Hand Tools

Subject:
initial fitting...
Response To:
Re: more infill weights ()

David Weaver
.going through the scenario I mentioned earlier - someone who has several million in their 401k and just wants to start with planing stuff may not care about a couple of hundred dollars for a wooden plane.

i like a try plane around 7 1/2 or 8 pounds and a jack plane around ....(have to measure it...the last 17" jack plane that I made is the one that I use - 4 lbs 14 oz.) I am fatter than you, though ( a little over 200 pounds).

When thought about building planes, I bought about 20 wooden planes, maybe more than that.

The variance in weight was surprising. I found quickly that I didn't like most wooden jointer planes (too heavy - one early lamb plane from new england was well over 10 pounds) and if they weren't heavy, they were often rough to use. I didn't get along with try planes if they were under about 7 pounds (too much communication) and like the jacks that are slightly longer (like a pattern that matheison made a lot of)

Here's the weights of the planes that I actually use (the infills, I use on occasion, but they're not lowest effort and I don't have any of the smaller lighter ones left because of the stanley below).
* later stanley 4 - normal thickness iron - 3 lbs 10 oz
* greaves try plane, 22 inches - 2.5 wide - 7 lbs 14 oz
* my jack as mentioned above - 4 lbs 14, it's 2 1/8th width, 17" long - my favorite pattern of all that I've tried

I have two try planes left of my own make (you've mentioned they're long enough to be referred to as long planes - both just under 8 pounds, 24" long. I would use either or the greaves - just have 3)

I haven't yet found a coffin plane that I care for, so I don't use them. Too light for quick work and I think most professional users would replace them with a stanley plane if they work more than agreeable softwoods. it's misleading to say "yet". I don't like them, it's not going to change.

There's on exception to that, I have a house-made cocobolo smoothing coffin plane that's 2 1/4" for the iron and it's 4 pounds 4 oz. It is excellent for pre-final work or early work on sticking. I made it, didn't like it at first (the iron isn't really good enough for smoothing work, but it's fine for heavier work), and found a use for it later. It's dandy to set where most people would set a try plane (e.g., 5-6 thousandths on cherry) to run the ripples off of machine planed wood, too.

There is no need for all of these planes, but I have them, so I use them. I've made and refinished several beech coffin smoothers from around 1 3/4 to 2 1/4, they just don't quite have enough density to make up for their small size. I made another in purpleheart just under 2" and inentionally mortised the mouth so that it could get an insert (to have a negative wear), and it's better than a traditional design with a single wear and heavy enough to feel and work like a stanley 4, but there's no incentive for me to use it over a stanley 4 as it's only as good. I don't like the aesthetic of exotic smoothers, either - that's a personal bias, but making those planes confirmed what it is I don't like about beech smoothers.

I can refit just about any old plane in less than an hour, iron and all - but there's no incentive to do it. I have offered once in a while when someone says they want a turn key wooden plane, but people see old wooden planes for $50 and I guess they'd rather buy a fully made wooden plane for $450 than potentially spend $100 getting a wooden plane and sending it to me and paying to have it mailed back. I suppose there's some suspicion that an old plane could be as good as a new one if the fitting is done properly ...whatever, it's not really my concern when people don't think my advice is credible. it becomes a waste of time feeling out who is actually looking to woodwork and who is just looking to buy a plane that they fancy based on pictures online.

Messages In This Thread

Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
not the direction I went *PIC*
5 1/4
Re: reframing the issue
Re: reframing the issue
Friction, and more
The experiment and conclusion are both confusing
Re: Heavy and light
The best case for heavy planes...
another factor
If you're trimming furniture...
At some point..
Inertia and figured wood
Re: Jim, what is Osae-gani? *NM*
Osae-gani
Re: Osae-gani
Note on fitting
Re:wedge fitting
funny...
Re: funny...
Re:wedge fitting
biases for the maker...
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Not a positive contribution to the discussion
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
finding out who to listen to...
Re: Same
Old history
Shops using mostly hand tools..
Re: Shops using mostly hand tools..
Don felder's guitar...
Misprint?
cultural thing...
Re: Misprint?
Re: finding out who to listen to...
I agree...
Re: finding out who to listen to...
Turnover, newbies and FAQ
comment on teaching
If you get my drift...
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
new vs. old planes...
I like tools from Brooklyn
Re: I like tools from Brooklyn *NM*
Infills in the UK
I'm glad you commented.
Note on a modern infill
konrad's planes...
Re: I'm glad you commented.
what I've found...
Re: what I've found...
interesting that...
Re: Calling BS
I haven't seen it....
Re: I haven't seen it....
Re: I haven't seen it....
Re: I haven't seen it....
Re: I haven't seen it....
Truing Kanna
expanding on what jim said
Re: expanding on what jim said
Re: expanding on what jim said
Coupla thoughts
different methods of lapping and the bump
Re: Calling BS
Re: Facts, not assertions
Re: Facts, not assertions
I think we're agreeing...
Re: I think we're agreeing...
Re: Me too
Wood isn't indefinitely stable, either
Re: Calling BS
Re: Calling BS
Re: Calling BS
by the early 19th century
Re: by the early 19th century
It's not offered as ball court...
I miss Todd Hughes' contributions too *NM*
Re: It's not offered as ball court...
I'm guessing on parts here...
Re: Can't argue
Weight Comparison
more infill weights
Re: more infill weights
now there is a pearl of wisdom
Re: more infill weights
initial fitting...
one more follow-up comment.
Re: one more follow-up comment.
rosewood
Re: rosewood
© 1998 - 2017 by Ellis Walentine. All rights reserved.
No parts of this web site may be reproduced in any form or by
any means without the written permission of the publisher.

WOODCENTRAL, P.O. BOX 493, SPRINGTOWN, PA 18081