Alternatives to #140 for dovetail rebate

Re: Alternatives to #140 for dovetail rebate

ydb1md

>You could also a shoulder plane in the same manner, if you don't have a side rabbet plane.

Re: Alternatives to #140 for dovetail rebate

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>A shoulder plane lacks a fence and has a straight blade. One can use a shoulder plane but is more work (it is a much greater effort to set up a guide) and will the blade will leave a rougher surface than a fenced, skew-bladed plane. Don't forget, the planing is done across the grain.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Alternatives to #140 for dovetail rebate

paul womack

> recognised that either the Stanley #79 or LN #98/99 side rabbet planes may be used. These both cut on the skew,

???

Cutting edge is a perfect 90 degrees to direction of travel (*)

Whence "skew"?

BugBear

(*) Depending on your sharpening skills and bed accuracy :-)

Re: Alternatives to #140 for dovetail rebate

Alice Frampton, UK

>Leaving aside the aparent lack of skewishness in the side rebates, I can't help but wonder just how many more people have side rebate planes than skew blocks anyway...

But it's a nice way to gloat over your LN side rebates. :~)

Cheers, Alf

Re: Alternatives to #140 for dovetail rebate

MarkSmith

>I have the side rebate planes, but don't have the dvd. What is he doing with the plane?

Mark

Re: Alternatives to #140 for dovetail rebate

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>BB and Alf

You are right about the skew - it just looks that way. What can I say? The absence of grey matter at 1.00 A.M.? :>)

Alf, just a little gloat over the LN (I gloated more deliberately about a week or so ago!) - they are just so nice to handle - but I really was looking for a more user-friendly alternative to a #78. I figured that many (most?) would at least have the #79 (I also had Pam in mind with her recent acquisition here). I wonder what percentage do not have a side rabbet plane - this is such a necessary plane for handcut joints (such as all forms of grooves: dados and sliding dovetails).

Regards from Perth

Derek

Percentages and perceptions

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>"I wonder what percentage do not have a side rabbet plane..."

Speaking as someone who's been torturing innocent bits of wood for 33 years now and just got my first side rabbet this last month, I think you may have an elevated perception of what the average shop's toolkit includes.

Still, Derek, you make a good point: if you want to complete a cut, any tool that will complete it and that's in your toolkit is likely to be the right one.

Hi Derek,

HC Sakman

>All due respect to your rabbeted dovetail creditation; Does one has to publish what he or she has done to deserve the credit? Just curious.

The picture below was taken back in 1997. Yew sides were rabbeted for the very same reason, easy registration for marking as well as easier glue-up since rabbets really help squaring the drawer.

Chico...

Absolutely correct, good points.

HC Sakman

>

Answer To Mark's Question

Tom Colligan, Peoria

>Mark, after cutting the tail board the challenge is to place this board over the pin board and scribe the future pins. Any movement in holding the board perfectly still and perpendicular will translate into errors.

In his DVD, Rob demonstrates Alan Peters idea of cutting a dado on the inside end of the tail board by a 1/32nd of an inch so it will register better and hold still.

The discussion has been about making this dado with something less then a $210 acquisition.

Missed the main question Derek...

HC Sakman

>I meant to ask this: Who is Alan Peters? I am sure many cabinetmakers within the last couple of hundred years (or more) have cut rabbeted tail boards. Therefore, what did A. Peters have done to deserve the credit on this technique?

Thanks,

Chico...

Re: Missed the main question Derek...

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>Hi Chico,

I believe ROb Cosman mentioned in his DVD Drawer making DVD that Allan Peter's was using the rabbeted drawer technique well before Rob did. No dis respect to Mr Cosman if I got that wrong but I believe Rob was "not taking Credit" for the rabbetting trick just like how he mentions the ruler trick was a brilliant idea thought up by Mr Charlesworth.

Dan Clermont (who gets no credit)

Ok, secret was in the DVD...but

HC Sakman

>Dan,

Derek mentioned the name Alan Peters, whom also mentioned in the DVD by Rob. That's all fine and dandy, though I already knew Rob did not claim the credit as Derek said it in his original post. So, my question remains unaswered. Perhaps Rob Cosman knows the answer since he credited this technique to Alan Peters in his DVD.

So: Who is A. Peters and why rabbeted tailboard technique is credited to him?

That is still a mystery.

Thanks anyway Dan.

Chico...

Re: Ok, secret was in the DVD...but *LINK*

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>Hi Chico,

My apologies as I came in half way through the thread. Allan Peter's is a retired cabinet maker in the UK whom ROb Cosman worked for.

Allan Peter's is a highly skilled craftsman and I believe Rob has a DVD coming out featuring Allan Peter's

I hope that helps.

