easy to do yourself- last C&W jack I saw had a pretty tight mouth), and a comfortable tote (don't be afraid to take a rasp to it if you feel doing so would improve your comfort).So that's one, the other I'd get is a long try plane. You said you had a jointer. Maybe your jointer is a try plane. With a try plane you want long and narrow with a mouth that's not too too tight. With a jointer you want super long and wide. And a jointer needs a fairly tight mouth. I recommend jointers with blades at least 2-7/8" wide. So look at what you have and decide whether your long woody is a jointer or a try plane. I don't know if C&W or any plane maker carries a plane that fits this description.The position of the mouth on the body is black magic. If you move the mouth toward the center, you get a functionally longer sole. I think the way the iron is accessed/adjusted requires you put the handle in a certain place which defines how much room you need behind the blade.I'm not a big fan of razee's. In theory they should be better. But I don't hold the plane solely on its tote. I sometimes hold the body an just hook my thumb around the tote. This may explain the offset tote. Adam
Edited 4/19/2008 8:05 am ET by AdamCherubini
Thanks for the post. I don't buy planes based on curvature of the iron either, I can easily adjust that to suit myself, just trying to get a feel for configuration. I have a Stanley and a LN #7s plus a wooden razee style jointer that is 24" long with a 2 3/8" wide iron. The wooden jointer's mouth is extremely tight, can barely tell there's an opening at all and works like a charm. I use the #7s to remove most of the material for dimensioning and then the wooden jointer for the last pass or two. I'm happy with this setup.
Dressed hardwoods are extremely expensive, so to save money I'll buy stuff from small sawmills that hasn't been planed. For rough stock dimensioning I use a combination of a scrub, Stanley #5 or #5 1/2 with heavily cambered irons. They get the job done, but take a lot of effort and time. I'd love to figure out a scrub or fore plane that could either speed this task up or be less exhausting to use. I've given up thinking a metal bodied plane will be any different in use, Time to try some different woodies.
Its nice to have a light weight jack. I think you'll like using it. I don't think your razee is long enough for use as a jointer. My try plane is 26" and my jointer is 30 or 32". Those longer planes really make a huge difference in the flatness you get.In general, I find wood to be a better material for planes. The tools are exaggerated in someways. The jack planes are lighter and easier to use, the long planes are longer, the smooth planes are shorter and slide nicer. Its not a pure 18th c thing for me. These tools just seem better to me.Adam
Well, after re-reading your's and Larry's posts I think I'll go for a 16" wooden jack with a 2 1/4" iron if I can find it or scrape together enough money to get Larry to make a custom one for me. My scrub plane has convinced me you don't need a heavy plane to hog off wood, just a sharp, heavily cambered iron. What you said about a light jack makes sense to me. I told you before I have two #5 1/2 that I use as fore planes. One is older with the 2 1/4" iron rather than the 2 3/8" iron the other one has. In use, I greatly prefer the narrower of the # 5 1/2s even though I am using the original thin Stanley iron in it versus a Hock iron and chipbreaker in the wider one. I have both set with 8" radius cambers so they basically remove the same amount of material in a pass. The slightly narrower sole makes the plane less tiring to use when I'm flatten stock.
I apologize to everyone for sort of highjacking this thread, but I found the entire discussion of great help in rethinking how I've been doing stock preparation for years. Thanks!
To quote Larry:"Don McConnell, who's done a lot more of this kind of work than me, prefers a fore plane of about 16" long for most work."This ties in well with our trade training, gdb. While people on forums are convinced that you need multiple planes and it draws incredulity when I mention it, cabinetmaking tradesmen here are trained to only use a No.6 plane (or 5 1/2) for all work once stock's out of the machine to finish planing prior to sanding. I think I used a smoother in 2003 for stock that I just couldn't be bothered taking a big dish out of.So, Australian (and UK?) tradesmen are trained to use the long plane.THe most common sized wooden plane you find second hand is about 18-20" long, typically a Mathieson, here.There must be something in the above statements. My supposition on why No.5 Jack planes are popular is a combination of Stanley marketing and the fact that the No.6 is a dog to carry around in a toolbox, and, coupled with the birth of the homeowner maintenance about 1925 onwards, where a large plane is just too big to store easily and conveniently, as well as too bulky to handle when not trained in it's use, made it unpopular. What I do know is you don't see too many wooden planes the same size as the No.5I'd also echo Larry's comments on the reference face and the face edge as being absolutely critical to success. Most critical is the first face. If you find that you can't plane and edge to be perpendicular to a reference face uniformly, go back and double check the reference face.Cheers,eddie
"This ties in well with our trade training, gdb. While people on forums are convinced that you need multiple planes and it draws incredulity when I mention it, cabinetmaking tradesmen here are trained to only use a No.6 plane (or 5 1/2) for all work once stock's out of the machine to finish planing prior to sanding. I think I used a smoother in 2003 for stock that I just couldn't be bothered taking a big dish out of."I think what is being discussed here is the situation where no machines are brought to bear in four-squaring stock.
