>I love hand planes! Plane and simple :-). Not to collect but to use them. I used Stanley #6 for the first time today to edge some rough cypress boards I am going to join and make some Craftsman style tapered columns.
First, the #6 needs a good bit of work. The sole is pitted and I cleaned it up some but not to where it needs to be. I also quickly sharpened the blade before I started.
What I found was, to my suprise, that it was quicker to clean up the rough edges with my #4 then go over it with the #6. I got four boards done and the edges mated pretty well for a first attemp.
The joiner was harder to use than I exected but that could be because of the sole needs work. So my question is what is the proper method? Do you clean up a rough cut with a smaller plane and then use the joiner? Or some other method?
I have a stack to do tommorow. I may need to work on that place some first though.
>The general way to surface the face of a board is to use a scrub to get flat...use a jack or similar length bench plane with a slightly cambered/radiused iron to mill the entire face to clean, new wood and maintain the flat face you got with the scrub...then get the jointer out to get really flat and smooth.....smoother can also be used rather than the jointer depending on tolerances you need for flatness of a board. Smoother also helps out if you cannot complete the surfacing in a single day or if there are slight hollows the jointer cannot reach without wasting a lot of time wasting all the other wood. You'll need winding sticks for any sort of accurate milling....they double up as a straight edge too.
For an edge, similar pattern though a saw may be easier/faster to rough out a straight edge rather than a scrub.....and you'd likely skip the jack and go straight to the jointer....not as much wood to waste on a edge compared to a face.
>I appreciate your careful and accurate vocabulary. Joining is done with a jointer. Surface planes aren�t joining planes. All surface planes have rounded edges. No joining planes have rounded edges.
If the boards have very uneven edges, and depending on their length, you may wish to begin the process with a jack/fore plane or a try plane. I�ve posted a detailed description of this technique before. It was an article FWW accepted, then rejected, so you might do a search on �FWW�.
Once semi-straightened, the jointer plane can be used. I�m not sure what type of columns you have in mind. But if you are edge gluing your boards, the best and easiest approach is to match plane them with your jointer. Place them face to face, then plane both edges at once. When you unfold them, they�ll always match up.
Getting a perfectly straight, 90 degree edge is a bit harder. My advice would be to use a try plane, to get it just right then make enough passes with your jointer to get a full width, full length shaving.
==============================
***Off Topic portion***
Read at your own risk!!
==============================
The best trick of all is to avoid joinery that requires this type of precision. Mission/Arts and Crafts/Craftsman style is really a style developed for a manufacturing process. As such, I don�t consider it seriously as an artistic expression, though that may be my own ignorance. In any case, this style was defined and developed by the capabilities of woodworking machinery and the availability of cheap material. You may find that the preponderance of A&C joinery is best performed on a table saw.
Just for the sake of comparison, baroque furniture was designed by essentially high fashion designers (Thomas Chippendale was one). The design drove the state of the art in manufacturing and in some cases, other industries including mechanical/architectural drafting (chippendale side chair rear legs, in that case). Materials used required the establishment of new trade routes and development of faux finishes in their absence.
The Arts & Crafts of that day was essentially naturalistic, asymmetric, medieval. Interestingly, all of those attributes were ressurected by George Nakashima and generally considered quite modern.
I think there's a bigger point to be made here, but someone else will have to make it!
>When you say A&C is not a bonafide artistic expression but just just a compromise to accomodate WWing machinery,it just struck a nerve with me.
I am a partner in a gallery with a group(13 members)of other artisans.Every Tues nite we jury work.There seems to be an alarming trend toward the bottom line being"Do you think it will sell?" instead of "How much craftsmanship and attention to detail went into it?".
The move seems to be away from following your own creative vision and toward meeting a price point.
We have one member who specializes in Mission style furniture and he stays true to it to include fuming for color instead of using dye or stain.He even does his own leather upolstery.He`d be the first to tell you that mission is geared toward machines.Does this make it less of an artistic expression,or just a natural progression into the reality of making a living while still remaining creative?
I hear your statement about mission furniture and I can`t help but think that it relates somehow to the "money chasing" attitude I see in my group.I was sad to hear one of our most creative members say he would have liked to have done this or that to a piece but it would have pushed it beyond the price point he was shooting for so he didn`t.
Where does it stop being your passion,with the heart,soul,and piece of yourself needed to make it just that,and start to be just another dollar in your pocket?
>You may find that the preponderance of A&C joinery is best performed on a table saw.
I suspect this statement may need more careful qualification, Adam.
William Morris (the founder of the A&C) movement, had strong (obsessive!) opinions on the desirability of careful hand work, and a loathing of mass production.
It was Stickly that applied good ol' yankee ingenuity to A&C furniture; it may be this diluted form of A&C you're thinking of.
Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but I couldn't let the good name of A&C be sullied by an inaccurate over generalisation.
>If you're making your living with wood, I would think that debate is ALWAYS ongoing, until you reach the point that people will pay whatever you ask because your name has made your work automatically valuable.
Though I suspect that people whose names have that effect on furniture get there partly by veering toward passion for design rather than price point...
I agree and I disagree. And I could be wrong/ignorant, but here's what I think:
While the creators of A&C style saw their work as a reaction to over industrialization, they used the industrial tools and processes which, in my mind, resultingly dominated and defined their work.
Don't get me wrong: I totally get and respect their point. I feel a great deal of sympathy for them. I think I am drawn to the baroque as a reaction to the post-industrial, flat-packed, satin-finished, unadorned, square items that fill my every waking moment. I just don't think the point of the A&C movement is sucessfully expressed in the furniture.
In my mind, Nakashima represents the pinnacle of the Arts & Crafts movement. His work better expresses (to me anyway) the point I think Morris and Frank Lloyd Wright was trying to make.
Am I wrong? I may be. Sorry if this thread is boring.
>There is a balance point though, and I suspect you'd agree.
An artist will probably have to make some consessions on what they will or will not do. Perhaps pushing their "art-sy-ness" will raise the price point to such a level they'd have to really work to sell said piece.
Perhaps they're not a good marketer, or the market they have access to isn't suited.
The flip side is they "whore" (sorry if it offends) themselves to money and abandon any sense of art. They will hype anything and pretend it's art simply to increase the almighty buck.
Often without knowing the artist it can be hard to tell the difference, at least it is for me.
But the real problem is one of self honesty and integrity. If you're willing to sell that, the big looser is you - or the artist.
Anyway. Point heard.
Though, Adam, I take small offense that they may somehow implicate my recent addition to the A&C. *grin* (Who ya' call'n a "non-artist" bucko!)
>I wonder how fair it is to laud Nakashima as being better A&C than Stickley and/or Morris. After all, Nakashima is a continuation, a more modern extension/refinement of A&C. He wasn't working at the turn of the 20th century.
And while I can see the A&C influence in some of his work, most of it voices a much more modern sensibility. When in history was it appreciated when a woodworker made a piece of furniture that wasn't oval and/or rectangular? That incorporated the bark? Before Nakashima, that is. Granted, I suppose there's always been rustic furniture, but I'd bet that was more tolerated than lauded.
>I really didn't care for the Arts and Crafts style until I saw a couple of Greene and Greene pieces in the art Institute of Chicago. I was absolutely taken with them because of the delicate hand work: the ebony inlays and tenon pegs and the hand sculpting that was evident throughout. I've since become a real Greene and Greene fan. Clearly, a lot of their work was done with power machinery. In fact, their furniture shop in Pasadena was something of a marvel in its' array of power equipment. But the beauty of their work is in the hand worked details. In my opnion, Greene and Greene have it all over Stickley and the other names one associates with the Arts and Crafts style. Their work keept the "Art" in the Style.
>I have never considered Nakashima within the continuum of A&C. Even Krenov may be a bit of a stretch. But that is another debate.
But back to the original discussion regarding machinery.
I consider the Gimson/Barnsley trajectory within the A&C movement to be the pinnacle in terms of aesthetics.(Not to be confused with the modern furniture company nor workshops using his name). Edward Barnsley was decidedly against using machinery in the early years. In addition, there was nothing inherent in his styling that required such. Ultimately, he was forced to utilize machines out of pure economics, as does anyone wanting to make a living at it today.
>Not being a Nakashima fan I can say the latter looks like a high school project and the former looks like a really comfortable chair.
To me Nakashima represents the use of pretty material without any craft and most of his stuff to my eye is clunky.
THe real revolution of the American A+C movement (and Morris's Morris chair doesn't look at all like the american stuff) was the utility of the furniture. STickely's houses were some of the first "modern" private houses. Houses without maids quarters. with comfortable furniture so that you could relax. Look at a victorian formal sitting room and compare it to an A+C room. The later is designed for the family to use. The former to recive guests.
STickley most certainly used power machinery to make his furniture - but he also published the plans so amaturs could make their own - by hand.
Green & Green used power tools but the craft of their stuff is way beyound what most can do and the inlay and stuff is all hand work.
The furniture of Morris and Co was more victorian than A+C in many cases but morris had that pre-rafealite thing going so you get lots of victorian chests pretending to be medieval.
With the exception of Windor chairs almost all colonial furntiure that was good enough to survive until today was also very expensive and out of reach of the average person.
The sad part of the A+C movement -like all the furniture movements - has been that high quality professional work is out of the reach of all except the well off customer, unless the customer builds it themselves.
Incidently - I highly recommend the Ruhlmann show at the Metropolitan in NY. IF you are within strikiing distance of the city it's really worth the effort. Closes in SEpetember I think.
>The philosophical underpinnings of Nakashima are thoroughly modern (and even postmodern) whereas the A&C movement was all about pre-modernity as is seen in the A&C re-connection to the medieval.
>I`ve always thought that Morris chairs resembled a non-turned version of early Scottish and Irish chairs.They also remind me of Brewster chairs,only alot more comfortable.
I`m with you as far as Nakashima goes Adam.The idea that his work and well done spin offs involve less craftsmanship is false and shallow in my opinion.
Some people treat the wood as a means of expression no different than clay,steel or plastic.Thier point seems to be to use the wood to show others how skilled they are at joinery.The work is all about them.
Nakashima`s work brings the wood to the forefront.It reminds you that the material came from a tree that was part of an ecosystem that is far,far older than the people viewing the piece.
Like most other things in life,the more simple you make it,the harder it is to get it just right.
>LOL, I guess I went a bit off kilter with that thread!
I did answer the jointer question though, didn't I? It wasn't the right answer as I recall, but it was AN answer and I'm pretty sure that's all we're responsible for around here! 8^)
>Use it?Heck I thought you were just going to display it on one of those fancy-shmancy live edge tables.Figured the Morris chain was for admirers to get comfy in while viewing said plane.
>There is one aspect of Arts & Crafts furniture that I think has been overlooked in this discussion so far. I've often heard that the A&C style, well suited as it is to machine processes, was in fact consistent with the aversion to mechanization, in that the designs were intended to be, essentially, furniture for Everyman.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, a much larger percentage of the population was mechanically adept and largely self sufficient. They had toolboxes full of planes, saws, squares, chisels and the like, and they knew how to use them. The A&C style was all about a whole style of furniture (not to mention bungalow housesand other accessories) that could be built without specialized equipment, using regular tools. Not even a huge degree of skill was necessary, although there was no sin in striving for a high level of design and execution.
We see the more evolved iterations of this in the sensitive and extremely artistic forms of Greene and Greene and the decorative innovations of Harvey Ellis. Stickley furniture was distilled to the essence of producability, and relied on its choice of materials (most often oak), honest and expressed joinery (think through M&T joints) and other humbly attractive yet simple-to-make details for its appeal. It was like the common denominator of rational furniture, fitting the A&C philosophy nicely at every level.
Personally, I have always liked this style, especially the more evolved and artistic examples. I do find much of the earlier stuff to be quite ponderous visually, with its generally dark colors, and a bit boring because of its use of predictable, standardized materials (4/4 white oak, for example). I think its appeal resulted from its practical simplicity and rugged serviceability, and I think its appeal to woodworkers is in its ease of construction as well.
These are just some of my thoughts on this matter. It doesn't help with the jointer plane question, but it is a worthwhile tangent.
>Very interesting, but how come no-one ever mentions the marriage of industrialization and art? This depression era furniture is some of the coolest around, and very comfortable too...that is form and function. Not to mention the interesting use of materials ....metals, glass, unique finishes and wood species. Have you guessed it yet? Art Decco is waaaay cool. I would go on but my 10 month old is tugging at my pants leg.....I would be very interested in your opinions...thanks
Be warned: this group veers off topic with all the enthusiasm of a five year old in a bumper car. As with that five year old, the ride can be fun, but you'd best not have a destination in mind.
Pitting on a plane sole is not necessarily a big deal. Lots of manufacturers, Stanley included, offered planes with grooves running down the length of the sole, and they work fine. As long as the sole is fairly clean at the mouth and the majority of it is smooth, pitting isn't important. Huge, vast holes are a different matter - I assume you mean small pits. Flat, or at least moderately flat, is important, but don't stress over that until you've resolved any other issues.
As others have pointed out, because a long plane won't dip into hollows, going directly from rough to jointing with a #6 or longer can be frustrating. A #4 or #5 plane will knock off the high points, and then you can get to straight and square with the jointing plane.
The #4 and #5 also have narrower irons, 2" instead of 2-3/8". This makes a surprising difference in how hard you have to push. With a wide iron, you want fairly thin shavings - but if you try to go directly from rough to straight and square with such thin shavings, it will take you just shy of forever - DAMHIKT, but the beginning years aren't too far in my past.
You also mentioned "I quickly sharpened the blade..." Especially with the wider iron, you want the blade sharp enough to separate the angels dancing on the two halves of the pinhead. Try going back and sharpening the blade (also known as the iron) again.
Clean up the plane - disassemble it, clean off the grunge, and reassemble, waxing the surfaces where metal touches metal, or even getting carried away and waxing everything. Doesn't hurt. This may help quite a bit.
Oh, and consider buying some books. The two most commonly recommended are "Planecraft," which Woodcraft sells for about $10 (a great value!), and Garrett Hack's "The Hand Plane Book," which you may be able to check out from your local library, if your local acquisitions librarian is at all hip.
With Bill's permission, I'd like to add a few additions to his post:
As others have pointed out, because a long plane won't dip into hollows, going directly from rough to jointing with a #6 or longer can be frustrating. A #4 or #5 plane will knock off the high points, and then you can get to straight and square with the jointing plane.
I only shy away from my long plane when the edge is really bad, i.e. not sawn to the line, or in my case, was sized with a hatchet. Otherwise you hold the long plane askew with respect to the edge. The skew essentially reduces the effective length of the plane, allowing you to create hollows.
For some time I have opined that the long plane (try plane) is the most useful and effective plane and should be the requisite first plane if carcass productivity is the goal (it isn't always). It certainly can do a lot for you in this project.
The #4 and #5 also have narrower irons, 2" instead of 2-3/8". This makes a surprising difference in how hard you have to push.
This is somewhat true for surface work, but not in this case since you are working an edge. Keep in mind cut width varies according to the camber on your iron. I have little sympathy for those who struggle to push their planes yet insist on dead straight irons.
In my opinion, Garrett hack and to some extent David Charlesworth (who may be lurking), are a bit too fussy for beginners. I once read a DC article that said he mic'ed each plane's shavings and labeled them accordingly. When he needed to removed .005, he turned to the plane that removed .005 and viola! He also had something about removing wind and using printer paper of known thickness as a shim. This is what happens when power tool users use hand tools.
Don't get me wrong, both authors are truly excellent. I get DC's point, but I'm afraid stories like those (and Hack's excessive tuning and performance evaluations) suggest woodworking requires unprecedented aerospace precision.
Despite the wacky spellings and difficult language, there is no better practical hand tool manual than Moxon. Yeah some if it is questionable, some confusing, but readers learn basic techniques and can only be encouraged by the crude tools and shops described therein.
>I think some folks have gotten carried away, here. Kudzu is making some Craftsman columns, according to his note. This is CARPENTRY, not fine art cabinetmaking. Here is an example of a Craftsman home with typical columns, which are like what I presume Kudzu is making:
