Friends:
Everyone agrees that except for the high end tools, the old pre-war models tended to be well made and often of fine quality because they were used daily by tradesmen who expected and recognized quality.
Everyone (or most people anyway)these days who studies tools and uses them much agrees that well-fettled planes with the right co-planarity, chisels and plane blades with micro-flat backs and everything tuned up are essential.
Like many of you, I have boxes full of old chisels and metallic planes made in what we think of as the golden age — the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, when tools were tools and tradesmen had solid skills.
Why is it that almost none of the well-used old chisels or planes I have now or have ever owned is flattened and sharpened properly?
Joe
Replies
Two reasons come to mind. First, the great majority of those hand planes and chisels were used by carpenters for rough and dirty job site work with softwoods.
The other is that before they have come onto the market they have gone through hands that didn' know how to fettle them, or I should say keep them fettled. Chisels might have been sharpened poorly--perhaps on both sides more like a knife. Planes kicking about can still have the cast iron move a little.
I think the answer is that we don't really need nearly the tolerances we aspire to in things like sole and blade back flatness in order to do excellent work. We've made it a bit of a fetish. Granted it is very nice to work with a surgically sharp chisel or a super tolerance plane sole, but these things are not required to make excellent joints or smooth tops. Many surfaces are hidden, many woods are forgiving, many planes used in the old days were wood, many work arounds exist for certain tasks (e.g., scrapers). Put it all together and our forebears didn't bother with a sharpening fetish and machine tolerances in their tools; this is not say the tools were not sharp or that they planes didn't do their jobs.
Samson,
Very nice. I could not have said it better myself!
-nazard
I second the agreement with Samson. It's nice to have tools set to .002" tolerances but I don't find it necessary to have them tuned to that degree in order to work well. Look at the work that was done in the 18th century with wooden planes. Those planes were probably never .002" flat but yet they were flat enough to get the job done. It's the law of diminishing returns. Just make sure you have a sharp blade and have at it.
Case in point: my father and grandfather turned out some very nice work with tools that by my standards today were borderline junk. By my mid 20's I had become quite a tool snob and never missed an opportunity to sneer and scoff at their means and methods. I still have an obsession with neat, orderly work habits and proper tools. However, I can now appreciate that they were more concerned with the result of their labors, and not the mechanics involved.
I'm not quite sure if the above makes any real sense, so I'm going to fix a shellac highball and go flatten a plane sole or something....
Best!
-Jerry
I hear ya! I have always admired the craftsmen that use old hand tools that some people would consider junk. Not there's anything wrong with using brand new planes (in some cases it's the only way to go) but there's something to be said about a woodworker who can take an old Stanley Bailey plane and create a paper thin shaving with only a little effort tuning it up. A Lie-Nielsen will get you there quicker but you can save a lot money and learn a new skill while you're at it.
To put it in golf terms; it's like a guy who buys a $600 driver and constantly hooks his ball to the right. Ultimately, he needs to work on his swing first before he can truly appreciate the quality of his club.
Mike
Hi Mike ,
Every now and then I'll ask a better golfer to hit my 3 Wood just to realize there is nothing wrong with my clubs.
You slice to the Right and Hook to the Left .
dusty , da hacker
What if you're left-handed?
Jim
The Starboard side of a ship is , even if you are Left handed .
???? If you are on deck and facing the bow (the pointy end), starboard is to your right."There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
-- Daniel Webster
From Webster's Dictionary:
"slice: a flight of a ball ... that deflects to the right of a right-handed player or to the left of a left-handed player.."
Mustn't ignore a lefty's rights or the golf police'll get ya.
Jim
Yep, Mickelson slices the ball left and hooks it right. In golf, the terminology IS reversed if you are a lefty.
We're getting off topic here. But! Starboard is a Viking term derived from the placement of the "stearing board"Work Safe, Count to 10 when your done for the day !!
Bruce S.
"You slice to the Right and Hook to the Left "
Figures I had that wrong. I changed it from "left" to "right" after I spell checked it. Always go with your first instinct.
"To put it in golf terms; it's like a guy who buys a $600 driver and constantly hooks his ball to the right."
I don't think the analogy is apt. There are plenty of woodworkers who have struggled with poor-quality or out-of-tune old planes, and taken a new Lee Valley or Lie-Nielsen right out of the box, then taken a few shavings and been able to say, "So that is what it's supposed to be like!"
Unlike golf, where you really do need to practice a lot in order to develop a good swing, planing (and to a lesser extent, chiseling) doesn't require endless hours of practice. It does require some experience to be able to quickly "read" a board and determine the best planing strategy, but with typical lumber and a good, well-tuned plane, you can get good results from your very first cuts.
-Steve
duly noted. you're right about the skill level of planing. it takes years to develop a proper golf swing. About 15 minutes to perfect a proper planing technique.
Mike ,
It may take a little more time then 15 minutes to develop plane skills , but as far as a golf swing goes , I have been golfing for about 20 years and the interesting thing is I know so much more about the game and swing and waggle and all that stuff now , but for some reason my score has remained the same .
dusty , owner of a hole in one
same with me. I've been playing since I was ten years old and I still struggle to get pars. That's why I like woodworking.....eventually you do get better (in theory at least)
Mike - I am not a golfer but even I know that a ball hit to the right is SLICED not hooked. A ball to the left is HOOKED.
I know I blew it.. I never did quite grasp the whole hook/slice ordeal..
That's why I keep coming back to this forum. I learn something new everyday
A sure cure for all you hookers and slicers out there. Top every ball, you will still get there eventually.
That will be $100 please and no, not those type of hookers.
PS I gave up on secondary bevels long ago.
>Top every ball, you will still get there eventually.<But you will also send many a ball to a watery grave. - Ed, hitter of the "blue worm-burner" tee shot whenever any good looking ladies are watching.
THIS IS SO ONLY FOR RIGHT HANDED GOLFERS. A lefty hooks the ball right, slices to the left.
Edited 5/9/2008 7:12 pm ET by TaunTonMacoute
Ralph,
"a ball hit to the right is SLICED not hooked. A ball to the left is HOOKED."
Not a golfer either, and I hear that a ball that goes straight, is a MIRACLE.
Ray
Isn't that what I said? I know that I have a tremendous slice. If I was hitting in Central Park, NYC I would probably hit the ball, well depending on the way I was facing and if I was facing towards California or directly west, my ball would probably land in the Atlantic Ocean !!!
Amen to that Jerry ,
It's not what you have , but what you know that counts imo .
dusty
As Samson said... all the uber-tuning takes the champion fettler's mind off the persistent fact that he or she isn't really all that good at using the tool once it is in perfect condition. When one gets done then there's another to do and on and on.
Why AREN'T old chisels and planes flat?
I'd say they had WORK to get out and knew how to get around it.
OR as a apprentice the plane bottom was FLAT (usage) from planing all the work they did over the years till' they went out on their own!
Some paring jobs are easier if the chisel has a little bit of a belly you can use as a pivot....
Pivot or pry?Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Pivot.
Not having pivoted my chisels would wyou care to elucidate?
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Go cut a notch in a board a little off square and trim the end grain part of the notch to perfectly square. Easy as pie if you have a chisel with a little wiggle built into the back. Just pivot around the hump instead of having the whole chisel back drag on the end-grain making the chisel cut where you'd rather it not.
Edited 5/8/2008 10:16 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
Fine Woodworking magazine was not available back then. The old timers just wanted to make things out of wood, not spend endless hours playing with their tools. Woodworkers today will swallow almost any bait. They may have only built one or two items but they want their tools to pass the .00001" test. If it really made any difference, they would have flattened their planes. After all, they ran them all day, every day. Truth is, a flat sole makes for a lot of friction as well as creating an air pocket cushion. That's why so many planes are corrugated. Woodworkers used to be practical, now they are anal.
Beat it to fit / Paint it to match
You see the same thing in golf - 20+ handicappers that insist on playing forged blades who can tell you all about the latest ball technology, custom club-fitting, the latest swing theories, and on and on. And all this with a Charles Barkley swing.Too many guys in woodworking can tell you all about the benefits of this plane vs. that plane, how to fettle and fidget and all the rest but need a set of plans to build a box. If it takes somebody all of a Saturday to lay out and cut a few mortise and tenon joints the last thing they need to worry about is getting one 'thou shavings out of some damn plane or whether or not to replace a set of oilstones with a set of Shaptons.
Edited 5/8/2008 10:07 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
I believe that many WW'ers think the anal thing with flattening and sharpening will somehow give them the "instant knowledge pill" needed to do fine work. "If I can only get this iron sharp enough, my work will look like the FWW gallery photos".
As many have said, it takes WW'ing not obsessive fettling to become good at WW'ing."WISH IN ONE HAND, S--T IN THE OTHER AND SEE WHICH FILLS UP FIRST"
I agree with Samson.
Besides that though, I think there's a question as to whether the way we sharpen is really the best or only way. I think guys knife edged their tools. I think they did this because they lacked good coarse abrasives. And I think they did this because it worked fine. Its not a fact that a perfectly flat back is required to produce a fine edge.
I think this is slightly different from what Samson was saying. To Joe, I have found the same situation. I actually asked Leonard Lee this question. He said he didn't find that all of his old tools had non-flat backs. But that's been my experience.
BTW, I was wondering if the Veritas honing jig, with its secondary bevel creator, purposely approximated the rounded bevel we so often find on old tools. Did Mr. Lee make this jog to help guys produce essentially an old fashioned edge? I think the answer i heard was no. I think the rounded bevel is stronger than a normal hollow grind. I think the "workmen of yore" arrived at that empirically. L. Lee got there scientifically.
I often talk about people who have facilitated the modern hand tool movement. Leonard Lee doesn't always come immediately to mind but I think he deserves a great deal of credit and thanks.
Adam
Why is it that almost none of the well-used old chisels or planes I have now or have ever owned is flattened and sharpened properly?
I would have to say that in most cases this is the result of mis-use of the tools, i.e. prying out waste material in the case of chisels. Perhaps pushing a plane through stock when the blade is not properly sharpened maybe or hogging off material with a dull scrub plane?
Which leads one to the off-topic never ending diatribe of to fettle or not to fettle. BUNK! If I chose to fettle my old planes/chisels to absolute flatness of sole and blade, to take a gossamer shaving or chip, I will.
It is my choice and my time as to how I want to enjoy the woodworking experience, not someone elses choice. lf a golfer wants to wiggle his fanny upon adressing his balls then who am I to make a fuss, whether he's a 20 handicapper or shoots consistently below par.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Look at Japanese hand planes; they are intentionally hollowed so there are only two or three contact points. This obsession with less than .0001” tolerances when working with a material that moves all over the place has never made a bit of sense to me. Just how did the Goddard’s and Townsends ever make any of that outstanding furniture without a surface plate and a set of feeler gages? Also, I have never heard of Sam Maloof or Tage Frid obsessing on the flatness of their plane soles…
I spent nearly all my adult life in construction doing mostly finish carpentry and cabinets. Most of it involved remodeling, renovating or restoring houses that range from the Civil War to recent construction. I worked with a lot of carpenters over the years and I'll be generous, maybe five percent of them were what I'd call skilled craftsmen. Having popped open a lot of walls and other parts of buildings over the years, I believe that percentage has remained pretty constant. Maybe in the early 19th Century that percentage was a bit higher. I think those tools floating around out there are an accurate reflection of the way things were and are.
