Below is a link to my review of this new plane from Veritas.
http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/TheVeritasSideRabbetPlane.html
Regards from Perth
Derek
p.s. Should have a subtitle of “Review for Mel to review”
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
Derek, thanks for the review. Great job as always.
Steve
Derek, your review was good enough for me to order one today. Further down the slippery slope I go!
Bruce
Lemme guess (do I need to even bother reading it?) - "it's wonderful, buy one without any worries," or something to that effect?
Sweet gig no doubt, is there any room left on their tool payroll?
You've become like the restaurant critic who is thrilled with McDonald's and Burger King as long as the food is free.
Edited 8/6/2008 8:39 am ET by PanBroil
Derek,
Read your review. Thanks for mentioning me in your message. Given that, I had to respond.
I enjoyed your review of the Veritas Side Rabbit plane -- your info on history and on other side rabbet planes. Your knowledge in these matters must be without peer.
I believe that as a result of reading your reviews, I am coming to learn more about myself. I believe that when you see a plane that you don't own, your first inclination is to want it. My response to all tools, is dictated by the amount of space in my shop and my blue collar upbringing. When I see a tool I don't have, I wonder why I would want such a thing. You delight in inspecting the differences between various alternative planes. I delight in trying to figure out how to to the same job quickly and easily with the tools in my workshop.
You did a great job of noting when the Veritas side rabbet plane would come in handy. For example, you said, "One alternative is to re-plane the edge of the board to fit the groove. However this may be an inappropriate fix if one section of the groove is binding and the length of the board must be slid past this point. It is more appropriate to just do a little tweaking in this area."
My first thought was, "why not just take a small piece of wood that fits into the dado and put some sandpaper around it, and sand it down until the offending High-spot is eliminated? Or why not use the router, which I would probably have used to make the dado in the first place. I could set up a simple wood fence, with a sheet or two of paper attached, to give me the same cut that I used to make the dado. Then if I remove the paper, I get slightly larger dado in that spot.
Or of course, I could go the route of "routerman" and put a micro-adjuster on the router fence, and really get precise. I love to read Pat Warner's stuff on routing. No one in the world matches his yearning for precision. He's an interesting guy. I once wrote him an email and asked a question. So as not to waste his time, the second paragraph of my message had what I thought might be the answer. He responded with how much money he would need to answer my question. It took him more time and space to do that that it would have to say, "Yup, your hunch was correct." But, while his approach to woodworking and mine are quite different, I enjoy learning about his approach.
I guess that in woodworking, as in everything else, there are lots of ways to skin the cat (or the dado). So in a tool review, it might be fun to learn the reviewer's answer to the question, "Who is this tool designed for?" I am not sure, but I would guess that Pat Warner doesn't have one.
Have fun. Keep up the enjoyable and thought provoking reviews.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
You delight in inspecting the differences between various alternative planes. I delight in trying to figure out how to to the same job quickly and easily with the tools in my workshop.
Hi Mel
I really enjoy these exchanges of ideas. Isn't this what forums are for?
So here are additional perspectives.
Some take pride in using inginuity to create objects.
Some will consider that developing handskills is the ultimate objective of woodworking.
Some consider that a completed piece of furniture is the ultimate objective of woodworking.
Some just want more power.
For some it is just a hobby and for others it is a living.
Some treat the workshop as a sanctuary rather than a place of work.
Some treat the workshop as a place of work and cannot conceive of it as a sactuary.
Some think of woodworking as fun and enjoy spending money on tools, in the same way that a golfer buys clubs and nicknacks.
Some think of woodworking as a business and coinsider any expenditure on non-basic tools as frivolous and wasteful.
Want to add more?
When I build furniture I like using good tools but enjoy using handskills more. Good tools are not essential but they can enhance the experience. Mostly I am in it for the creative process. When I review tools I put on my scientist's hat and just enjoy the whole analytic process.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,
That was the closest thing to real poetry that I have seen on Knots.
Well said. That post should go down as a classic, to be read by all.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
I knew a guy who had thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of cameras and related accoutrement - back when that was serious money when shooting film.
I think the guy shot maybe three rolls a year of some of the most amateurish looking landscapes you'd ever seen. An adolescent shooting 110 could have done better. This bloke was so overwhelmed with equipment he couldn't get basic snaps done during holidays or of his childrens' birthday parties. He fiddled and farted until he was completely frustrated. His inability to quit buying photographic gear was a major factor in the breakup of his marriage.
There IS a point at which this sort of thing becomes clinical. Having seen this sort of thing more or less first hand I would be much more cautionary than you. Anybody feeling that it's all or mostly about the equipment needs to ask themselves some tough questions.
Boss,
IT IS GREAT TO HEAR YOUR VOICE AGAIN. (or should I say, "see your voice" since this is email.)I have critiqued the last few tool reviews that Derek has written. In a recent one, I suggested that instead of doing the laboratory review that he does, it would be better to put the tool in a real workshop like that of Boss Crunk or Sarge Grinder. Then I wrote to Derek about this tool review and said that I thought I could accomplish the same thing as the side rabbet plane with a piece of sandpaper and a stick. And who who should jump into the fray, but the BOSS. I believe that my point was not much different than yours. You made it better with your analogy to the photographer. By the way, I knew more than a few such photographers back in the 70s who were just like that. Their "focus" was on the equipment. I believe that focus on equipment is rampant here on Knots. Derek wrote a nice message back to me earlier today in which he eloquently described the different things that people look for in woodworking. For some, it is the "Output". For others, it is tool collecting, for others it is the use of hand tools, etc etc etc. Derek and I are looking for different things in tools. It is as simple as that. I probably won't be commenting much on Derek's tool reviews anymore. No need to. It has just become obvious to me that he is writing for a different audience. Derek is passionate about tools, and he is writing for others who share his passion. I don't take him to be making recommendations to production workshops as to what tools they should buy, or what "frugal" hobbyists like me should buy. But I will continue to read all of his reviews. I find them interesting because he is IMHO, the best writer in field of woodworking. His use of crisp prose and good photographs make his writing a clear as a bell. He has a vast knowledge of the history of tools and of other tools that are currently on the market, especially those which are esoteric or different than previous tools. So even though I don't get useful info for making my few tool purchases, I do have the time to enjoy his writing. You and he have something in common - PASSION. It is evident when you write - you feel strongly. Derek is equally passionate about his tools. Me, I love to learn from passionate people. I am descended from a long line of Italians. :-)I enjoyed your message to Derek, and am glad to see you on Knots again. Have fun.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
I just can't make myself read a book when I already know the ending.
An old codger once gave me a wakeup call - he said "you know everything about a 'gol darned tool except how to use it." And by "use it" he meant use it, not make love to it. I was shot full of nuttin' but theory and practice joints. Like a golfer who's all Ranger Rick - looks great on the practice tee, can't find his arse during a real round of golf maybe with a buck or two on the line.
That was the day I put down the book of sonnets and the posies I liked to carry around.
A side rabbet plane? Please. That thing has Dilweed written all over it I don't care how well it's made. I like what you said - a block and some sandpaper or a deftly wielded chisel. That has "git 'er done" written all over it. I could tell you about a trick with a scraper but I ain't giving it all away.
Edited 8/7/2008 3:16 pm ET by BossCrunk
Of course, I think the people crying hooey are writing a bit of hooey themselves.
If there are any people here at knots believing that there is money to be made making tools only (or even mostly) for professionals, raise your hand. Ok, I didn't see a one.
However, in my working shop did I use a Record side rebate plane? Or my wooden versions? Yep. Useful even in a power tool-centric shop. At least mine. And considering the wooden ones were made back when men were men and the fact there are a whole lot of them with irons sharpened well enough they no longer fit properly, well, I suspect they actually got used, eh?
The Preston upon which the Record model was patterned on--and now the LV model--were made at a time that cast iron planes over took wood ones. These too were used by people who made furniture largely by hand--or at least fitted individual components.
Now as then, there have always been more than one way to accomplish something. I suspect there were even people taking ten times as long to widen a rebate out using a chisel than to ever purchase a side rebate plane. I also suspect they poo-poo'd those who bought such items as being wasteful of money.
Stuff like this is easy. Buy it, don't buy it. Who really cares? The fact is they are useful tools. Just not one that may see a lot of use compared to a plow plane or a rebate plane.
Take care, Mike
"Of course, I think the people crying hooey are writing a bit of hooey themselves...."
Mike,
I wouldn't even care if Lee Valley decided to go down the blind alley of reintroducing that old guaranteed failure gimmick of a variable pitch plane and ran a buzz marketing campaign on every woodworking forum on the Internet. People either grow beyond the gimmick, tinker-toy, every plane is a smooth plane world or they give up on working with hand tools. What I find annoying is the steady flow of bad information or misinformation. I couldn't get more than a few sentences into Derek's review without stumbling over things that are wrong.
Most annoying to me was the information about snipe bill planes being the same thing as side rabbets. Snipe bills and side rabbets are very different and Derek knows it. At least he knows it now and has for a couple days. I told him about it on another forum. He hasn't changed it and probably won't--I think his experience is too limited for him to understand the significance.
If hand planes have a Rosetta Stone, it's the snipes bill plane. They're an important marker in the history of hand planes. They're also very enabling tools for anyone who might want to make their own moldings. They make the process direct, accurate and incredibly easy. For instance, if someone wanted to make the molding in the following photo they'd find snipes bill planes critical. Don worked up this sample from Sheraton's drawing book:
View Image
All the side rabbet planes in the world wouldn't help you with making this molding.
Ah Larry, first and foremost, please convey to Don what beautiful work.
Though I don't read many reviews regardless of who writes them nor what they are about, I do often follow the aftermath. And it was on WC that I saw the comments about the snipe bills issue.
Regardless of identification error on Derek's part, my only comment was as regards the utility of side rebates. It of course was prompted by Charlie's comment about them being useless. I've always had one form or another, including the LN repops. Quite nice little buggers. But alas, when I started the business I needed to sell some tools to fund equipment and the choice was getting all my money back for the LNs or "something" back from the purchase years ago of the Record.
We have communicated about the snipe bills following the post on WC where you showed Don sinking a groove for later use of H&Rs. I think it was a great tip/discovery. One that I haven't had opportunity to utilize yet.
Most of the time, I use my vintage woodies. I am familiar with their particular quirks. They are not as easy to use as the Record or the LNs. But on some things, like the little 4 mm groove I needed to widen to accomodate a box bottom that I didn't desire to attack the beveled panel any more, the Record sure made short work of the groove.
All the side rabbet planes in the world wouldn't help you with making this molding.
That is absolutey true. Nor would the snipe bills plane have widened my little 4 mm groove (well, actually they will, pretty much functionling like a side rebate).
But I doubt you are trying to make the case that side rebates are therefore useless planes. In fact, if I didn't know you better, I would guess that the image of Don's molding is the subject of the next DVD. If it were, it could be seen as a bit of shilling your own video. Creating a bit of buzz. Pretty much like LV does.
But like I said. Due to knowing how much you dislike shilling, I doubt that is why the overstatement and the beautiful, professional quality shot of the molding is for.
Now, I cannot keep you from getting PO'd at me for what I just wrote. It is not my intention. I wrote the above for a couple reasons. One, ascribing ill motives to another person or company is often a dumb thing. Two, interpretation of what someone writes--why they wrote something seemingly wrong or not adressing the point--can be prone to error.
For instance, was it better for me to ascribe shilling to you, or should I have simply asked you to explain your comment and why you used that image to make a seemingly off-topic point? Or perhaps I could have asked if side rebates of any type are useful.
Take care, Mike
Mike,
I thought the topic was Derek's review. In it he mixed up side rabbet, side snipe and snipe bill planes.
In your last post you said "Nor would the snipe bills plane have widened my little 4 mm groove (well, actually they will, pretty much functioning like a side rebate)."
Actually Mike, you have side snipes confused with snipe bills. They look the same but cut on completely different locations on the profile.
Yes, Don's DVD will cover using the snipes bill planes. I doubt anyone here would have made the connection. You can assign any motive you like, I'm not going to lose sleep over that.
I'll tell you what was on my mind. If you read any of the books about the history of planes at the very least you find the suggestion that British planes evolved from Dutch planes. W.L.Goodman, Mark and Jane Rees, Don and Anne Wing, John Whelan and Gerrit van der Sterre all either say this or leave the impression it's likely.
I believe that's wrong and that the British planes evolved in the last half of the 17th Century in a robust and dynamic British woodworking environment. There's almost no evidence to support the theory about the Dutch influence on British planes. I've been exchanging e-mail with Don and Anne Wing about this. Maybe five days ago I sent them a long e-mail detailing the evidence Don and I have put together to show that British planes were more sophisticated and evolved than the Dutch planes at the time the British were supposedly copying the Dutch. One of the strong pieces of evidence is the British development of the snipes bill plane. No where on the Continent does a similar type of plane show up, the Dutch never made snip bill planes yet Joseph Moxon lists them in 1668 in conjunction with hollows and rounds. This is consistent with authors through out the 18th Century and with existing old inventory records. This may seem esoteric but to people making period furniture or those who want to understand the history it's important. I still haven't heard back from the Wings this time so it's on my mind. It doesn't help when people add to the already abundant confusion.
You may find it off topic but, if you read the review, it starts out with bad information.
Here's a photo of a snipe bill plane working from a gauge line for Mike Hennessy:
View Image
Thanks, never saw one before. Where does it cut -- just the bottom, some distance along the curved profile, flat side, combination of the above?
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
Mike,The snipe bill is an entering plane that cuts on the bottom point and up the curved side to about the far edge of the curve. The side snipe will only cut on the flat side and is used to widen quirks or other fine recesses.
Ah. Thanks.
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
Well, yes I did screw up. I had read Derek's response before writing mine to you, as well as looking up the Hack statement. The parenthetical statement was a tongue in cheek bit that also identified the wrong snipes bill plane. Ah well.
You wrote:"I thought the topic was Derek's review. In it he mixed up side rabbet, side snipe and snipe bill planes."
Now, if someone had started a thread "Did you read Derek's latest Review? What did you think of it" or some such drivel, then the subject would be Derek's review in particular. That is not to say it shouldn't be corrected. Hack does make that statement (snipes bill planes for use as a side rebate). Hack is/was wrong. So was I. I would go edit my post above but I prefer to leave my idiotic statement in its context.
But...I thought the subject of the review was the topic. I.e., side rebate planes and in particular, the new LV one.
All else is, no matter how interesting, is not the point unless we make it so. By the time I bothered with responding a pronouncement had been made that side rebate planes are worthless (or less than). I do not believe that, do you?
And if not, what about the LV design? See any merit? Aside from the traditional wooden planes, if one was to purchase a cast plane, is there utility in the design? How does it fail, if so? What is a better design?
I know I owned the LN versions of the Stanley design. They can be a bit more difficult to hold upright steadily through the cut. But I still loved mine. As regards holding, I do like my Record version better. It is taller and my sense of vertical (aside from watching the shaving) is easier to sense. That is the same reason I prefer my vintage wood side rebates.
However, the great failing of the Record version is that the sharp rear corner can bite into the flesh. Not a big deal if there isn't much trimming going on, but it can make the hand a little sore.
I could care less about the irons being in the same plane as regards sharpening (I had to go read the review to find that info out). I suppose if one uses a honing guide it makes a difference by a few seconds. Then again, if one is redesigning something like LV did and that fact rears its head, why not make the change?
The main feature to me that the LV plane overcomes is the neato handle. At least from the pictures. I have never held one, never tried to use it. But if it affords even a bit better control and comfort? Kudos to LV for not mearly copying a design.
Take care, Mike
Hi Larry
Most annoying to me was the information about snipe bill planes being the same thing as side rabbets .... If hand planes have a Rosetta Stone, it's the snipes bill plane.
In my experience, Larry, you have a tendency to be overly tunnel visioned. You'd think that the review was about wooden snipe bill planes and not about a metal side rabbet plane they way you carry on. Here is what I wrote (3 sentences in all!):
"… side rabbet planes came in both metal and wooden versions. The wooden versions, with their long vertical irons, were referred to as side snipe planes owing to the way they resembled the snipe bird. The name “snipe” is derived from “snite” a variant of “snout” and refers to the long bill of the bird."
