WoodCentral Forums

Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge

FWW article-OT

Posts

FWW article-OT

#1

FWW article-OT

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>I told myself I wouldn't do this but the recent thread about FWW makes this topical.

The article below was written for you guys (and gals), but after finishing it, I thought a wider circulation could be possible. I editted it some and submitted it to FWW. They accepted it.

During the editting process, I was asked a few times to essentially add a tool review section. Frankly I didn't want to do a tool review for two reasons:

1) The article is about a technique and as such fits into a long heritage of FWW technique-based articles.

2) I didn't want to imply that you must spend a lot of money on a plane. In fact, I felt the opposite was true. Any plane can work, if your technique is good.

The editor I was working with left the company (I suspect she was my champion) and the article was quickly dropped.

The point I'd like to make is that I suspect the articles are very much the work of the editors and their (in my opinion) narrow interests.

From my knothole, it looks like the technique articles are all tool reviews/ads in disguise. Dunbar seems to have been defanged and pushed aside and I'm sad for it.

Now I know this sounds like sour grapes. In truth, I bear no ill will and look forward to each month's FWW. I love Tools and Shops. But here is the article. You can decide for yourself why it didn't make it.

Using Long Planes or Why your first plane should be a try plane

Try planes are long surfacing planes. The job of the try plane is to flatten boards� faces, and straighten and square their edges. Essentially, the try plane is the 18th century version of the modern power jointer. Once you learn how to use one, you�ll find it works fast enough to be a reasonable alternative to a power jointer�.or a reasonable alternative to a new wider power jointer!

Edge straightening

The try plane is used to straighten edges. With the board clamped on edge, the cut is started some distance in from the back edge of the board and is stopped short of the far end by a similar distance. The plane is moved an additional increment in from the back end, and stopped short by the same amount. The process is continued until the plane ceases to produce a shaving in the center of the board. At this point the board�s edge has been planed into a long concave arc.

The next cut is begun with the blade hanging off the back end of the board and with lots of pressure on the plane�s forward end (toe). As the blade passes the near end and the cut begins, hand pressure is gradually transferred to the back hand. As the blade approaches the far end of the board, all pressure must be on the back end (heel) of the plane. This first pass should only produce a shaving at each end of the board. Repeat the process until one continuous shaving is produced. Now the board is straight. One side benefit of this technique has come to me as I�ve gotten older; I can hear when the board is straight. More and more, I appreciate techniques that don�t require perfect vision! Note that you don�t need a straight edge to know the board is straight.

Edge squaring

Trying to square the edge of a board by holding the plane perfectly square is a fool�s errand. The try plane�s curved iron facilitates the squaring of an edge and the process below can be combined with the edge straightening process above. The board�s edge is first checked for square with a try square. Position the plane laterally so that the center of the plane is on the high edge of the board. The curved plane iron produces a shaving that is thick in the middle and tapers to nothing on the side. The try plane will thus take a thicker cut from the high spot and a thinner cut from the low spot. After a few passes the edge will be square.

As it is likely that the angle is not uniform, the plane can be slid from side to side during the cut to compensate. Thus, if the board is out of square on one end and square on the other, the plane would begin centered on the board�s edge, and end centered on the middle of its thickness.

Flattening

In instances where a board must be flat, the long length of the try plane allows it to ride on, and plane off, the high spots (risings). Like any surfacing plane, the try plane benefits from its curved iron. A curved iron doesn�t leave marks on the wood, corresponding to the sharp square sides of the plane iron. The amount of camber or curvature should be more than that of the smooth plane for reasons mentioned earlier. To flatten a cupped board, plane at a +/-45 degree angle to the grain. This imposes flatness and helps reduce tear out.

Work smarter not harder

I don�t know about you, but I rarely have all the time, shop space, or help I need. I admit I�m impatient. Half way through a project I start thinking about the next job. So I use whatever tricks I can to save time.