Mr Williams,
At last; an honest reply unfettered by the rose-tinted spectacles worn by many who feel the past was a golden age full of totally wonderful "old-timer" craftsman who could make the Taj Mahal with one hand and a large bent chisel!
There seems to be a resistance in many quarters to learning new things. Lads get "myself" confused with some set of ideas in their heads, which are in reality separate and distinct from "them" as they would discover if they changed their minds from time to time - experience is a good way to change one's mind.
Much that was done and made in the past was dross. Happily the dross is sent to the bonfire or for reuse of the materials (I have destroyed many an ugly piece of British utility furniture to reuse the fine timber therin, generally hidden under gloop-varnish and configured to look like a coffin without the decorative bits).
Flat back chisels work better, especially when very sharp. Of course, I am a double heretic myself, as I put a Charlesworth style ruler trick back bevel on some - those two cherry ones with the polish that has dubbed them. "Aaargh!" cry various chisel-theoreticians. "Ha ha!", I reply. They work.
Lataxe, who remembers many old timers that were cack-handed useless blokes with tools to match.
And what types of tools do you think were used to actually build the Taj Mahal now that you bring it up....Dead flat, ruler-tricked models?What about the design and craftsmanship? Buncha 'cack-handed useless blokes'?
I think the truth lies someplace in the middle. IF you have a really skilled craftsman he can overcome poor tools. If you have really good tools this will help a poor craftsmand. When you get a really good tool in the hand of a really good craftsman you get a work of art, but when you get a poor tool in the hands of a poor craftsmand well..... Can we say junk?
As for the old tools being not up to the standards of flatness and such. I think this falls into a few things. First off they were harder to get flat back then and I also thing that a lot more peaple knew what to do with them so they could be a little out and the person using it could compensate (much more then today where most peaple have no idea how to use them). Also they are old and one assumes used so they will tend to be a bit out over the years. Now on top of this is the obsestion that some have of taking things to rediculus degrees. I mean .000X is just nuts when talking about something that will be used on wood that very well may move many times that amount from day to day. Wood is a living (even dead/cut wood) thing it is not plastic. Also we today are impress with this level of detail even when it is of no use.
Doug
"Flat back chisels work better," Are you sure about that? When you look more deeply into chopping, as in chopping dovetails, paring, and even sharpening, chisels with slightly rounded backs seem to hold the advantage. I don't fully understand why we insist on flat backed chisels.Adam
I wanted to tell you that I had overlooked the PW issue where you showed pictures of your completed standing desk. Very nicely done. Excellent, in fact. The milk paint looked particularly nice.
To all:
There is something called Sturgeon's Law, to wit, "90% of anything is crap!"
So far, I have found that to be true, and have no reason to exclude woodworking.
Why arent old chisels flat? Sturgeons Law!
Why arent all old pieces of furniture masterworks? Sturgeons Law!
It is only when the public starts thinking "everything of that type is wonderful" that the normal discarding of the drab, dross, ill-considered is thwarted, and we are left with a panorama of quality.
Consider: Think of all the Funeral finery that was put in Egyptian tombs, now - what did the average Egyptian sit on? The 90% has been almost totally eradicated (I am allowing for the finding of some poor souls hut to be found, but you get the idea)
Consider: "Classic Rock!" "All the hits of the 60's and 70's" Really? When was the last time you heard Fever Tree, three albums, two number one hits - but consigned to the slag heap (and IMHO, rightfully so)
So, It is not surprising that most old tools are not fettled, the vast majority of the "old guys" were just home users like me, but without access to things like the internet to inform them. So they just went ahead and made things. Perhaps working harder than they had to, but making things.
Just my thoughts,
Mike
The ability to produce fine art or brilliant craftsmanship has almost nothing to do with the tools. A brilliant pianist will still sound brilliant when playing on the old family upright. They don't forget everything they know just 'cause they're not playing a $150,000 Steinway in a concert hall.
It would be wonderful if owning an expensive piano would automatically turn you into a Vladimir Horowitz. He could compose and play a masterpiece as well with whatever piano is sitting in your living room right now as Salvador Dali could paint a masterpiece with a child's Tempera paint set. You can't keep genius down. Do you think Miles Karpilow could figure his way around a less than perfect set of carving tools? Easily, I would think. Would they need better tools to do their absolute best work? Sure. But what they could accomplish with something very average would be so much better than most it's ridiculous. Sounds like Chippendale, Affleck, etc. doesn't it?
One can drool at the Steinway website all day long. But at some point to make piano playing a reality you have to practice scales and everything else on whatever instrument you have at the moment. We would never have had absolute geniuses to enjoy if every mom and dad refused to let junior play the piano until they could afford the best instrument available. Saving money on the instrument allowed them to spend money on sheet music, concert tickets, lessons with renowned teachers, etc.
People keep looking for the answer in a tool catalog or in the latest honing tip, trick, or technique. It ain't there. I promise.
Edited 5/9/2008 1:26 pm ET by TaunTonMacoute
Thanks man. Did you like my crack finishing staff? That's no kidding. Somebody from sapfm had a question for my paint expert. She had a good reply. She likes a thick consistency for the first coat and thinner for subsequent coats. I won't let her rub out the finish though. Too dusty. Glad you like the desk. All that tulip poplar is moving and shaking though. Some of the holly has buckled! Not sure I'd do that again. Adam
Your daughter is fabulous. The desk really is a fine bit of woodworking.
Adam,
As I get chisel-experienced (still just a couple of years amateur stuff for me) I think I am coming to agree with you to some extent. (Gawd!). When I pare and shape this or that I often tip the chisel a bit to get the slices I want.
Also, that ruler-trick tiny back-bevel on them two cherries chisels is often useful as it seems to ensure that the chisel used with its flat back jigged on a large lumpy surface being pared takes high spots only and doesn't dig into the work instead.
However, there are many times when the dead flat back of the chisel, at least in the inch or three at the sharp end, is very ueful to get those fine paring cuts. For example, I like to take out the last bit of waste from the cope-sawed bottom of a DT or finger joint with a sharp, flat-backed skew chisel as this leaves that bottom dead flat - no need for any of that digging a hollow to ensure the joint fits perfectly.
I know, perfect joints aren't needed etc.. :-) But I like them like that.
Lataxe
However, there are many times when the dead flat back of the chisel.. NA!
Just the cutting edge and the edges. Who cares if the middle is hollow.. I'd say LESS friction to deal with!
Do you not appreciate that black is just another shade of white?
I am amused to read the sharpening advice in the latest issue, being pushed away from horizontal stones towards six and eight inch fast revving beasts on the basis of hollow grinding.
Do these writers not realise that traditional grinding stones, foot crank powered in many cases , were perhaps two or three feet across? The craftsmen were not hollow grinding and their tools were none the worse for that. And does the angle matter so long as it is sufficient to withstand the work it is asked to do, shallow for paring, steep for chopping?
Even with a big grinding wheel you get some hollow or another. It's not essential to sharpening, but it does make the job of honing easier.
350 years ago Moxon writes that workmen after honing a tool for awhile and removing the hollow thorough repeated honings would regrind the tool to establish a hollow. It's not the only way to skin the cat - but it saves time and it's fun to know that the method has been known for so long.Joel
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com
Edited 5/10/2008 10:37 pm ET by joelm
I agree there is some hollow, but it makes more sense to me to hone the cutting edge on the first grind and when that edge gets dull then hone again at a slight angle. Just find it works fine and I grind on a sixteen inch horizontal oil fed slow speed stone so am not troubled by hollows.
With the introduction of micro-bevels the arguement of a stronger edge from honing seems to have flown out of the window.
There is a quotation (and I'm not sure who it's from) about craft from "the old guys" that's highly applicable to this discussion:
Just because they are dead, it does not follow that they were stupid.
Yeah I agree. I think we need to be careful about the assumptions we make. Ray seemed to suggest that the rounded edge shapes were deficiencies to be overcome. They may have been intentional for all we know. If you just look at the performance, one could make a convincing case for the rounded edge being better. And that's not so far off. It's how we sharpening carving tools, right?Adam
Well, I try not to round the bevels on my carving tools (though they are obviously curved in the direction of the curvature of the gouge), but this brings up an excellent point:
I start with a hollow grind on my plane blades, then sharpen them on honing stones that gradually, after 4-8 honings, erases the hollow grind, and then I start again with a hollow grind. Generally, this method maintains a flat (or concave) bevel on my plane blades, but never convex.
On carving tools, however, common accepted practice is to either create a hollow grind on a water-cooled grinder, or create a flat bevel by hand on a coarse stone, followed by stropping. Stropping carving tools on a compound-impregnated leather generally takes the place of honing on a stone for straight blades like chisels and plane blades, and it is exceedingly difficult to maintain a flat bevel on a carving tool when using a strop - it typically rounds the bevel, particularly after a number of stroppings. For carvers, this is no big deal, and in certain circumstances it's beneficial.
The point is that since abrasives stones were very expensive up until the early 20th century when mechanized mining allowed extraction of fine novaculite (i.e., "Arkansas" stones), perhaps the "old guys" didn't commonly practice our modern method of coarse, medium, fine and extra fine (followed by stupidly fine in the case of 12,000X grits). Instead, I think it at least possible that they created the initial bevel on a plane or chisel blade with a sandstone grinder, but typically used strops loaded with tripoli for routine honing - and that would almost unavoidably create a convex, rounded bevel, with a slightly rounded back-bevel when the blade was turned over and stropped to remove the wire edge.
This may very well be the simplest explanation of why lots of antique tool blades have rounded bevels, and non-flat backs. If you're honing by stropping, you don't care whether the back is flat or not, and it's lots of extra work, so why do it?