You raised this issue on WC, with a heading that exclaimed "You got the history wrong". You wrote there, "A wooden side snipe and a wooden side rabbet are different planes". And I replied to you: "There is a great deal of conflicting and, for myself, confusing information about the definitions and use of the wooden side rabbet planes. In this area I most defnitely defer to you. Garrett Hack, in his "Handplane Book" uses the term snipe bill to refer to a side rabbet plane. In my understanding this is incorrect. A more detailed description of the various types of wooden planes of this type comes from Ralph Brendler, who discussed them on the Old Tools list (link below).
Here is the link to Ralph's text: http://swingleydev.com/archive/get.php?message_id=103554&submit_thread=1#message
Did you reply? No. Did the forum pay any further attention to this crucial error in an otherwise longer review? No. Has anyone else commented elsewhere on this? No.
Incidentally, I did not call the plane a "snipe bill" as you allude. I referred to it as a "side snipe". Why do you put words into text that are not there?
I couldn't get more than a few sentences into Derek's review without stumbling over things that are wrong.
Does this mean that you did not read the review and yet still were ready to pronounce opinion (like an earlier poster to this thread)? Very objective approach. Seems we have been down this path many times before.
Just so that you do know what I wrote, here is the final paragraph:
"All these planes are capable of taking satisfactory shavings. Once set up, any of these three will do the job quite happily. There is no need to change if you are happy with the performance of your Stanley #79 or Stanley/LN #98/99. On the other hand, if you were either looking for a new side rabbet plane, or seeking to own and use the best design of the three here, then the Veritas stands out. It has a most economical twin blade design, highest comfort of use, and innovative adjustments that work rather well."
Perhaps you should read past the first three sentences.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,I'm not the one who came here all dressed up as an objective independent reviewer. Maybe you did change something in your review. On WC you cited Garret Hack as your source and he calls them snipe bill planes. Now I'm confused, was he your source or were you trying to correct his mistake? I didn't reply on WC because I assumed you'd correct the review. You had the information from Ralph and I expected you to make use of it.No, I didn't get past the planes you identified wrong. My interest vanished at that point.
Larry
I think that sensible people here will recognise that you are fixated and that reasonable discussion with you is not going to be possible.
Your accusation, "I'm not the one who came here all dressed up as an objective independent reviewer", makes it very clear where you are coming from. This is not about what I have written (since you very likely have not read the article) but just another personal attack, as you have attempted on so many other occasions.
Derek
Edited 8/7/2008 10:38 am ET by derekcohen
"Snipes bill plane"? New one to me. Have any pics?
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
A side rabbet plane is the sort of tool you use one in a blue moon and then feel really happy you happen to have one. Sandpaper on wood doesn't work nearly as well but yes in a pinch it would work. My own side rabbet plane (or rather the one I actually use) is the top of line Preston what was highly decorative and has separate adjusters on both blades. It's very fun to use and the adjusters make setting the blades a snap and I think the decorations make it one of the prettiest tools ever (although mine is missing a lot of plating). I have used the lesser model Preston that the LV is based on, I have the Stanley 98/99 and 79 which I don't use, but all of these tools work fine and the differences are marginal. http://www.antiquetools.com/perm-col/west-wing/index.htmlJoel
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com
Wish I had read your direct prose before going off on a field trip to Highland Hardware today between appointments. Would have saved much money, and now I feel guilty.Dan Carroll
A side rabbet plane? Please. That thing has jack-off written all over it I don't care how well it's made. I have 2 sets of side rabbet planes, old wooden ones & LN. I do a lot of stair work & the last few days I've been fitting a custom rail onto a curved metal uprights, modern design & very tight tollerences. Never thought of myself in the manner you describe- just found them to be the fastest tool for the job, So I could finish & get paid.
I knew a guy who had thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of cameras and related accoutrement .... This bloke was so overwhelmed with equipment he couldn't get basic snaps done during holidays or of his childrens' birthday parties.
Hi Charlie
I couldn't agree more with your sentiments.
It is not necessary to own lots of tools, that having specialised tools inevitably means that you do not have to think creatively about the basic tool(s) they replace, and that having too many choices means that time/exposure is reduced in getting to know a few tools really well.
Absolutely agree.
Of course this does require that your priority in woodworking is the development of handskills and effecient production using said tools. Not everyone will feel this way. Some just buy tools to polish - and you know what? That is their business and more strength to their elbow.
As it happens I identify more with your sentiments than you realise. I have a workshop full of handtools. I try to remain familiar with most, but I really only use a few most of the time.
I tried selling the little used tools, even gave some away, but then found I needed to borrow them back (which was a hassle) when I wanted to write a comparative analysis of similar tools. So now I just keep them in a display/storage cabinet. They look nice in the workshop and I enjoy them as art. This does not offend my personal values. Their material value is not important to my retirement plan. And if it offends some my message to them is "get a life".
This topic comes up very frequently on this forum. It draws out so many biases. It must be said that - in the context of developing handskills - I agree with the sentiment of your message.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Well said. Dan Carroll
Well said, Derek. I ran into your reviews, and a few of your projects on another site (can't remember which.) You inspired me to try a few of your ideas - for fun.
I work for food, but, like you, am in it for the creativity.
Thanks for your input.
Josh
All,
IMHO, this has become a very interesting and informative and fun thread.
When I started on Knots, I only used powered tools. Slowly I began with hand planes. As I did, I read voraciously, both on Knots and books, and got VERY CONFUSED. With experience with some of the more common hand planes, the confusion went away. I made a block plane. That was fun, and I use it often. I have picked up some old wood planes and enjoy them.
BUT on the more "esoteric" planes, I am still trying to find out what they "REALLY" do for you, that can't be easily done with what I have. THis thread shows, in spades, why this is difficult. There is little agreement on the need for and use of the planes.
I have no problem with that. That is the way of the woodworking world. I accept that and now I even enjoy it. Now I know I have to hunt for wisdom, and I have to read various viewpoints, and then I have to try out the plane for myself, and make my own decisions, and then those decisions will change as I get experience with the tool.
In the future, I plan to refer "newbies" to this thread so they can see that there are no simple answers that everyone agrees on. Many of them can't seem to grasp that simple point. This thread will make it clear. That is a GOOD THING. Unfortunately there are a few folks on Knots who try to make it seem like picking a tool is simple. They say "Just buy the best." Unfortunately such fools have no idea that the newbie has no idea what "best" means, and that there is little agreement on what "best" is anyway. As Einstein said, "An explanation should be as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Mike D. was upset that he saw others getting excited and negative. In my humble opinion, there is no egregious behavior in this thread -- and certainly nothing for the Knots Police to step in on. For the most part, these are mature adults having fun, each in their own way. Some people have fun by getting themselves worked up. No problem with that. As far as the Boss goes, he is colorful, but IMHO, he is the easiest person to figure out and learn from. He is direct, and believes in "tough love". Wish we had more like him.
I can't wait to see the future tool reviews by Derek. My guess is that Derek will add some info that he might not have in the past. For example - more info on what other tools or techniques could substitute for this tool if you didn't have it.
When it comes to tool reviews, sooner or later, it becomes obvious that this is not an "fully objective evaluative function." A tool review tells you as much about the reviewer as about the tool. Some folks want too much from a tool review. Derek brought out some of the pragmatics of doing his tool reviews. When I asked why he didn't get info from real operating woodworking shops on how the tool would be used and accepted, he made clear that that takes a lot of time, and the only remuneration he gets for doing these reviews is to keep the plane, and that isn't much.
To me, this isn't much of a problem. I merely sent private messages to a few professional friends who have their own shops, and asked them what they thought. It isn't fair to Derek to expect him to do that, and such info is not considered useful by all woodworkers.
I give this thread a Five Star rating. Three cheers for Derek for getting it going, and to the rest of us for putting our two cents in.
Derek, it might be fun if you added a pointer to the appropriate Knots thread in each of your tool reviews. The value added would be great. The alternative, which would be for you to extract the wisdom from the thread, would be a long and thankless task.
Very very nice thread.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled