Replies

1. 
   deirdresm | Jul 16, 2006 08:57pm | #1

   There isn't even a system for common numbering of hollows and rounds, unfortunately, so anything more complicated surely wouldn't be standardized.

1. 
   joinerswork | Jul 17, 2006 08:18am | #3

   deirdre,

   Sure, there is a numbering system for hollows and rounds- every maker used one, no two of which were the same!

   Cheers,

   Ray Pine

1. 
   deirdresm | Jul 17, 2006 10:09am | #4

   Yes, I know, and that's the problem. :)I'm personally a fan of the Greenfield numbering system (up to a #20, anyway), where the H & R number was the number of sixteenths of an inch of width of the iron, e.g. a 2 was 2/16" = 1/8" iron width.http://www.calast.com/personal/ken/Sizing.htm

2. 
   lwilliams | Jul 16, 2006 09:15pm | #2

   John Whelan, in his book The Wooden Plane--Its History, Form and Function, attempts to create a common naming system for molding plane profiles. We'll see if it takes but even plane makers used different names for planes in their catalogs. It is problematic and the best way to approach building a working set of tools is to define how you intend to use them and what you intend to do. The most common side escapement planes would be hollows and rounds, rabbet/fillister planes, side beads, plows, center beads, ogees, ovolos, and maybe snipes bill planes. With graduated individual planes, what's listed here would do almost anything you might want.

3. 
   mufti | Jul 17, 2006 11:44am | #5

              Of course you could buy my mint Clifton multiplane instead and learn what struggling really means.