Well, I did this for close to a year. What I found was that the sandstone grinder produced no effective hollow. The wheel was too big, mine was slightly out of round, and it cuts very slowly. Its like 600 grit. I spoke to Ken Schwarz, the master blacksmith in Colonial Wiiliamsburg about this. Their experience was similar to mine. They had success using a great deal of pressure on the stone, which pretty much prohibits one man foot powered use.So the whole hollow grind thing was basically a non-starter. Don't know what Moxon saw. A 20" wheel produces no real hollow. They could have had smaller wheels. They may have had softer tools than I used. The next problem is that whet stones they had were very slow cutting as well. The solution I found was to grind low and hone a small secondary. And that's pretty much what I see on old tools. The secondary isn't jigged. As it gets larger, it takes so long to hone it that you can't help but round it a little.The back of the blade just got cleaned off with the finest stone I had (charnley forest?). Again, my oldest edge tools have edges like this. Frankly, I hated sharpening this way. But I thought it was a useful experiment. So I agree that the equipment they used may have forced them into honing rounded bevels. But it also could be that their steels and techniques were in tune with their equipment and that's the way they wanted it. I just don't know. AdamAdam
"Don't know what Moxon saw. A 20" wheel produces no real hollow. They could have had smaller wheels. They may have had softer tools than I used."They would have had smaller wheels in a shop is my guess but they most certainly had softer tools than you. The body of the tool would have been wrought iron - which is soft - and the blister steel edge would have been very thin. I am loath to dismiss Moxon in this case because his instruction is very specific. Also maintaining geometry of a tool is a useful thing if you can do it. Moxon's method allows you to do this - so it's very possible that the London joiners and cabinetmakers who had access to better tools than average did this if they were fastidious, and other folks could/ or did not. THat is he isdescribing an ideal operation, not a typcial operation. It certainly is a very speedy way of maintaining a tool - and with a smaller diameter wheel certainly a no brainer. It's also very possible that the large 20" wheel that shows up for use on farms wasn't typicial in shops. After all in NYC when I was a kid the knife grinders walked around with 6" treadle powered wheels for knife sharpening - it certainly wasn't one size fits all.Do you know what kind of grinding wheels do they have at Williamsburg? - that is where do they get their stone from? Joel
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com
I'm not good at identifying stones, Joel. I didn't see the stone the smiths use up close. The stone in the cabinetshop looks like Ohio. It's very white and very uniform. Its size and mechanism is practically identical to mine, which as you will recall is a copy of the stone shown in Roubo. It's possible the stones were smaller, though I've never seen one. Mercer has several and they are all large. The Dominy shop has a stone with a wooden axle that looks much worn. I'd estimate it's size at 12". But large stones may have been the only survivors.I probably should have written this first, my friend. I agree with you. A few small changes- softer steel, smaller wheel, maybe even cleaner whetstones, may have changed my result dramatically. Keep in mind I didn't set out to provide an explanation for the old edge shapes I've encountered. I was just curious about how they did it. I believe sometimes actually doing the work yields revelations. There are some people who say the name of my column is inaccurate. They say that age old techniques are only mysteries to me. Fair enough. But in my mind, Joe's question is an excellent example of how little we know. Aside from Moxon, I've encountered virtually nothing on the subject. So I'm afraid I have to leave this discussion with no answer for Joe and even less certainty about what was done. How tools were sharpened and why they knife edged their tools, if indeed they did, is a mystery.... at least to me.Adam
Edited 5/12/2008 8:23 am ET by AdamCherubini
Adam,
You admit: "How tools were sharpened and why they knife edged their tools, if indeed they did, is a mystery.... at least to me".
Here I am agreeing with you agin. What's going on!? :-|)
There is a great temptation within the human psyche to make up reasons for events or occurences. We love to have things explained as it makes us worry to have mysteries about the place.
Moreover, we love to "rationalise after the fact" - that is, make up a reason for some act or other which usually bears no relation whatsoever to its actual causes. Sometimes these actual causes are buried deep in our unconscious; as often as not the events involved were largely accidental or even random changes in the environment. But it makes us feel free of will, to pretend we always intended to bring about some proximate event or other.
In addition, we humans tend to assume that all events and occurences have an intent behind them. Other humans cause events via their intent so (our assumption-organ postulates) every condition that comes about must have an intent behind it. When we can't find an obvious human culprit we invent a faery, goblin or god. Faery stories are fascinating, as are tales of powerful being from the sky keeping an eye on us and meting out Ultimate Justice or Rapturous Rewards to the bad guys and good guys.
Historians are just as prone (if not more so) to seeing reasons and intents behind everything that now is. Since many of the reasons and intents cannot be got from whoever was supposed to have originated them (they are all dead) the historian makes up some - they do indeed tell stories, often of the most imaginative kind and highly coloured by the historian's cultural attitude.
However, in reality many things occur with no single reason driving them (no simple cause) and no intent by anyone to bring anything about.
So, why are many old chisels not straight? Because various things happened and they became bent. In most cases, that is the end of the explanation. There was no old-timer clever knowledge or special technique involved, apart from that common human one of buggering about and creating one intended action plus 99 unforseen and unintended ones. I suspect the bent chisel condition falls mostly in the latter group: "unintended side effects of this or that use of a chisel".
Lataxe, schtill schkeptacle; and so differentiating stories from truth (whatever that is).
Ray said that awhile ago. Its a familiar parable about a grandmother who saws off part of a ham to fit in her oven. Later cooks continue sawing off a portion of the ham not knowing the reason for this, but slavishly following the grandmother, convinced its an important step.But there are traps both ways, frankly. What you say is true. But the opposite I find particularly prevalent as well. We hone our chisels the way we do having given very little thought for other alternative ways. We very quickly dismiss what we can't immediately comprehend as incomprehensible randomness. And that too is a sort of intellectual crutch. It can be an excuse not to try.Personally, I don't see either approach as intellectual or moral high ground. But its very clear to me which approach is more useful to the community at large.Adam
After all in NYC when I was a kid the knife grinders walked around with 6" treadle powered wheels for knife sharpening - it certainly wasn't one size fits all.
I remember him! AND the dripping old rusty tin can! Also the Ice man!
Will,
AND the dripping old rusty tin can!
His spitoon mebbe, or worse?
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Adam -
Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Moxon (wish I did, I just can't find a reasonably priced re-print on the used book market). I do know that stropping to re-hone an edge on knives and carving tools has been common practice for centuries based on some re-prints of very old "art of carving" books.
I'd suspect, though, that there will be almost no survivors of stropping leathers from the 18th and 19th century, since after the closing of the cabinetmaker's shop because of factory competition, the people rummaging through the shop for useful items wouldn't have recognized a stropping leather as a honing tool, but would have had way too many uses for a piece of leather.