Yes, you're right, Charles.If I was to prepare really rough stock, I'd start with a scrub plnae (I own a big and small Stanley scrub.) Then I'd finish it off with the fore plane.However, most prepared stock only needs a dozen passes or so of a rank set plane to clean it up, the rough board would have to have a very big twist/wind in it to force me to use a scrub.Cheers,eddie
"However, most prepared stock only needs a dozen passes or so of a rank set plane to clean it up, the rough board would have to have a very big twist/wind in it to force me to use a scrub."But then there's always thicknessing.....
As I was opening up your reply, Charles, I pictured the reply word-for-word. Yes, you're right. If it was more than 6mm/ 1/4", I'd use a hand saw to take the excess off, under 6mm then, that's what a scrub's designed for.Cheers,eddie
You'd resaw a quarter inch? Presumably off of one face....?
I'd scrub an eighth of an inch off each face..... :-)
Edited 4/30/2008 5:15 pm ET by TaunTonMacoute
Hi Charles,Yes, I would do one face only. Once I've got the face flat and out of wind I wouldn't touch it again unless the board was really cranky and looked like moving when the thing was resawn.Cheers,eddie
If I had a board that was a quarter inch over thickness, I'd scrub both sides, make a decision about the face side, dress it (which would be quick at this point) and then plane the other side to finish thickness. The goal being a more or less equal removal of wood from both faces. I personally would never flatten one face leaving a whole quarter inch to remove, by any method, off the opposite face.
Fair call Charles.I guess that it comes from our trade training.Here, the order of steps is, firstly to dress a face out of wind and straight; secondly, to make a straight edge at 90* to the face and thirdly to cut it to width. (fourth step is to dress to thickness.)If you futz about with the face after step 1, you're asking for trouble.I'm aware that things are done slightly differently over there. Not right or wrong, just differently.Cheers,eddie
I agree with the order of work except in the circumstance that we are discussing - when you know you have a board that needs a relatively large amount of wood removed. I think this circumstance calls for scrubbing a little off both sides before flattening one face. It also gives one an opportunity to see how the wood is acting before picking the reference face. After all, in this instance you've got plenty of thickness to work with might as well see how both sides are reacting to being planed, check for appearance, etc.
This is basically the same approach that would be taken with power tools. I'd never flatten a face on a jointer and then bring the piece to finished thickness on the planer by removing wood from the opposite face only. I don't see any reason to violate my own "rule" when using planes instead of power. The first pass through the planer is with the reference face down and then alternating faces after that until finished thickness is achieved. If I had to remove a lot of wood on the jointer to get a face flat then the first couple of passes through the planer would probably be with that face down. Still trying to equalize the amount of wood taken off each side....
Edited 5/1/2008 7:27 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
Charles:
What you described is basically the approach I have always taken up to the point of final thicknessing. I think I understand where you are going with trying to equally remove stock from both faces so as to maintain the boards equilibrum.
The boards I start with are usually fairly flat, but rough sawn (cupped boards get ripped into narrow pieces and twisted boards get crosscut into shorter pieces). I flatten and generally smooth one face, clean up the edges just enough to be able to mark for consistent thickness and then flatten and generally smooth the other face. Whichever side looks the best becomes my reference face and I true the edges to it followed by planing off the other side to get down to final thickness. If I need to remove more than 1/8" I'll take my scrub plane to it first , otherwise I take down most of the material with a Stanley #5 1/2 and finish thicknessing with a #7. I finish by smoothing with a LN BU Jack or Smoother. If the board is fairly straight to start with, the whole process for a 5/4 1' x 6' board takes me an hour to an hour and a half. Obviously I'm not running a production shop.
If you or anybody else has a better way of dressing stock with handplanes that is more efficient I welcome suggestions.
You state "I flatten and generally smooth one face, clean up the edges just enough to be able to mark for consistent thickness and then flatten and generally smooth the other face. Whichever side looks the best becomes my reference face..."I'm stuck on the "whichever side looks best becomes my reference face..."Do you put your best looking face inside your chests? I have my reference faces on the inside of my cases. For sure the case work reference faces are flat, but no need to smooth them. You can save time skipping the smoothing part on non-show faces.Perhaps it is a terminology issue -- but smooth isn't flat and flat isn't smooth in my shop. So, my case interiors often show try plane tracks if you view them in raking light (very shallow "dawks" as Moxon calls them). In other work, table aprons for example, my face and reference are often the same. If there are no drawers in a table I have the outside of the apron as both my face and reference and I never touch the inside. It is left as it came from the mill. So each of the four aprons may be different in thickness. This saves a lot of work as well.Also, I try to avoid "thicknessing" as much as possible. If I want 1/2" stock I don't start with 4/4 for example. So, like many others in this thread I find the typical scrub plane of no use. I start with a fore plane, and move to a try. And only on show faces do I smooth.
By "generally smooth" I mean a quick pass with my #7 taking a very light cut so I can best choose which face I want to show, not a final smoothing but it lets me know if I am going to have any problems with tearout. I generally don't "smooth" a board until all the joints are cut and I'm ready for glue up or sometimes after glue up, that is actually when the BU planes come into play, not during stock preparation as my last posting suggested. In terms of finishing my dimensioning of the board, the best face becomes my "reference face" in that I don't remove any more material from it and use it as my "reference face" to gauge thickness. Maybe a bad choice of words. Otherwise, like you, when I'm actually building a project it depends on efficiency of constuction whether I use the show face as the reference face or not.
I acquire wood when I come across a good deal, most of it is straight but rough sawn, thickness varies. I'm crazy, but not stupid. I don't plane 5/4 stock down to a finished thickness of 1/2". I was just trying to give a frame of reference for how long rough stock preparation takes me. I generally let wood sit in my shop for a couple of months before I do anything with it. As I have time, I plane the rough stuff to clean it up,flatten it, and see what I've really got. It then usually sits stacked for months before I make use of it. By then the wood has become as stable as it's going to get and I figure out what I want to build with it.
Edited 5/2/2008 1:22 pm ET by gdblake
Would you take a moment and
explain... dress a face out of wind I'm sure it's very simple but I've never heard the term.
It's "wind" as in "wind a clock" rather than "gone with the wind." It's just another word for twist. If you have a piece that is twisted along it's length, setting a straightedge across the board will always indicate that the board is approximately straight, but the longitudinal twist means that it really isn't. You need to remove material from the two opposite high corners to flatten it out.
-Steve
Thanks
Necessity is in the eye of the beholder. I used my LN 7 to flatten stock, and use Rob Cosmans method. I finally invested in the LN scrub and it sure makes life easier. I did ok with the 7, but it took some effort. With the scrub its easy to hog off wood. I thing they complement each other.
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
You're absolutely right - they complement each other. It can take a lot more effort using a straight-bladed plane than a heavily radiused blade to flatten a board.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.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
I'm not a trim carpenter. I produce furniture. I do use them for rough out with larger slabs. Not because it's expedient... it isn't. I do it because I enjoy doing it and it gives me great upper arm circulation and lowers my pulse rate.
That being said, my last use of Scrub plane was 2 days ago, installing a multiple raised panel in a hallway transition (1'4 panel room). Original ceiling was 1/8th + out of plumb on one side at back of panel. Easiest way to install panel was to scrub out last 4 x 20 inches of panel back and then smooth with a jack, then #7. This area would not be seen from opposing hall view. Took 5 minutes. Using power plane or other methods, too long, too much effort, too much chance of error.
BB
Edit "(1'4 panel room)" to (1/4 panel room)
Edited 5/4/2008 3:39 pm by boilerbay
This discussion about scrub planes is fascinating. I teach some workshops on bench plane skills and techniques and on foursquaring and I start the dimensioning process with a scrub plane. I also teach Windsor chairmaking and the first step is to dimension and flatten the seat blank and we use a scrub plane. It's no problem to regulate the aggressiveness of the plane. Straightedges and winding sticks will pretty much get you "squared away" in this process. So I would give a vote for scrub planes being a useful plane on the bench.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled