WoodCentral Forums

Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge

Query for Planing Purists

Posts

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#26

Re: Scuff marks defined

Wiley Horne--Glendora, CA

>Bill,

Good explanation. To answer your question directly, I like very thin scrapers after assembly, because they make less mess than sandpaper. 'Very thin' because they're easy to use and flex one-handed, so that you don't run the risk of having a corner dig in. Plus they give you a real light touch, cause they're just skimming the surface and you can feel exactly what they're doing and how deep a bite you're getting. I like to use Japanese saw blade material (DAMHIKT) or else the real thin hard scrapers than Lee Valley sells. You can these things really sharp. The edge doesn't last as long as with a heavier scraper, but then you're not doing heavy work with them.

Another thing. I don't know what others do, but once I have gotten through the joinery and the various fitting up stages that you do with one-off projects (which all of mine are) so you can see what it's gonna look like, and then final plane the pieces--I like to prefinish right there, prior to glue-up. Get the thing dyed if it calls for it, and get a coupla coats of thin shellac on it, or else do the wet-sanding-with-oil thing. So at that point, you've protected the freshly planed surface, and any further smudging during glue-up and clamping--or just plain glue squeeze-out--is gonna be on top of finish, and will be much more easily wiped off or scraped off than if it gets ground down into raw wood fibers.

I'll generally do further finishing steps once the piece is assembled, but the prefinishing makes the final cleanup easier.

Wiley

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#27

Equivalent techniques

Warren in Lancaster, PA

>It isn't always profitable to think of everything having an equivalent between 18th century technique and that of today. This is a little like asking how did they make a mitred biscuit joint with hand tools or how do you cut a dovetail joint with delicate pins using only a router jig. Some things are not practical and the designs of different eras reflect that.

As a practical matter you don't really want to scuff up a piece between the shop and the customer's parlor and you don't really want to scuff it up between smooth planing and finishing either.

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#28

Jim in Burlington Ont.

2 cent thought on scrapers

Jim in Burlington On

>I have tried touching up panels with card scrapers and it never fails I end up making a small low area. One of these days I'm going to buy or make a real small high angled plane to see how much difference it makes over hand scraping.

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#29

Re: Purism?

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>I understand your philosophy, and have to agree to a certain extent. I think probably most of the people on this forum have never used a hand plane, but we all still know a lot about hand planes. The reason we know is because we like hand planes, so we read about them. But reading and postulating from an armchair is much different from actually using a plane. So I think from now on Adam should be in charge of who's posts can be regarded as legitimate suggestions and we can put Mr. Duffield in charge of deleting the ones who are not qualified.

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#30

Really unfair

Adam Cherubini

>Moses,

That's very unfair of you. I take great offense at your post.

You know that's not what I meant. But I took your suggestion to Ellis and he agreed that in my new role as WC Purism Content Editor, your nasty posts will be deleted henceforth.

Adam

P.S. Anybody know how to type that cat fight sound?

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#31

cat fight sound

ydb1md

>rrrreow, rrrreow pft,pft!!!

maybe?

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#32

Re: Scuff marks defined

ydb1md

>If you're pressing down reeaaallly hard with your plane, that might explain the surface that you're referring to.

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#33

Re: cat fight sound

Bob Hackett

>It`a tough to pull off.Most times it comes off sounding like letting the cat out of the bag.

MB

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#34

You got it just right

bill tindall

>Your response should have caused no more offense than my precisely titled question.

There are some questions where everyone can have a useful opinion. For example, "what is the best way to cut dovetails"? I think some techniques are better suited to beginners. So, a beginner asking such a question might get a better answer from a recently successful student than what they would get from Frank K. And given the multitude of techniques people use, there are a lot useful answers to this question. I am sure you all can think of many other such examples, and that is what keeps this Forum lively, and useful.

On the other hand, there are questions where the person asking is looking for an answer from a particular perspective( the case in point). If I ask "what annual will do well in my flower beds(hot dry summers) ", an answer from New Hampshire should be accompanied by some credentials or I will dismiss it. The New Hampshire person may have just read an article from Southern Living in which case they could have useful advice, but they should quote a source.

And, there are questions where there is a best answer and an informed expert is most likely to provide this answer. For example, I was going to ask on the other side how to best store a small gas engine for winter. I decided not to because I might not know an informed answer from an opinion, or worse, folklore.

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#35

How about...

bill tindall

>the name of the German car made by VW. It is something like Psssatt, or some such. Always seemed a curious name to me.

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#36

Can we calm down here?

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>Whenever I see a thread heading in the direction of people getting attacked, I worry. This forum is the best around, and stays that way as long as we stay civil. Disagreement over ideas and opinions is fine; attacking people isn't what we should be about.

I will admit to having been startled by Adam's original "purism" post that started this argument, because it sounded so much like an arrogant "only the truly orthodox can understand."

After his followup post, in which he says, "...for questions like Bill's say, you have to find some purist who won't use sand paper and ask him or her how they deal with scuff marks..." I understood a little better. There are so many modern alternatives to practically any manual operation, that those of us (I include myself) who hybridize old and new may not know how someone who is using only handplanes or scrapers for the final surface would solve the problem Bill Tindall posed.

This is a debatable question - if I do use sandpaper, but I know how to guard against or correct scuff marks using classic (pre-20th century) techniques, is this knowledge useless because I use later techniques also? But let's debate the question, not attack the debaters.

Asking, "What did you mean?" or "Did you mean by your statement XXX?" will get us further than some of the recent posts ever would.

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#37

Re: Query for Planing Purists

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>I can plane a surface perfectly smooth. Smooth enough to make it feel like glass. If I pick that board up and look at it in the light I may see some "dull" spots due to the iron not being uniformly sharp across but conisdering the shaving I took was almost full width and less then 1 thou in thickness I would have to say that surface is "sanded" at least to the equivalent of 600 grit.

Providing I don't have any chips in my plane blade edge where I can now see and feel a bumpy surface it is probably going to be just fine once I apply my finish. However, it would be a good idea to sand a little bit so all of the wood fibres absorb the finish equally. I am not talking about starting to sand at 80 grit here but go over it with 220 or 400 or 600 and basically burnish the surface

Dan Clermont

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#38

Sometimes it's hard to tell...

Ted Owen, Moderator

>just from the written word whether folks are having a little fun or actually getting irritated.

In this thread, everyone's smiling, right?

Best, Ted

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#39

Yeah, Bill, but...

David Barnett - Venice, Florida

>Hypothetically*, what if I was asked to essentially front-load (by footnote or attribution) what might appear to be a cavalierly thrown parenthetical, say:

"...shagreen (which actually refers to the rump hide of the wild ass - great for stropping, btw - rather than stingray or shark, which are actually nominal 'shagreen' substitutes)"?

Should I include such attribution, references, vetting notes, and so on in the original post? Or should I wait until challenged with "I'm from Missouri on that one, bub. You'll have to Show Me!" (totally justifiable), or some rather more stick-up-the-arsity expression of dubiousness? Hmmm.

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/cdl/2001/0513.html

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Shagreen

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/lit-med/lit-med-db/webdocs/webdescrips/balzac288-des-.html

http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/Merchant/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=toolshop&Product_Code=MS-HORSEST&Category_Code=

Where's the line? And who draws it? Who is the arbiter of "certain truth & experience"? While it's certainly appropriate to question the provenance of a respondent and argue the value of any statement, it's usually easy enough to do so within the thread on a case-by-case basis, which sure keeps me coming back. There's probably little need for a hierophant of Eleusinian Mysteries, or any other mysteries, for that matter, which IMO would quash the more intriguing, fertile, albeit recherché digressions that spring up. So I, for one, will cast my lot with the sometimes Byzantine (but nearly always entertaining) snarl of truths, half-truths, out-and-out falsehoods, armchair theorizings, inanities and occasional insanities that one can expect on newsnet, Yahoo, and other proprietary forums. Risks? You bet. There's no red-letter edition, no concordance. But as 'the man' says, "you puts down your money and you takes your chances." Thank goodness (and Ellis) that doesn't happen here. That's my take, anyway.

*Hypothetically, because I've not been questioned on this (which would be perfectly alright) anywhere in this thread -- nor in private email, or any other medium by anyone on this forum, a place that I consider entirely congenial, noncontentious and civilised, downright happy place.

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#40

LOL ;-)

Dan Donaldson

>Whatever it was you said ;-) I have a bit of a problem because some of them words have more than two syllables;-)

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#41

Re: cat fight sound  *LINK*

tom in tipp

>


This?

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#42

Gathering information.

Bob Hackett

>If you`re going to discount any input from a source that has less than(X) hours of experience then you may not be getting all the info you need or want.

One of the advantages of being involved in this(or any) forum is that there are some folks out there who don`t have minds that have been molded by the "conventional way of thinking" and so approach any problem from a completely new departure point.Chico`s example of using HSS planer/jointer blades for scraping is an excellent example.If the person he learned this tip from only has WWing experience that`s measured in months then we lose a great tip by discounting it.

I hear folks divided by what direction the bevel in thier plane faces,tails or pins,pushing or pulling everything from drawknives to card scrapers.Do we really need yet another reason to divide the camp?

I say gather all the info you can and try it(that`s what scrap is for).Without the freedom to discuss all approaches to a problem I would never have learned about things like leaf planes or gathered even more info to further research one of my newest directions,burnishing(thanks David).

You never truely know until you try guys.If you don`t have the time or the inclination to try it all then why are you asking for input?

Mainely,Bob

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#43

Steve Kubien

The 'net is such a great learning tool! LOL

Steve Kubien

>

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#44

Re: Query for Planing Purists

Bill Lowrance in Geneva

>The good thing about "best practices" in woodworking is that there are so many to choose from! It just comes down to the worker vs -- or better, with -- the wood.

In earlier times, and in the Appalachians when I was growing up, and often still in Europe, folks scraped with broken glass and burnished with scraps of silica-bearing dried horsetail rush.

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#45

Adam in a quest for better understanding purism...

A.J. Byrd

>and how it can make your projects more authentic I have to ask the following question. How does the funny little hat you were wearing in the last issue of PWW effect the outcome of your projects. :-)

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#46

He probably didn't get any hair in the finish.

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#47

I keep aluminum foil under

Paul in NJ

>my cap to block out the harmful rays. Perhaps Adam feels the need to do the same.

Paul Dzioba

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#48

What hair?

Adam Cherubini

>

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#49

Re: Really unfair

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>Well Adam, I really didn't intend to actually offend you or make you angry. I was trying to get you to have the same reaction to my post that I think many here had to your original post regarding postings from non-purists. You aften times come across very strongly in your posts, which is an interesting part of any character that is passionate about what they do. I apologize to you for offending you, and I guess expect you to do the same for offending the non-purists.

I will continue to post regardless if my posts are summarily deleted, because when I post I do so mainly to clarify the process for my own good as well as others.

Re: Query for Planing Purists

#50

Re: Query for Planing Purists

Sgian Dubh

>I find it interesting Bill that you're only now discovering some of the advantages of hand planing previously machined wood over sanding. Hand sanding out (in particular) the ripples from planing machines is quite a long and tedious task for small parts such as framing, flat surfaced legs and rails, et al, whereas a pass or two with a sharp plane usually does the trick quite quickly.

Hand sanding machine planer marks is difficult in part because the hammering effect of the knives-- which are not always perfectly sharp-- can penetrate deeper than the obvious surface ripple leaving bruised wood below the surface that can show after the polish is applied.

I can't recall the number of times I've witnessed workers sand a part almost to destruction due to a fear of handplaning even with power sanders and still not remove all the thicknesser or surface planer marks. Additionally they often end up with local hollows and rounding over leaving the finished article looking 'muddy' or the edges unevenly rounded over or smudged.

Large panels can present more of a problem for hand plane only polish preparation operations as the grain on one plank can reverse on you causing tear-out, and adjacent boards can have grain rising from one direction and the other causing tear-out whichever way you plane.

If you're dealing with large panels such as table tops there are other difficulties to deal with too. It's probably not perfectly flat, and the face you are planing is slightly concave. How this is dealt with usually incorporates scattering a line of shavings along the centre of the workbench under the centre of the panel followed by cramping the edges of the panel down so you can get at it. There are plenty of other dodges too, and scrapers come in handy.

But how many people polish straight off the plane? Given enough time it can be done, but there's always the question of what to do with the edges and corners. How is the edge arris removed by users of planes only? A wee bit of 150 grit sandpaper on a block knocks off arrises very effectively, especially at corners where three edges meet. How do hand plane only users effect this three directional rounding over? I must admit I don't know the answer.

If you've got your surface pretty good off handplanes and scrapers and you're dealing with some scuff marks a bit of sanding with 150 or 180 grit will do for open grained woods like oak that are to receive a film forming polish-- the pores are bigger than the grit, and you can go up to perhaps 220 grit for fine grained woods like maple or cherry.

At the final polish preparation stages I find it useful to have three or four smoothing planes set up ready to go, with settings like fairly coarse, less coarse, fine and very fine. You just pick up the plane with the setting required rather than fiddle about adjusting.

When using this number of planes in tandem it's pretty essential to have a very efficient sharpening system, and I feel if it takes more than three or so minutes to take apart a plane, touch up the edge, re-assemble and be back in action then probably a swifter sharpening method needs to be found.

I admit that I'm not a handplane only purist being one of those makers that will use any tool to get a job done fast. If there's a large surface preparation job of several panels then I'll usually turn to oscillating thickness sanders and hand held power sanders and so on to do the job at a commercially acceptable speed, but there's almost always a use for hand planing techniques in the smaller parts. You can generally get away with murder on vertical surfaces and edges anyway on large furniture items, which you can't do as easily on small items that can be lifted and viewed from all angles. What always catches the customers eye on large pieces are flaws in the money surfaces, i.e., top horizontal surfaces, such as table tops. Slainte.

👍 This page answered my questions

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