Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
Re: Italics
Stephen Kirk in Quakertown PA
>Congrats Andy, on finally getting there. I hadn't seen this post when I made my other one. I'm glad you found someone who could show the planes, talk about, maybe demonstrate. I'm sure that went a long way to solving some bits of confusion.
Let us know how they work!
Wonder how many html commands work
Re: calibration on the learning curve
Stephen Kirk in Quakertown PA
>I've loved this thread too. I learned a bit as I read through it (and avoided some work, apparently). I just got the LV LA Jack and didn't find that it was hard to joint a board with. I measures in at about 16 inches. I'm working shorter boards, may 2-3 feet. As long as the blade is flat and square, and square to the sole, it cuts well, and I can even get a decent 90 deg edge.
I like that idea a ways up in the thread about holding a block during the final pass or two to perfectly true up the edge to one face. I'll have to try that.
I've done match planing and that is very easy as well. The only problems I had when jointing were when I wasn't adjusted right, and the plane was not taking a consistently flat shaving.
Re: You forget one thing...
Marc in Luxembourg
>The LV is a good plane. You didn't have to do anything in order to make it go. It performed well even if you didn't hone the blade.
Few months ago I bought a Kunz smoother, #4. I could look between the iron and the frog. I wanted to close the mouth a little bit, I didn't succeed, because the moment I fixed the screws, the frog moved back again. The matching parts between the body bottom and the frog were partially painted...
After an hour of trial my thinnest shaving had 2/10 mm, by a 2mm mouth opening. I could make it work, because I'm aware of what I have to look at. The point is, if I were new in woodworking, I couldn't do that and would probably buy a power jointer. It is not necessary to have a fleet of fine working high end planes. Only one will show you what's doable, like your LA Jack or my LN #4 1/2.
Marc
Like this
Dan Donaldson
><i> text here < /i>
text here
Re: Italics
Dan Donaldson
>Actually, a lot of the html commands work, but please be careful, especially about closing the tags. If you forget to do that, it can cause problems.
Re: Sorry, my post answers Mike's
Marc in Luxembourg
>
I'm with you, Chico
Andrew F in Australia
>We were trained to grind all blades straight and square (including smoothers) and relieve the corners of the smoother blade only.
This was with Local tradesmen, British tradesmen and German tradesmen who were training us apprentices over 3 yrs of trade college and on-the-job training. The cambered blade edge appears, in my opinion, to have been a 'trick' developed to assist the gentleman woodworker of the 1920's and propagated hereafter. I'm sure that someone will have an earlier reference, however.
So, in summary:
My general bench plane has a blade ground square.
My try plane has a blade ground square.
The smoother has a blade ground square.
If you only want to take the high side off an edge you're jointing, move the plane so that the corner of the blade is running down the centreline of the edge, and the blade is taking a half width shaving. Repeat as necessary.
Match planing only works with a flat ground blade, in my opinion. Otherwise, the gap in the glue line is a few thou, which is a noticeable gap with a light timber.
Hopefully, this won't set too many cats amongst the pigeons.
Cheers,
Andrew
Re: You forget one thing...
Michael Recchione
>Yes, I guess I assumed we were meeting some minimum level of acceptability with the hardware. I wouldn't tell somebody to go out and buy a Kunz plane unless he knew what he was doing already and was prepared to do some tuning. Although I did get lucky with a Kunz concave spokeshave - it pretty much worked right out of the box :-). But you can't expect to happen very often with Kunz.
And I don't agree with Adam's (probably not serious) suggestion that a new woodworker should start with junk to learn the hard way. The point is, once you get above the level of "junk", the next real differences will be made by "skill". And in the case of edge jointing, you can acquire the skill pretty quickly and easily.
Re: You forget one thing...
Stephen Kirk in Quakertown PA
>I learned a lot starting with older stuff, but none of those pieces is really working well. Perhaps if I could have spent an afternoon with an expert restoring it, I would have done better. But alas, that was not to be. I am happy I learned what I did, but it came with a time cost. Plus, I still don't think I could just go and rehab any old plane - I've only worked with a few so far. I'm glad I have one perfectly performing plane to gauge off of. Now, if I'm having trouble getting a full width shaving with an older plane, I'll try the good one - if it gets a full shaving, then something is wrong with the old plane's setup, but I'm not just fighting an out of true piece of wood.
Re: You forget one thing...
Jim Brown
>Marc, I think you are onto something. A beginner that picks up two or three poor performing planes (either old & worn out or new and lousy like a current Stanley) may quickly decide these hand tools are all a lost cause. Only good for history museums. Having one that is the top of the line in tuning and design could save the day for a beginner. That and a good book on tuning & sharpening would be a good way to start. Good discussion.
Re: Why I can't see getting a....
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>Cameron, I know you mean well, too, but we all have such different experiences and reactions thereto. I wasted about a year on old Stanley garbage (ime). I hate Stanley planes. I wasted another few months on relatively cheap woodies. I hate cheap woodies. The LN jack 62 worked out of the box. I got right to work building. I love my LN jack. I wasted more dollars trying junk that I would have saved if any of the Stanleys had worked. Other have different experiences. That's fine with me; but it certainly doesn't make my experience any less valid.
Pam
Re: Andy's slippery slope
Stephen Kirk in Quakertown PA
>I think an important consideration here is the term "learning" in learning curve. I fully agree that you can't shortcut learning. I was a hardcore mountain biker for years, and while I tried to teach some people how I negotiated obstacles, shifted weight for performance, climbed like a demon, etc - I was never able to really tell them how I did it. I realized I did it because I rode constantly for years - and (this is the important part) - I had people I rode with for all those years who were teaching me the whole time, whether it was verbal, physical, or just psychological.
What I've found in woodworking is a lot of solitary work, and there aren't a lot of teachers around all the time. I take some classes, and listen to the speakers at the local guild (guess I'll be seeing you at Lehigh Valley soon Adam!), but all my work is done alone in the shop. No one corrects me when I do it wrong, and no one helps me figure out whats wrong.
The result of this rambling is that I think people can run into a learning wall. It's easier to pick these skills up if your in a shop with a master for months who can correct you and keep you doing things right. The rest of us pretty much pray and cut, then pray some more that we can fix what we just did. I believe that's where the high quality LV, LN, Knights, etc come in. They can at least remove when hurdle from getting decent quality work.
In closing - today's life is a trade of time for money. Many people have very little time, so we have to trade money to still enjoy what time we have.
Re: I'm with you, Chico
Adam Cherubini, NJ
>Chico, you have it right.
Andrew, heavily cambered irons were discussed by Moxon, right? So this isn't something new. Now Moxon never distinguished between try planes and jointers so he got some stuff wrong. We know he missed the distinction because pros 10 years later identified both planes in a shop inventory.
There's nothing wrong with having flat irons if you don't have problems. A try plane really needs a cambered blade if you want to square boards' edges with it using the trick Jeff Gorman elloquently describes. No jointer (used for match planing) should have a radius or you will get a crooked panel!
My vote is that all the surface planes (smoother, try plane, and fore plane) have increasing amounts of camber. No fitting planes (jointer,dado rabbet, etc) should have camber.
Adam
Re: I'm with you, Chico
Andrew F in Australia
>Hi Adam,
I wasn't aware of Moxon mentioning this - was he advocating use of the cambered blade to square an edge or just as a way to remove a greater amount of stock more aggressively (not talking scrub planes here, but more as a general panel plane?)
I don't teach use of the cambered blade technique for edge squaring as it adds an extra variable to the mix when the students are still learning the basics. They have to not only learn how to control keeping the plane sole level and in constant contact with the board/edge, but they also have to look at where on the blade the plane is cutting at the moment. The students can have the plane balanced perfectly and sitting perfectly on the edge of the board, but have it running off-centre, and be cutting an edge off-square accordingly.
It's better to, in my opinion, have them learn control over the plane and, if they want to preferentially remove a portion of the edge, to intentionally run the edge of the blade along the centreline of the board and removing a plane shaving half width accordingly. By the time they've mastered how to balance the plane running on the edge/corner of the board, they've picked up a far greater level of control over the plane in general as a side consequence.
Just a differing point of view, and knowing that I'm swimming against the tide of popular opinion.
Cheers,
Andrew
Re: Why I can't see getting a....
Cameron
>Actually I value your opinions quite highly, Pam. I've long been a fan of your articles, reviews and dedication to the world of rhykenology.
I suppose if a newcomer has the money and is not afraid to spend it then you go for the supreme brands. I know well of your distaste for all things Stanley but it's a brand that has served millions of woodworkers around the world for some generations now - and I do literally mean millions.
Regardless of the make of plane a properly tuned hand plane with a nicely sharpened and honed blade is capable of many things. A bad hand plane is a pain! As there is so much information around on Stanley type planes, and so many woodworkers still using them, it makes sense to have that style of plane as a starting point. My personal preferences are for infills and woodies, but I still use Stanleys from time to time - actually I use V&B's for there "throwability-around-the-workshop" factor, but that's a different story.
Moxon and teaching
Adam Cherubini
>Everybody's opinion counts and helps here. There's no tide for you to concern yourself with. At the end of the day everybody makes up their own mind anyway.
I can't recall Moxon talking specifically about anything other than preventing "gutters" caused by square blades. If I recall correctly, he described the camber in terms of the thickness of "an old groat"- or that could be something else.
Adam
One of the "Others" votes with Adam :)
Roger Nixon
>
Re: Why I can't see getting a....
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>I'm not at all convinced that Stanleys have helped millions of woodworkers. I tried a couple of Stanley planes and spokeshaves back in the early '80's in an abortive attempt to move to hand tools. They served to discourage me, so while I continued to do some sawing by hand, I ended up giving away the unused Stanleys when we moved.
BTW, this is not intended to criticize Stanley derivatives from the likes of LN and LV, which are much better designed and built, even though I'll probably never again buy any Stanley-like bench planes.
Pam
And what is "rhykenology?" Not in my dictionary.
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>
Re: Why I can't see getting a....
Cameron
>I'm not at all convinced that Stanleys have helped millions of woodworkers.
Mmmmmm, maybe they just spent the last 130 years or so making planes as trinkets and ornaments for the household or something? A lot of them do look good on a shelf. ;-)
Rhykenology - Derived from the Greek word "Rhyken", meaning "to smooth". It was coined by the British-American Rhykenological Society who's aims were "To further the study and preservation of all aspects of the woodworking plane". Hence, one who studies and preserves planes could be said to be a Rhykenologist.
Re: And what is "rhykenology?" Not in my dictionar *LINK*
Andrew F in Australia
>
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-rhy1.htm
Thanks, Andrew.
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>
Re: Why I can't see getting a....
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>I guess I look at Stanley planes like I do MS software, mediocre at best and expensive in time spent if not actual cost. I still haven't decided whether I'll display that 78 as a reminder of how bad it can get or chuck it out and remove it from memory. :)
Thanks, but I don't really consider myself a researcher in plane technology. I have studied Japanese "chunks of wood" though, just not sure I've come to any conclusions on why they work. In spite of that, I can make them.
Pam
Re: better dictionary...
paul womack
>http://www.onelook.com/?w=rhykenology&ls=a
BugBear
Thanks, Paul.
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>