Regarding your (and CW's) expereince with grinding wheels - I've an observation about Japanese waterstones that might be analagous, and suggests a means of improving their performance. I, like most users, regularly flatten my Japanese waterstones, and my preferred method is a piece of wet/dry silicon carbide paper stuck onto a granite surface plate. I've noticed that if I use a fine grit sandpaper such as 400-grit, it doesn't tend to round the corners of the stone as would a coarse grit such as 120. The 400 grit performs very well on the 4000 and 8000 grit stones, but it does something peculiar to the 1000 grit stone - after flattening on 400 grit sandpaper, the 1000 grit stone becomes quite smooth and doesn't cut nearly as effectively as if I'd flattened it with a coarse sandpaper. My perception is that the fine grit sandpaper is breaking off small particles of the stone, creating a slurry, and that slurry clogs the stone's pores. The process is reversible - if I then switch to 120 grit wet/dry or use Norton's stone-flattening carborundum stone, the cutting ability of the 1000 grit stone is restored.
So...have you ever tried dressing your grinding wheel with something coarse, like a diamond multi-point wheel dresser or a carborundum stick? I wonder if these stones were actually effective grindng machines when they were manufactured, but glazing of the stones through constant use over the years has glazed the surface and clogged the pores. Of course, a simpler explanation might be that natural stones varied in their grinding effectiveness, and the ones that didn't work very well are the only ones that survived - the rest got used up.
David
All,
A blade isn't necessary at all, much less a flat one. I once upon a time, made all the glue joints for a blanket chest with a sanding block, sandpaper, and shoe polish. As Taunton suggested, it can be done by offerung up one surface to the other, and removing the high spots with...whatever.
Now, I will offer my insights to this discussion. Two separate concepts, I believe, are in evidence.
First: As regards old work, (hand work). David Pye called the concept I am referencing, "rough workmanship" vs "fine workmanship". That is, there is a place where the " 1/4" is close enough", mentality, really has a place. So that, the back board, or drawer bottom, left with a surface that shows sawmarks, axe marks, and foreplane marks where the foreplane's iron has numerous gaps and nicks, was good enough. Evidenced also in objects like dough trays, feed troughs, farm gates, and rough carpentry, which will be covered by trim or plaster.
Separate from that, but not necessarily, is the concept that I will call "mindful" workmanship. Not all workers are mindful. That is to say, most workmanship is not mindful, but is done by rote. "That's how we always have done it." A fellow enters the trade, and is taught "the right way to" perform an operation. That is how he continues to do that operation, for the rest of his career. It is the easiest way to do it (sharpening, for example). Flat grind, hollow grind, sandpaper on a piece of glass. In many cases of traditional craft, it is an efficient way to get 'er done. This is how those bevels get rounded over, and those stones get dished out. If a fellow just rubs the bevel over the stone, so, as he was shown, eventually the stone gets dished out. If a fellow is mindful, he takes care to not just rub the bevel, but hold the bevel consistantly. And while so doing, he will use the whole surface of the stone, not just the center of the thing, as is easiest. But he must be mindful--that is aware, or alert, to what is happening as a result of what he has been taught.
Mindfulness takes extra effort, and dare I say, above average smarts. Most of us are content to do as we're told. (Isn't that why we are reading on this site?!!?) Further it is less efficient, so that in a work environment, it takes less time to do it the old way, than to experiment with new ways that may not , after all, be any better.
So that, fettling that plane has now beconm the right way to approach planing a surface. But in past, as flat as the plane (or chisel) came from the factory, was considered flat enough, and technique was employed to make up for the rest. Some, like Adam, and Lataxe, even may come to think of the deficienct, as an advantage.
Ray
Lataxe, who remembers many old timers that were cack-handed useless blokes with tools to match.
Damn guy when have you been around here to see me work? OK, so you caught me on a bad day!
I think those tools floating around out there are an accurate reflection of the way things were and are.
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of walls you've torn into in a remodeling scenario were for stick-framed houses. Even at its best, stick framing is nothing but a series of nailed butt joints. Hardly awe inspiring hand joinery even when done well (which I guess just means no gaps). Bad butt joinery would be due more to poor layout, measuring, and careless sawing than anything having to do with a handplane's shortcomings.
Edited 5/9/2008 8:30 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
"...Bad butt joinery would be due more to poor layout, measuring, and careless sawing than anything having to do with a handplane's shortcomings."
Are you up for a news flash, Charles? The vast majority of planes and chisels sold in this Country for the last couple hundred years were sold to carpenters. That's right; all those planes and chisels were designed for, marketed to, used by and maintained by those who couldn't handle the mindless tasks you've reduced carpentry to. Did you read the title of this thread, Charles?
Run-of-the-mill planes and chisels have no affect on the nailed butt joinery featured in stick framing. Less than average planes had nothing to do with the 'bad carpentry' you cited in your example.
Careless layout, sawing, measuring, being in too big a hurry - yes. A plane bottom or chisel back out of flat by a few thousandths or even many thousandths - hell no.
I could teach an eight year old to cut sticks dead square with a $9.99 El Cheapo saw. Whether or not he could do it on a job site time after time with some prick breathing down his neck is another matter altogether.
Edited 5/9/2008 10:42 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
Larry, I think you make a good point regarding "carpenters." They may well have been hacking away with their chisels and jack planes for sundry day to day work. In other words, most of the common tools (plain chisel and standard bench planes) we find from circa 1900 to 1940 were not owned by cabinetmakers making fine work, but instead farmers, carpenters, and the like. But what about more specialized tools that were more likely to be owned only by cabinetmakers and pattern makers - crank neck chisels, paring chisels, specialized planes (shoulder, etc.)? I own or have seen quite a few of these, and they don't show a lot of blade back and sole flattening either. I very well may not have seen enough to have any other than an anectdotal basis for my question (certainly not empirical or statistical), but just thinking out loud.
Samson,I do advocate flat when it comes to sharpening. There's one reason for that, it's repeatable and makes sharpening very fast. Today we have the ability to keep our sharpening stones flat but doing that easily is relatively new in the West. Even at that I only use two stones for most of my sharpening because maintaining flat stones takes time. It's not that much time but every stone you add to the process increases the time involved. The old tool chests I've seen may have two or three sharpening stones but only one will be heavily used. When you use a stone a lot, it goes out of flat. I think most woodworkers in the past solved the repeatability issue by only using one stone. It's slower to sharpen that way but it's a lot faster to use a single stone than abrade away enough tool steel to make a tool conform to multiple stones with different out-of-flat surfaces. For most tools, I want things flat to make sharpening quick and easy. I can almost always be back at the bench within two minutes of deciding to sharpen a tool. The only real effect flat has on the performance of most of my tools is that I can keep them sharp and functioning well with very limited effort. The ability to easily keep tools and stones flat is one of the advantages we have today.
Great explanation, Larry! Thanks.
Your assumptions and others are not correct. An ordinary carpenter in the past needed far more skills than one of today. Things we take for granted today were not available in the old days. There was no electricity on job sites. Wages were subsistence level. A working carpenter faced a huge expenditure to buy a tool. There were no credit cards. It would take months to save enough for a simple tool. You can bet they took care of them.A simple project like hanging a door wasn't so simple. A carpenter would have to make the jamb with a rabbet plane, mortice in the header, cut in hinge gains and hardware with a chisel, bevel the edge of the door with a jointer plane. Framing wasn't all nice 2x4s that were equal in width and thickness. Framing was rough sawn. That's why you will see shimmed out plaster grounds around the perimeter of rooms. Windows were ordered by glass size, they didn't come all nicely assembled ready to stick in a hole. Every detail of a building was done by hand with simple hand tools. To dismiss the old woodworkers talents and abilities is an injustice. Of course there were houses built by farmers or other non professionals but modern woodworkers would be hard pressed to work side by side with the tradesmen of old. There are plenty of examples of just how talented these folks were from Williamsburg to the Biltmore and everything in between. Most of these folks were lucky to be able to afford a sharpening stone but they made what they had work.I started in the 60's when I was 18. I worked with two 60 year old French Canadian carpenters. I wish I could consistently build cabinets, staircases and such with my compound saw, Japanese water stones, imported chisels and such, as they could with a handsaw and a block plane sharpened on a cracked crytalon stone. Modern woodworkers are still challenged to replicate the works of the past from simple Shaker pieces to the complex Chippendale works. Even a modern master like Krenov does his work with a whittled out wooden plane, no micro adjuster, no hand forged $100 blade. Any decent pool player will tell you, it ain't the stick, it's the shooter.Beat it to fit / Paint it to match
Hammer, you misunderstood me if you think I was denigrating the craftsmen of yore. I've been in many homes built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and have been routinely impressed with the finish carpentry. That said, different jobs can call for different levels of fit and finish. A 1/16th off may make no difference at all in a framing application, but it would ruin a cabinet. A milking stool may be beautiful and full of folksy charm, but it is no Queen Anne or Federal chair. Out of all the Stanley 4's or 5's or 7's sold from 1900 to 1940, how many were sold to folks using them to do "fine" work in furniture or finish carpentry? I'd wager, the huge majority of such planes (and equivalent common chisels) were bought by folks who routinely used them for much rougher tasks.
A man is interview potential carpenters for a job and he asks each on what a 1/4 of an inch is. The first takes out a tape and shows him, the second explains how it is part of an inch. Then he gets to an old rough carpenters and asks him what a quarter of an inch is and the old guy shouts out "close enough, nail it"!
Doug
hammer & Larry,
I think the EPA should reward you both. A lot less pollution in the air now.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Yeah, whatever, Bob.
Samson,
C'mon man, you're letting us down with that flat response. :-)
Hey, we all have our theories and ways of doing things, right? I just like my blades (planes and chisels) flat. It makes it easier for me to get them sharp and provides me with a dependable and consistent reference.
hammers response fits with my experiences with old tools and oldtime carpentry. I've worked on several this old houses in the past that had rough cut framing, not all on center - probably set by eye mebbe. You know when you're dealing with farmer framing when a stud starts at the ceiling and ends somwehere before reaching the floor! Shimmed lath boards to offset imperfections.
They didn't have the modern conveniences we have to work with today, and it shows when you start remodeling. I also think that is reflected in much of the old furniture as well.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob, what I find annoying is how so many people on boards like this fail to actually read what others write or to correctly understand what is written, as opposed to jumping to conclusions - picking on pieces of what was written out of context - or otherwise asserting that something was said that was not. Just to make it as clear as possible, here is what I have said in this thread:
1. super flat back and soles are great to work with
2. perfectly flat backs and soles are not absolutely necessary to achieve great results or do fine work
3. lots of the old tools we inherit come from folks who weren't doing fine work
4. lots of the folks who did fine work didn't need machinist perfection in their tools to get museum quality results in their wood (for a variety of reasons)
Hope you stand this extra "pollution"
What most people port to their hand tool woodworking is a notion from the world of machine woodworking - the machine or implement itself, and its proper set up are ultimately responsible for the precision of the workpiece. You don't need to use a marking gauge on a board you're going to rip on a tablesaw. If the machine is in tune and the fence properly aligned, accurately ripped workpieces are a virtual certainty.
Hand tool woodworking is about making marks on wood and removing wood usually right up to the mark or including part of the mark. If you can do that I can guarantee success. It is shocking how "crude" a tool (by popular "experts'" standards) you could actually use to simply remove the wood to your well placed lines and marks and produce gorgeous furniture. The key is IN THE MARKING OUT, not in the absolute perfection of the tools used to remove the wood. Obviously, it is easy to totally F-Up a workpiece using a $125 chisel if you put the marks in the wrong place.
You could send me the absolutely worst jointer plane you've ever seen and I can produce glue line joints ready for glue and clamps as quickly with it as I could a Lie Nielsen model. It's about observing the wood, offering workpieces up to each other, etc. that produce accurately made hand tool projects.
Consider that tool tuning articles, currently very much in vogue, would be awfully short if the writer simply said: "you know, your soles don't have to be perfect and your chisels don't have to have perfectly flat backs, now get to work." Frankly, this is the truth but it would be hard to pick up a $500 check for writing a tool tuning article with no more content than this.
You don't need to use a marking gauge on a board you're going to rip on a tablesaw. If the machine is in tune and the fence properly aligned, accurately ripped workpieces are a virtual certainty.
Aren't you making a rather brash assumption - assuming that the operator works with the same level of precision as the machine?
The key is IN THE MARKING OUT
Agreed, to a degree but the perfection falls on the operators ability to cut to that precisely set line, eh?
You could send me the absolutely worst jointer plane you've ever seen and I can produce glue line joints ready for glue and clamps as quickly with it as I could a Lie Nielsen model.
I'd be careful with that invite! What's your address? :-)
As to the tool tuning articles I'd be inclined to agree with you to some extent. But I daresay that there have been very few that I didn't pick up a morsel or three of good info. that has served me well. I'd be hard pressed to second guess the experts in their fields.
Cheers,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Woodworkers in more or less third world countries cut dead to the line with tools you and I would throw in the garbage.
That is so. I have seen exquisite wood and metal craft done on dirt floors and by the side of the road in India, by guys wearing a twisty piece of cloth, and using tools that we really would throw out immediately if we found them in our shops.
Joe
Hi Hammer,I have to agree. I've just finished stripping the paint and reglazing a transom window in our 1876 townhouse apartment. The joinery is excellent. Incredibly accurate joints - solid after 130 years. Sash ovolo cope and stick pinned through mortices. I presume all handmade (Chisels, Saws and Sash Molding Planes). I found one mistake that he'd corrected. He, took to much off on a mortice for a hinge and repaired it with a slim dutchman.Also interestingly, the finishing is great after you get through the gobbed on latex crap, which was the reason for stripping in the first place.Best regards,
Paul
By 1880, millwork was an established industry. While lots of hand work was being done, I'd guess it more likely that those sash moldings came from a factory, quite possibly to be turned into windows on the job site, if not at the local "sash and door" operation.
Of course the old timers spent more time on things that showed (windows, woodwork etc.) Since the framing (timber or stick) was inconsistant, making corrections and fitting trim was where the skills were- more than in the framing.
My first house was built in the mid 1800's. Not much square or flat there, but tight joints everywhere and smooth operating sash (for the most part). Wonderful woodwork. I did have to take a window out and found it was handmade beautifully.
But the rough opening was cut with an axe! (No kidding!). Not especially neatly either, but because it was unseen, who cared! Beat dulling a saw on the knotty, nasty sheathing I suppose.
Extreme flatness for woodworking tools is nice but overrated. So are .0005-inch shavings. I love it when folks post pics of their latest shaving with their dial caliper, thumb straining on the roller, you can almost see the moveable jaw and the beam bending... but it reads less than a thou! (if it was ever zeroed).
But it that's what makes them happy, good for them!
David Carroll
I don't want to ruin your fantasy, but it is very unlikely that the sash was hand made. By the 1860's almost all of the standard architectural woodwork was being made in shops with power equipment and was being sold through catalogs. The miscut hinge mortise was more likely a mistake made on the job site when the window was installed.John White
Hi John,Not sure that I'd call it a fantasy. I'm not sure if I care that much whether the joinery was made using machine tools or hand tools. Just made the assumption, perhaps erroneously, that it would have been made with hand tools.I stand corrected :)I have a question though, which you may be able to help with - why are there so many ovolo sash molding planes out there? I assume many made after the 1860s. Who would have used them?Best regards,
Paul
Commercially made woodworking didn't completely eliminate the need to make sash by hand, especially for non standard size windows, so the planes were needed occasionally.Oddly enough, the tools that have survived to become collector's items are the tools that were rarely used and so didn't get worn out or broken. This is the reason that you can find so many Stanley 45's and 55's around in good shape.John White
Case in point. I bought an old crappy jack plane and converted it for use as a scrub plane for down and dirty work. It was cracked but otherwise pretty flat so I welded it shut and reworked the blade and now its quite useful for prep work.
I've also seen old sharpening stones that were badly dished and my granddads tools that weren't up to my standards but for the old trimmers they worked fine!
If we could accomplish half the things they did with our highly polished edges or .001 flat soles we would be in great shape!
Chaim
Make your own mistakes not someone elses, this is a good way to be original !
Not that earlier planes were always less precise but I go for the Stanley planes made at or near WW2. These are the type 14-17's for bench planes
Machining capabilities were optimum then as well as emphasis on quality, casting methods potentially would have been improved vs say late 1880's -early 1900's.
The mass made tools with as cast only finish seen on some tools like spokeshaves and flimsey sheetmetal levers now are un called for, given machine automation and 21st century mfg methods.
LN, Veritas, Crown and others are evidence that tools can be great when the commitment is made.
I just wonder why most Japanese chisels have a hollow back?
Just a thought~
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled