Probably missing the full thrill?

Re: Probably missing the full thrill?

Todd Hughes

>I used to always ask the question after somone posted how they spent a few days flattening and "tuning" thier plane if they saw that much difference afterward. Unbelievable, Almost to the person none of these guys had even tried thier plane out first! instead they just did it because they had read that it had to be done. I have a friend like this and I had him plane a piece of wood befor he tuned a plane and then did the other side afterwards. He swore he could see the improvement....only thing was he was looking at the befor side!

I think it is human nature, at least for many, to want things not to be simple and easy.Anything worth doing ...has to be hard or involved complicated methods. Otherwise why do it? ....Todd

Re: Probably missing the full thrill?

paul womack

>Unbelievable, Almost to the person none of these guys had even tried their plane out first!

Roger Nixon did, and reports substantial improvements.

Here's his write up

The big mystery is how flat does a plane's sole need to be.

BugBear

It's who you are

Ron in Kokomo

>Lots of folks who are drawn to old tool web sites might be attracted to old tools because of the sharp contrast to the way they earn their living. I mean, we got engineers, rocket scientists, dimensional metrologists, code slingers.... etc. I once saw a string where the guys were talking about measuring the wood in thousandths.

They can't get away from the pursuit of dimensional perfection. Now, I do not believe in sloppy work. In fact if you have to ask " is this good enough?" it probably isn't. But we work wood. It moves. I do not believe in pursuing a perfection that can't be seen with the naked eye.. in a medium that moves.

For a lot of these guys... my statements above are not acceptable.

Fine... it is their time and their shop and their tools, and I think they should spend that precious time in ways that brings them the most satisfaction.

My $.02

Ron........ who wishes he could spend a little time today at the shave horse.

Re: It's who you are

Roger Nixon

>I agree with a lot of what you said there, Ron, and I am one of the old tools guys who firmly believes super flat soles on most planes are unecessary. Of course you are right that trying to dimension wood to very precise tolerences is pointless but rhe real reason to finely tune a plane is to avoid tearout on the final finished surface. Sometimes, only a very light cut can be used before the wood tears out and the plane sole has to be very flat to take those thin cuts.

Now, in Ernie's case, I know he has a Steve Knight smoother and an LV scraper plane to handle the trickier stuff.

Re: It's who you are

Ernie Miller

>I have that old British infill also. But I have never put a squair to a plane. I'm going to give it a try. maybe as a celabration for my birthday in january.

Re: It's who you are

Ron in Kokomo

>My Spiers infill is truly a wonderous thing. It must be truly flat ( I ain't gonna check) because the shavings float up off the bench :)

Amazing tool

Re: It's who you are

Ernie Miller

>Mine is a noname one it is wonderfull to use though thick tapered iorn the bench would chatter befor the plane.

Similar conversation recently...

Steve Kubien

>I had the good fortune to speak with Rick from Kingston Ont recently and we had a similar conversation. I put a square to the sides of my Stanley's once. I can't remember if they were square or not. I used a square a whole bunch when making my Shepherd shoulder but I think that is to be expected when building (or checking) a shoulder plane.

I own a set of calipers but they mostly get used to see which size of drill bit I should use for the dowel.

Steve Kubien