Dan Clermont


Allan Peter's

Re: Alternatives to #140 for dovetail rebate

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Thanks for thinking of me, Derek, but I do have a LN 140 which I love.

Pam

Re: Hi Derek,

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Of course, Chico. The reason Wiley/Cosmo got all the headlines was because they told us about it. :)

Pam

Thanks Dan. Partially answered.

HC Sakman

>The second part of my question still remains....

Chico...

Rob and the dovetail rebate *LINK*

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>Hi Chico

To add to what Dan has said ...

There are two issues here: Rob, and the dovetail rebate.

In his recent DVD on drawer making, which I think was excellent, Rob almost apologizes for going over ground from earlier demonstrations of dovetail cutting. He goes on to explain that he has a new technique that he leant when on a recent visit to the shop of Alan Peters, under whom he trained in the UK (he even says he went back for a "refresher"). I find Rob a open and honest person who is quick to give credit to others. It is obvious that Alan Peters is a mentor and that he has vaste admiration for him. There is never a time when Rob atempts to portray this technique (or others) as his invention, and I do hope that I did not give on otherwise impression earlier on. The technique may be as old as the hills to some. It is new to me, as it is was evidently new to Rob, who is demonstrating it as an fresh and now integral addition to his strategy for cutting dovetails.

I like Rob's presentations. He comes across clearly, does the work efficiently, and he has the mark of a true craftsman, that is, he makes it look simple. In doing this he has the ability to polarize groups of interested people. Like Norm, Rob has a array of shiny tools that sing out to some that these are necessary to do the same fine work. For the minimalist woodworker this materialism can be offensive. I will not pretend that I fall into the latter category - I do enjoy experimenting with tools if only as part of an adventure - but I try to pay more attention to 'what' he is doing, rather than just 'how' he is doing it. The addition of the rebate into dovetail making strikes me as something worth exploring. My post was to offer a way to make the rebate without a #140. I am sure there are other techniques.

Incidentally, for those not recognising the thread link, the original post was by Bill (see below), and followed by my response mentioning the dovetail rebate technique. There was quite a bit of discussion after that.

Regards from Perth

Derek


Marking dovetails

Re: Thanks Dan. Partially answered.

Alice Frampton, UK

>The second part of this question?

"So: Who is A. Peters and why rabbeted tailboard technique is credited to him?"

I imagine because that's where Rob heard about it, and naturally credited it to the person he'd heard it from. Just as someone less punctilious than Derek might credit it to Rob Cosman 'cos that's where they'd heard it.

And yes, to get credit you have to tell other people about it enough for you to become the "source" - publishing it in book or video form is the quickest route to achieving that. Even that's no guarantee. But keeping it to yourself will never get you credit for anything - except being really quiet... ;~)

Cheers, Alf

Thanks Alice

HC Sakman

>I guess that is the "just" of it Alice. What you said sounds correct.

Just to clarify, I don't know the man and I have not said anything negative/positive about Alan Peters, his cabinetmaking and/or his personality.

I am not saying he doesn't deserve the credit for being a good or even "exceptional" cabinetmaker. I had no doubt that he was well qualified, otherwise Rob Cosman wouldn't use him in his video.

My problem is with the "technique" being called "so and so's technique" where actually many others have done the same thing on their own.

This would make it sound like he's the only genius who thought of this. Well, he's not the only one and neither am I nor you, anybody particular. That's my point.

I don't want to sound arrogant, because I don't have that kind of personality. People who know me here would know that.

I just don't like the superficial creation of an ownership of a common woodworking task/technique as if it's something so unique which has to be accredited to somebody special.

What's wrong with saying; " I learned this neat trick from my master/teacher so and so" instead of calling it: "so and so techique" ?

That is what I am talking about and I am done with this topic. I think my intent is clear enough with this post.

Chico...

I Understood

Jim Shaver - Oakville, Ontario

>I understood you all along Chico!!

take care,

Jim

Still using Chico's technique to sharpen my hand scrapers!

:-)

what technique is that?

HC Sakman

>Jim, don't make up things! You're gonna get me into trouble. ;-)

Chico...

Re: Thanks Alice

paul womack

>What's wrong with saying; " I learned this neat trick from my master/teacher so and so" instead of calling it: "so and so techique" ?

Semantically, absolutely nothing. The linguistic problem is number of syllables.

It's a (sometimes inaccurate) shorthand. Techniques are often named after publicisers as opposed to inventors, and some techniques may change attribution (or at least nomenclature), generation on generation.

BugBear

As BB says...

Alice Frampton, UK

>... it's shorthand.

Maybe the credit's rightfully earnt, simply for realising it's worth passing on to someone else...?

Cheers, Alf