Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
I want one...I want one...I want one...I want one!
HC Sakman
>See Wayne...see what you have done! My eye nerves just shorted some connections or cells or something in my brain!
We have to ban you from posting pictures for public safety reasons! ;-)
Another drop dead gorgeous tool!
BTW, About the chipbreaker...I agree. Thicker the blade, less likely you'll need it.
Chico...
Makes no Sence
Todd Hughes
>I read the page on the above link
...First off I have a few older 1700s style single iron bench planes including two named ones and they do not have thin blades.Look at your common 1800s plane which has a cap iron , is it's blade thin? Most I have seen are around 3/16
..Next since these blades are alway laminated a thick blade doesn't require any more expensive steel to make then a thin blade since the thick body is made out of iron....Is amazing to me that the plane makers C & W do not know or mention this fact
..To say in one instance that labor was cheap in the 18th cent and then say that by using a cap iron it saved the work it took to properly bed a blade doesn't make sence.
...anyone that says that making a double iron was easier then making a single thick iron has never made a blade with a cap iron.Not only do you have to make the single blade, you have to slot it out, fabricate the cap iron, screw, and the nut and fit it all together...yet this was easier and cheaper then making a single thicker iron?...yeah OK
...Tradtionaly double irons did cost more with single irons only beeing sold on cheaper planes once double irons came into use.
...Once cap irons came on the market toward the end of the 1700's they soon became almost universial with only specity and cheaper planes not using them. This was because wood workers demanded them and was willing to pay more for them.I am sure that some plane makers back then tried to promote the old style single irons but I don't think with much luck ....Todd
Re: Makes no Sence
Joel
>TAke any wooden plane - or that matter any plane with a fine mouth - I mean a really fine mouth - 10 thou or less.
Then put a cap iron on the blade - make it close enough so that in therory the cap iron will have an effect <1/64"
if you camber the blade like one does in a smoothing plane getting a stright cap iron set consistently 1/64" across the blade is impossible.
Anyway - try it.
The plane will clog.
Take however a regular normal wooden plane used for construction as were 95% of the wooden planes made. Make it with a normal sized mouth. 1/32" - 1/16" or more. plane with it. Then add a cap iron set pretty fine. Guess what it works better. Not as well as a single iron plane with a super fine mouth - but pretty good.
For finish carpentry a double iron cancels out a lot of the plane wear. For uber finishing you can't beat a single iron with a super-fine mouth (just like C+W planes).
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers...
Dick Schafer
>Yes, I do use a wedge.
The thing I like about making my own wood bodied planes, is that I can shape them to fit my hands and if this one doesn't work real well, I can always make another one.
Right now I'm working on learning to make hollows and rounds. Plan on making a complete half set and then maybe move on to complex moulders.
Re: Makes no Sence
Todd Hughes
>Well thats sort of interesting...I guess, but really doesn't have anything to do with anything I said I don't think....Todd
Re: Makes no Sence
joel -( tools for working wood)
>it's relevant only because if you are a cabinetmaker a fine single iron can preform better than a double iron plane. THe fact that a double iron makes more sense for a carpenter and is borne out by the historical data isn't particularly relevant to cabinetmaking.
So...
Todd Hughes
>it was only carpenters that wanted planes with chip breakers and not cabinet makers then you think ? ....Todd
Wish I had more time....
Larry Williams
>I'm struggling under a couple looming deadlines and don't have a lot of time to respond. I do intend to rewrite that article, I've handled a lot of 18th Century planes since writing it and I learn new things everyday. I'll try to find some time this evening for a longer response.
On the topic of learning, I'd sure like to find the documentation that led you to this statement: "...Once cap irons came on the market toward the end of the 1700's they soon became almost universial with only specity and cheaper planes not using them. This was because wood workers demanded them and was willing to pay more for them.I am sure that some plane makers back then tried to promote the old style single irons but I don't think with much luck " Can you cite some source for this information?
Re: So...
joel -( tools for working wood)
>Yip - at least those in the know.
The seaton chest had both.
As a single iron smoother wore it could be converted to a double, not the other way around.
And you only have to get fine examples of late 18th century planes - or accurate reproductions to test the theory. Which has been done.
Re: a recent experiment *LINK*
paul womack
>
http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/a_controll
Re: Wish I had more time....
Wayne Anderson
>"This was because wood workers demanded them and was willing to pay more for them."
This statement applies to adjusters for infill planes as well, (thanks to T. Norris). Without exception, I've found that adjusters are simply a nuisance. Funny how planes were used for centuries without them, and now they seem to be so *necessary*. But that is a different topic for discussion.... -Wayne
Re: a recent experiment
Paul Kierstead
>From the article:
... a mouth too wide (at .025�) to be effective in eliminating tearout
it is my understanding of the previous posts that the real argument is that you can effectively close the mouth (without clogging) much closer without a breaker then width, and that this offers more benefit then the larger mouth w/breaker. If that is the argument, the article doesn't really answer *that* question (it answers whether a breaker works well with a large mouth, quite different).
So ...
Warren in Lancaster, PA
>it was the carpenters who were planing "cross-grained stuff" and it was the carpenters who were planing "curled stuff" and it was the carpenters who were retrofitting their planes for double irons?
Sure no trouble...
Todd Hughes
>One source the book "Tools Working Wood in 18th century America",published by Colonial williamsburg foundation, page 97..." An important improvement in bench planes was the devolopment of the double iron first recorded in a 1767 advertisment of Philadelphia plane maker Samuel Caruthers....Earlier bench planes irons consisted only of a single blade....when planing wood with twisted or irregular grain these irons often raised splinters ahead of the cut...The double iron had a top iron fitted to it's blade.This top iron caused the shavings to curl away from the iron and break preventing them from pulling up the wood."
As to cost the copy of Chistopher Gabriel day book, an 18th and early 19th century London tool merchant, page 72, 1800 inventory...17 doble iron jointers sold for 5.1.0 while 28 single iron jointers went for 5.1.6...many other examples scattered though it of how much cheaper single irons were.
Later examples...the book "Some 19th cent, English woodworking tools" page 113...Price List of 1824Sheffield edge tool....23/4 in. double irons sold for 20s a doz. single irons in the same size only 10s per doz...also on page 254 it has the price 1829 list of planes sold by the tool dealer J.wilks...Smooth planes....double iron 3.6 while single irons went for only 2.2....[hmmm smooth planes ain't that a cabinet workers tool?] all of the planes they sold had simular price differences with the double iron planes being more expensive
...Of course as I said single irons didn't disapear...in Sargents 1913 catalog they had single iron wooden smoothing planes for sale at .70 cents each while the double iron wooden planes cost .90 cents.I don't think many wood workers bought the single bladed ones because I don't believe I have ever seen one
...I think it is obvious from the large number of double iron wooden planes that you see that they became very popular fairly soon. In my experance a single iron plane is definatly the exception and not the rule even by early 1800s.
...OK now that I have taken my time to answear your questions as to my documatation [I'm a busy man too!] what is YOUR documatation that double irons were cheaper to make and fit then single irons and that wood workers didn't come to prefer and want them? ....Todd
Sounds like fun, be sure and post photos.
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>
Re: So...
Todd Hughes
>So all those fine Norris and Spiers infills...with chip breakers or double irons....were really being sold to carpenters to fit doors then, eh?......Todd
There was a time where I'd disagree...
Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA
>About the adjusters Wayne, especially Norris types. Now I find them to be a real PITA. Needless to say I only use them to set blade depth now.
Re: So...
joel -( tools for working wood)
>if you try setting the cap iron on any infill with a really fine mouth really tight - the plane will clog. so you back it off 1/16" - plane works much better.
I think paul 's report below is on the money with a 25 thou mouth a chipbreaker can make a difference but for better performance got to under 20 thou - and 5 thou if you have the skill to make the plane.
As I said
Todd Hughes
>I believe if you re read what I originaly said you will see that I said that these double irons soon became univerisal except for "specialty and cheaper planes" While I'm certainly not calling these legandary super tight mouth smoothing planes a "cheaper plane" I would hope that you agree that they should be thought of as a specialty plane since they are pretty much for one very specific job , eh?......Todd
Re: As I said
joel -( tools for working wood)
>I would mostly agree - smoothing is a final operation but even dressing lumber with a single iron plane goes faster. (it just does - try it)
It is interesting to note that in the US and UK after 1840-1850 almost all lumber was sawn out by machine (in the bigger cities) (lots of construction) most drssing was done by machine. THe heyday of hand dressed lumber ended around the same time as the hayday of the single iron.
Re: Sure no trouble...
Larry Williams
>Jay Gaynor's book is copyright 1993. In 1993 I probably would have accepted the conventional wisdom that cap irons were an improvement but I know better now. Does Jay Gaynor have questions about that? I don't know but, given his plane making experience, I wonder. Maybe I'll ask him the next time I talk to him.
Speaking of Jay Gaynor; when we make 18th Century style planes for Colonial Williamsburg, they insist on thin irons for those planes. They want this in the name of historic accuracy and that specification comes directly from Jay. He insists on the thinner irons and I think he's right.
I went back and looked at the article I wrote on double irons about six years ago. No where did I say double irons were cheaper produce. I did give a number of reasons the plane is less labor intensive to produce when making double iron planes. I still stand by that. Very few plane makers produced their own irons and the additional cost had no effect on manufacturing, it was simply passed on.
I was hoping you'd have some source that showed "I am sure that some plane makers back then tried to promote the old style single irons but I don't think with much luck. " I've seen no documentation of that anywhere.
Can I explain why the double iron became accepted? No. I haven't a clue. I can't even explain why it's the rare person who questions a similar thing going on today and I'm watching it happen first hand.
Re: But Krenov was a woodworker
steve knight
>I think chatter is more related to the iron bedding. atleast this is what I have found when I have chatter.
Re: a recent experiment
paul womack
>it is my understanding of the previous posts that the real argument is that you can effectively close the mouth (without clogging) much closer without a breaker then width, and that this offers more benefit then the larger mouth w/breaker. If that is the argument, the article doesn't really answer *that* question (it answers whether a breaker works well with a large mouth, quite different).
I think the discussion is more general than that, and this experiment offers some real results, not speculation.
Some people have interpreted the success of chip-breakerless plane to imply that chip breakers perform no beneficial manipulation of the shaving at all, and this article appears to offer convicing evidence to the contrary. So I feel it's useful.
BugBear
Re: Sure no trouble...
Todd Hughes
>In your article you wrote...
"Thick irons simply don't require as much suport.But in the 1700's tool steel was expensive and labor less so.Then somone came up with the ideal of double irons and was able, we think to double the effective thickness of the irons without adding addititional high carbon steel....Not only was there the cost of the thick irons a deterrant..."
I'm sorry that I took this to mean that you thought that double irons were a cheaper way to make a thick iron . If you think , as you say, that double irons was a way to just "double the effective thickness of the irons with out adding additional high carbon Steel" why didn't they just use this additional iron to make the single laminated irons body thicker instead of going to the trouble to make a cap iron and it's fittings if they just wanted a thicker blade?While you say now that the additional cost of the irons had no affect on plane makers as they were simply passed on it appears from what you said in the above article about the use of "expensive steel" and the "cost of the thick irons were a deterrent" to thier use by plane makers.
...It is interesting that you think none of the old time plane makers tried to promote or market the single iron as being the superior iron ....You are right though, I don't have any documatation that some plane makers back in 1806 tried to promote the old stlye single irons and with out much luck.....but I do think I have lots of proof they are trying in 2006 ....Todd
Re: a recent experiment
Paul Kierstead
>...offers some real results, not speculation.
but, but .... that makes it much harder to argue :) Well, then one can argue that test is invalid, etc I guess.
You point is well taken. (or made)