� Using wide lumber makes a project look prettier and saves me the trouble of jointing and gluing up (which I do with a different specialty plane called a gluing jointer, by the way). But passing a 16� wide, 8� long piece of 6/4 Pennsylvania Black Walnut over a stationary power jointer isn�t exactly my idea of fun. When working with big, heavy stock, the try plane is easier for me. The 60 lb board gets clamped to my bench and my 10lb plane works the edge straight.

� I don�t like planing out twist. It isn�t easy to do, and it rarely lasts anyway. What I plane out one weekend, tends to come back the next. Plus I loose thickness, which I really don�t like, because I pay extra for thicker stock. When I�m using a wide board to make a case piece, I figure I can restrain some amount of twist with my dovetails. When jointing the edge, its best to clamp-out the twist first by clamping the board to the work bench front, then working the edge with the try plane as usual. You can try to clamp-out the twist then pass the board, the stout timber you clamped it to, and the clamps over the power jointer, but that seems like way too much work to me.

Selecting a try plane

Several good quality try planes with bodies of either metal or wood are available today. All will work fine when tuned correctly. Don�t expect the blade to be curved from the manufacturer. You�ll have to do that yourself. I recommend at least a 1/16� of curvature.

Also, try planes needn�t produce wispy thin shavings in figured woods. That�s what smooth planes are for. Fit and finish matter like always, but the best performance will come from the longest plane, properly sharpened. Stanley traditionally referred to their #7 (22� long) as a try plane and the #8 (24�long) as a jointer. If you had to choose between these two, you�d do better with the longer. I use a second hand 28� long wooden plane. These are readily available and inexpensive. If you have your choice of two long planes, chose the narrower for the try plane and reserve the wider for use as a gluing jointer.

Conclusion

I really love using hand tools, but I can�t honestly say I can work faster or even as fast with a hand tool as I can with a power tool. But of all hand tools, the often overlooked try plane comes the closest to being competitive with its power tool grandson. You can easily work an edge straight before you can clean the paint cans and sandpaper off of your jointer bed!

If you haven�t yet purchased a power jointer, you may be able to get away without one a bit longer. (I don�t recommend using a hand plane on plywood, or MDF, so if you work with these materials a try plane may not help you).

If you�ve already got a jointer, but would like a wider one just to remove twist, a try plane may be a cost effective alternative. You can remove the twist with it, flatten your workbench top with it, or use it when you clamp-out twist.

Because you can concentrate your planing effort on a single area easily, you may be able to make do with a less accurate rip operation. You could rip at your band saw for example and skip buying a table saw altogether (see Gary Rogokowski�s article in Tools and shops �First 5 tools and why none are the table saw�).

Re: FWW article-OT

#2

Re: FWW article-OT

Dennis

>Well with few pic's would be a natural for the Master Class section. Sure beats the he** out of that "a extraordinary patina finish" that is in current issue.

I hope this gets put on the articles & reviews here it is a good read........you did great imo Adam

Dennis

remove nospam for email

Re: FWW article-OT

#3

Re: FWW article-OT

Paul M. in San Diego

>Hi Adam,

I enjoyed your article much more than anything in the latest FWW. I like many others prefer Woodwork over FWW. Your article would be a fine contribution to either.

-- Paul M.

Re: FWW article-OT

#4

Jim in Burlington Ont.

You have to wonder

Jim in Burlington Ontario

>Seems to me that more people are interested in developing the skills to use hand tools. Sales are booming in the hand tool industry. Do the publishers of FWW really know what people want? Lee Valley does and that's why they are making and working on new planes. All these woodworking schools that are expanding certainly know. Popular Woodworking seems to be on the right track with that Don Weber's article was great hope they have a few more.

Re: FWW article-OT

#5

Re: FWW article-OT

Frank Mutchler in Colorado Springs

>Adam, I enjoyed reading your article and would like to offer a few comments. You impress me as a 'down to earth' kind of guy and so I offer my comments in that spirit!

The article impressed me as being very much like something I would expect to find in a woodworking textbook. I also found myself wishing there was a picture or two. Was you article accompanied by pictures?

It was a bit of a stretch for me to visualize the various situations you described. I think I understand what you mean when you say you can 'hear' when the edge is straight but I'm not sure I want to rely on it 100%. Concerning sound, I also have noted the differences in sound that different blades make when cutting the same piece of wood.

I've never been able to square an edge by judging the shape of the shaving. I'm not at all implying that others can't. I suspect a lot of woodworkers were equally deficient in technique because of developments like the Stanley 386 jointer plane gage and the #95 edge trimming block plane; early attempts to speed up the process.

Unlike you, I've never had formal training in woodworking & so I'm in an excellent position to quite quickly stick my foot (size 12) in my mouth. Be that as it may, my experience has been that without some kind of an aid I can't square up a board with just a hand plane. I know it can be done because a lot of evidence exists from previous centuries declaring the fact.

If I had to square up the thick, heavy piece you described, I would lay it on my bench and use my bench top as a guide for my jointer. Then I would be sure that edge was square to my bench top. Getting the face square to that edge, using only a hand plane, would be a challenge for me ;>)!!

Re: FWW article-OT

#6

Well...

Scott in Douglassville, PA

>First lemme say that this is great, and gives me more info than the last few issues of any of the WWing magazines I get. Thanks, and I really need to get over your way for a meeting...

Next, lemme say that, with my limited publishing experience, I agree - editors are to blame for everything (just kidding, there, Ellis). A good editor will help draw an article out to meet the needs of the magazine, without creating drudgery for the writer, as that will quickly reduce the quality of the material being submitted. A bad editor will see an opportunity to further his/her own agenda, tailoring an article to meet their own requirements (push a favored advertiser, gain stature in review meetings, etc.). I've dealt with both; the latter generally work toward the detriment of the organization, and suck to deal with.

Finally, I agree with others - I'd submit this to several different markets. The work's done; might as well see if you can get paid for it.

Re: FWW article-OT

#7

Looks like another keeper

Brent Langdon, Sterling VA

>Adam: I am willing to bet that I have printed out more posts from you than anybody else. This one contains some good information. I will definitely give the technique described in the Edge Straightening section a try (no pun intended).

Some comments...

It does not seem like the article fully explains what a Try Plane is. Or, more importantly, it does not explain what the difference between a Jointer Plane and a Try Plane and why/if somebody needs both. I have a #7 that I use for edge straightening, edge squaring, and face flattening. Lie-Nielsen calls there #6 a Fore or Try Plane, but you seem to say that a #8 would make a good Fore Plane.

I cannot quite understand the section on Edge Squaring. I am having trouble picturing the technique described and I don't see how I could square an edge without holding the plane square (which you say "is a fool�s errand").

- Brent

Re: FWW article-OT

#8

It's things like this this...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>That explains why I have a 2 year old stack of WW rags with there protective covers still on or are still plastic wrappers they were delivered in.

Scott, I get a lot more here than out of any WW rag.

Re: FWW article-OT

#9

Re: FWW article-OT

Alan Hamilton

>Adam,

Very good work. I'm sure you will find someone that will want to publish it. Persevere. I have only one constructive (I hope) suggestion--that I think you ought to spend a little time explaining clearly how you set up your try plane. For example:

Explain how--and more importantly--why you sharpen your iron with a bit of a crown. You might also write about the mechanics of putting a little crown on an iron.

Also, you could write about setting the frog--and extending the iron--to get a fine cut with little or no tear out or chattering.

These things may seem elementary, but assuming readers already know all this stuff would not, at least in my judgment, not be a safe assumption.

Alan

Re: FWW article-OT

#10

Inspiration

Paul M. in San Diego

>Adam,

I keep thinking about your article. I have one jointer plane that I've been very happy with. It's got a very square blade, and I use this for both flattening and for edge jointing.

I've got another old jointer plane that is still in the "as found" condition (i.e. it's covered with rust and paint and needs lots of work). Thanks to your article, I finally have a desire to fix this plane up so that I can have two #7s, one with a square blade for flattening and another with a crowned blade so that I can "try" out your edge jointing method. Thanks!

Re: FWW article-OT

#11

I don't know why they dropped it.

HC Sakman

>It sounds pretty good.

BTW, I've seen an ad that FWW is looking for a new editor. "Woodworking" knowledge comes as 3rd requirement. ;-)

Chico...

Re: FWW article-OT

#12

Not surprising;-)

Dan Donaldson

>It really does not surprise me about woodworking knowhow being third. They are hiring an editor that knows woodworking, not necessarily a woodworking expert. How many people do you know that are absolutely fabulous woodworkers that cannot spell or always use proper grammar? Regardless or the type of magazine, if you want an editor, you want someone that can function in that capacity, and then has some knowledge of the subject matter. The best case would be someone that is expert in both areas, but in this case, it is more important to the job to be a good editor than an expert woodworker.

Re: FWW article-OT

#13

...such AS.... ELLIS??????? ;-)

HC Sakman

>

Re: FWW article-OT

#14

Steve Kubien

Nice

Steve Kubien

>Looks like a keeper to me, Adam. In fact, I've already printed a copy to add to my "Adam Cerubini Collection of Wood Wisdom." It is quickly becoming the most valuable book in my shop. As for why any of the magazines wouldn't want to publish it....Only thing I can think of is because it doesn't highlight one of their advertisers.

Sometimes we take for granted the knowledge to be found around here. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience with us.

Steve Kubien

AJax, Ont

Re: FWW article-OT

#15

That comes to mind ;-)

Dan Donaldson

>It might be interesting to as Ellis which skill, the etitorial skill, or the woodworking one was the most critical in him being able to do his job back then.

Re: FWW article-OT

#16

Re: FWW article-OT

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Thanks Alan,

Your suggestions are appreciated. If Garrett is interested in publishing it here, maybe you'd be willing to help work out the bugs?

I definately need to take pictures, maybe even draw some schematics.

Adam

Re: FWW article-OT

#17

Infomercials

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>A magazine has to get advertisers or it will go out of business; this is a major problem with your article. By actually suggesting in print that a person not spend more money on a bigger tool, your article is destined for file 13 before you were even done writing it.

Another "constructive critique" I would have is that your article is written in such a way that only people who have gained a reasonable amount of experience in woodworking are able to really follow what you are trying to say. I think it should be broken down and written as a series of articles; the first one would go into some detail of what a "try plane" is; most experienced woodworkers don't know why you wouldn't just call it a jointer plane; this is confusing to me. This article could include a little bit of history of the "try plane" and where the name comes from. It would also discuss some different brands of try planes currently on the market and how you rate them. A second article could detail the sharpening and adjusting of the plane, and the thrid article would then detail the actual usage of the plane.

Breaking the articles into smaller sections and doing them in a series over several months span would give enough information that beginning woodworkers would read through the whole article, and not fall asleep in the middle of it. It would also give them all the information they need from start to finish; they would not have to go somewhere else to learn how to sharpen the plane or adjust it. And providing a review of these planes that people can buy would be a hook that a company can use to justify sponsoring the article; it's all about the money. I don't think you are "selling out" if you cater to the money; the money provides a way for you to reach an audience that will learn from your experience.

So far as the quality of FWW; I personally do not think it or most other magazines are going downhill, I think they are improving, but as my skills increase and I become more set in the way I want to accomplish things , I find less in the magazines that interests me. I love FWW for the pictures; they provide lots of wonderful design ideas and inspiration worth hundreds of times more than what the magazine costs.

Re: FWW article-OT

#18

Re: FWW article-OT

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Hi Frank,

Was your article accompanied by pictures?

It was a bit of a stretch for me to visualize the various situations you described.

Its my impression that FWW sends a photographer to shoot professional quality pictures for their articles. I never got that far into the process. If you read the fine print next to FWW photos, you'll often see the picture is credited to the editor. I've heard rumblings that Taunton Press, the publisher of FWW, unfairly favors North East writers because the publishers don't like to travel.

I think I understand what you mean when you say you can 'hear' when the edge is straight but I'm not sure I want to rely on it 100%. Concerning sound, I also have noted the differences in sound that different blades make when cutting the same piece of wood.

The plane actually stops cutting. Its not a different sound, its no sound. Once you get a full length cut, you can just make one more pass and be done. There's no nuance here. This is a simple technique.

I've never been able to square an edge by judging the shape of the shaving.

Just for your benefit and not to defend the article;

You can look at the shaving, but that's not how I do it. You check with your square, make a pass, then check again. Repeat until its square. We're not trying to get it perfect. A few degrees off would be fine. Good enough for the edge of a table, front of a carcass, or a drawer side. Ceratinly not good enough for a glue joint.

Unlike you, I've never had formal training in woodworking

Until I get that time machine finished, I don't either. I have two bachelors in engineering and several years of art school. Nobody knows the answers here. I certainly don't. These arts are all lost. The things I write here are things I do, which are my best guesses. There is no authoritative source for this information. We're all in this together, brother!

Be that as it may, my experience has been that without some kind of an aid I can't square up a board with just a hand plane.

Get your plane tuned up, your blade cambered and give it a try. My guess is anyone can master this technique with 30 minutes of practice. You may be asking too much, looking for more precision than is needed or practical.

You can do it. Give it a try. You don't have to do it this way, but you should have the choice. Its fast- like a minute to straighten and square a 4' long edge of 4/4 stock.

If you have any trouble e-mail me offline.

Yours,

Adam

Re: FWW article-OT

#19

It is, of course, possible to be good at both

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>In the ideal world of defining the perfect whatever, you can say that someone needs to be good at this and that, prize-winning botanist, and so on.

In the real world of recruitment, it's necessary to ask yourself what the priority of your needs are. I agree that a good editor who is familiar with but not excellent at woodworking is going to be superior in the job "editor" to someone who's a great sawdust maker but a weak editor.

In the real world of HIRING, you can get lucky and find someone who's closer to the ideal world. Back when Ellis was in the mag biz, I remember appreciating every article on which I could see his fingerprints, just as I enjoy the influence I can see Chris Schwarz having on Pop WW, even though I'm never sure if I've spelled his name right.

But the impact of a magazine, as in any organization, is heavily based on the tone set by the top. Chris wouldn't be as successful at Pop WW if his ideas and creativity weren't supported by the organization. A good editorial staff will be busy inspiring each other to create a magazine that is met by hordes of people climbing over each other at the newstands to get a copy, but creating that kind of attitude takes really good leadership capabilities.

Kinda side note: there was an error in one of the recent Pop WW issues, misnaming the glue recommended for a project. The response I got, I think from Steve Shanesy, top editor dude and publisher, when I e-mailed a letter to the editor was great: he acknowledged he was wrong, no bs, and thanked me for correcting him. His reponse made me think I'd like to work for him.

Re: FWW article-OT

#20

Dan, that sounds like Ernie ;~)

Todd O. Cronkhite Native of Maine

>

Re: FWW article-OT

#21

Re: Looks like another keeper

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, South of Miami FL

>Brent,

I agree with you that the dry, prose article is a bit opaque in some areas. That is where the FWW-type magazine article would flesh things out with photos, and some side-bars with diagrams, drawings etc.

Re: FWW article-OT

#22

Re: FWW article-OT

Paul Kierstead

>Heh, my first post and I decide to disagree with a frequent and respectable poster. Anyway...

The article is interesting. But have you read the forums (outside of this one where all the bottom feeders live)? How often to you find the question "How to I become the master of the try plane?". Not very often. How about "What is the best plane to buy?" or "Should I buy the LV or the LN?"? Fact is that it would seem a very large portion of the market is much more interested in what to buy then how to use it.

So it is easy to criticize FWW for their tool review mentality, but I suspect they are just reflecting their audience. Perhaps they could pass on that and become a more "niche" magazine but it appears that is not their plan.

Re: FWW article-OT

#23

I agree

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Paul,

Thanks for your post. I agree. The article was originaly crafted as a response to some misunderstandings and direct questions here (probably a year ago now).

But I think you're right. My perception is that we get an awful lot of questions about which should I buy.

Adam

Re: FWW article-OT

#24

Re: FWW article-OT

John Aniano in Central NJ

>Thanks Adam!

As usual, great bits of information for those not used to using such planes. Many of the points you brought to light were things I, and no doubt others had come across by accident when we first started putting these planes to wood. However you have taken the initiative to write about it! I especially like the titbit about the sound... Its a real pity the FWW folks gave your article "germ" the thumbs down.

It is funny how the little bits of "tool lore" have gotten lost or at least generally forgotten. Unless there are folks like yourself who experiment and play with tools who then actually put their learned ideas, feelings and actions into words for others to see and understand, these little bits of "found" knowledge will be again forgotten. The web has a great facility and potential to bring these knowledge bits from individuals to the greater populace - thank you and folks like Ellis for enabling this to continue.

Lastly, last week I made a really neat blade radiusing jig for my Tormek; I'm quite pleased with the first iteration of it. Its more than enough for my needs in its present form. If folks are interested, I can share this simple jig's design; I'm sure it can be readily adapted for other types of grinding wheel setups...

Thanks again,

John

Re: FWW article-OT

#25

Response and some ramblin'

Dave Anderson Chester,NH

>Adam's article submission is of definate interest to those of us on the hardcore hand tool user fringe of things, but is certainly not mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. In the previous threads on the downfall of FWW and how life generally is going to the dogs (tongue in cheek folks) there was a general bemoaming of how the articles have moved generally toward the lowest common demominator. Unfortunately we have to face facts about what is happening to our hobby and in some of our cases, our chosen profession. Magazines exist to provide profits for the stockholders of the corporation that owns them. While the interests of readers and subscribers are catered to as much as possible, the reality is that most magazines derive most of their income from advertisers and the average magazine turns over 50% or more of its subscribers every 4 years. In effect we have a situation where at any given time the readership is half new folks who haven't seen a particular magazines slant or treatment of a subject. Hence everything is new and of at least some interest.

While I personally feel Adam's article is worthwhile, well written, and with descriptive photos would be useful to any hand tool afficianado, the reality is it would interest only a portion of the readership of any mainstream woodworking magazine. In a private email, I suggested Adam submit it to the SAPFM annual journal. It is these types of narrower audience publications where it is more likely to find an appreciative readership. Ah, woe is us, were there only more such publications to fit the needs of this band of off center reprobates. Unless one or more of us have surplus energy and a large amount of cash we are willing to "squander" for The Cause, we will have to subsist on what gleanings are left for us and on the occasional charity of "them".

Let us however look to the bright side, if we look after ourselves and encourage folks like Adam, we can do what we need on fora such as this one here. We have a huge base of resources with folks like Sam Simpson, Ellis, Scott Post, Bugbear, Todd Hughes, Russ Seaton, and so many others I'm having trouble remembering them all. (sorry for my ommisions) If we can't attract attention and have our needs met by the woodworking press, WE WILL JUST HAVE TO DO IT OURSELVES.

End Rant

👍 This page answered my questions

Your vote helps other woodworkers quickly find the answers and techniques that actually work in the shop.