Stephen -- Preston molding plane

Nice Mike!

Stephen Shepherd in the State of Deseret

>Now what are you going to do with it?

Stephen

That's Beautiful....Thanks Mike

VLParisian

>

Re: Stephen -- Preston molding plane

Ernie Miller

>What does the molding look like if you were to hold the plane at say a 30� angle to the board? I'm betting it would be a more pleasing profile.

Re: Nice Mike!

MikeW

>Ha--I entitled a thread on Roger's Tradional Tools forum last night "In search of a problem" because I have the solution .

I think that on the right piece, it will provide a nice profile on the vertical elements. It was pointed out by Wiley to me that Whelan refers to this group of planes as facing planes for door and window casings. Could be true, at least in larger profiles. This is too narrow (about 13/16") and too shallow.

My thought when I bought it was for the field on picture or mirror frame moldings. I'll initially use it for some picture frames I need to make, which will have another element to the outside of the frame and a bevel to the inside.

As for furniture...at some point it'll come to me or I'll find an example.

Take care, Mike

Uh-oh ! How long . . . ?

SteveM

>I see a few of these planes now and them but scared to pick one up to try it. They look like another slippery slope. Since I'm a rookie . . . 'bout how long or how many passes before the plane bottoms out and you,ve got the whole profile ? They just look like you could get absorbed into it for quite a long time. Just wondering.

Re: Uh-oh ! How long . . . ?

MikeW

>Hi Steve,

It can be a slippery slope. That's why "they" call it that!

This profile takes about the same number of passes as say a 1/4" bead. Takes longer to measure and afix a fence for this plane to ride against than cut the profile.

Take care, Mike

Court cupboard at Williamsburg

Jamey Amrine in Ann Arbor

>Anyone who went to Williamsburg have any closeups of the court cupboard that was shown/demoed? The rails and stiles of the case on that had center moldings similar to what Mike has here. I can't find pics, but this might help solve his mystery.

Thanks to Adam... *LINK*

Jamey Amrine in Ann Arbor

>The below link to Adam's blog shows pictures of these moldings, Mike. It just too more digging on my part. Perhaps Adam has some higher resolution pics he could share here?


Court Cupboard at Williamsburg Conference

Re: Thanks to Adam...

Adam Cherubini

>I don't have a better picture of that molding. And I can't tell if the bottom is flat or has a little hollow planed into it as Mike's plane shows.

In my opinion, this last conference was one of the most interesting to me. For the first time, I heard a discussion about the conflict between our standards of good, and those held by people of the past. The presenters challenged us to let go of our sense that craftsmanship equals control. Or at least, that was my sense of it.

This specific molding as reproduced by Williamsburg's carpenters represented for me the culmination of the tension between control and acceptance. The carpenters, perhaps more so than the cabinetmakers, seemed willing to accept the different ideals of craftsmen long ago. But when they got to this molding, they had a special plane made up that looked very much like Mike's. It seems clear to me that this molding was made up with a plowed groove and a small hollow and round plane. I reproduced such a molding in Pennsbury manor without the plow plane and without even a fence. The finished molding varies a bit in width. The features move slightly with respect to each other. But only one of us would recognize or care about such things.

I think Mike's plane is a modern version of an ancient molding, previously scratched or made with simple "cresing" planes (probably round planes or hollows and rounds). It almost represents our rejection of hand work, of moldings as artistic decorations, and our desire to express our control, bending wood to our will.

I could be dead wrong, but I thought alot about this in the months following the conference. Williamsburg's carpenters will be demonstrating their craft once again at next year's conference and I, for one, am looking forward to their stimulating presentations.

Adam

Re: Thanks to Adam...

MikeW

>Thanks to both Jamey and Adam!

I replied to Jamey on the Traditional Tools web site where this is also posted.

What I posted there was in short that I could not find examples per se of molding plane use during the 1600s--or 1700s thus far. This plane was made in the later part of the 1800s and so could have been produced for those needing such a profile for what was even then period work. I dunno.

From what I could find thus far is that these areas have mostly been carved, some plain. Later periods sometimes fluted or other embellishments.

I both agree and slightly disagree about control being the issue. That is unless control somehow equates into refinement. I think that was the direction joined furniture went once cabinet making evolved into its own right (or discipline). I would add that this does not mean to me joined furniture was somehow crude in comparision to later periods.

I look at molding planes the same way as joinery planes. I can certainly saw and chisel a dado, but I am glad dado planes came into being. A dado plane is both a refinement of result and process--they go hand in hand. So to with molding planes. Give me a plow and a H&R set and I think I can produce any profile. But for smaller profiles, the ease and consistency (the refinement) that the molding plane provides is akin to using a dado plane to me.

Take care, Mike

who wishes he could go to these events!

Maybe You Could Be a Presente

Jim Crammond in Monroe, Mi

>Mike,

The next conference is about tools or tool use. It seems to me that it would be a great venue for you to present information about 18th Centruy saws and their manufacture. Does anyone know who to talk to at Colonial Williamsburg to help make this happen?

Jim

Re: Maybe You Could Be a Presente

MikeW

>Sshh, Jim...I don't want it known that I probably am not knowledgeable enough! I am invited to England to give a talk about this subject in 2008 at a conference. I hope I get some smarts by then...

Seriously, I think the guys at Williamsburg are probably more knowledgeable than I am. That's not to say I wouldn't like to go. I've never been to Williamsburg--or anywhere back East. But certainly I would like to go soak in the presentations as an attendee.

Take care, Mike

back to the plethora of emails...

Re: Thanks to Adam...

Jamey Amrine in Ann Arbor

>Adam, I didn't intend to suggest that Mike's plane might have been the type of tool with which the original maker might have created this molding (and I am not sure you took it that way, but I wanted to be clear). I was merely presenting the type of molding that the plane might have been constructed to produce. I was, like you, taken aback a bit by the custom molder they used in Williamsburg for that feature. Thee are many ways the less well-equipped joiner might have done that, it seems. He could have plowed the groove and scratched the outboard profiles or plowed and finished with H&Rs. I would think the bulk of it would have been plowed, knowing that he had a plow at his disposal for his joinery.

Getting back to your tangent, I wonder sometimes if the development of tools led to the refinement of the craft (and what became cabinetmaking) or if the separation occurred first and the desire for refinement drove the tool development. Which is the chicken and which is the egg?

Re: Thanks to Adam...

Jamey Amrine in Ann Arbor

>Mike, in your mention of period work (late 18th-century craftsmen doing 17th-century work), it occurred to me that a plane like this might have been custom-produced by Preston for a joiner/carpenter repairing 17th-century moldings (which might originally been scratched/built-up), or he was constructing something to match existing molding (a companion piece or re-trimming an adjoining room). Something like a modern cabinetmaker or carpenter having a molding head or shaper bit custom ground to match a period molding made with planes. Just food for thought. Anyone else ever seen another similar plane? The boxing in that really seems like it wouldn't be standard based on the size.

That molding profile and the plane

Larry Williams

>Because we made that plane, we're familiar with a lot of the process that went into making a dedicated plane to produce the molding. It's helpful if you understand how Colonial Williamsburg works. What they do and present is based on research.

We weren't there for the decision to make a dedicated plane but it wasn't a casual decision. Those original profiles were closely examined. Molds were made of them and these were compared and analyzed. Between the conservators, curators, craftsmen and Jay Gaynor it was decided the profile was made with a dedicated plane.

We were involved in the discussions of exactly what the plane should look like. What the features and appearance of the plane should be based on evidence. Everything was discussed in detail. The cut of the end of one of the molds they took of the profile and sent it to us to work from. They also sent photos of early planes.

Here's the end of both the positive and negative molds of that profile. The blue rubber half bent slightly in removing it from the original profile.

Next is the profile of the plane we made:

Here's the plane with the two wedge finial designs we sent. Two finial designs were made because it made it easier to decide which would ultimately be used. The main plane used as a model had most of the wedge but was missing the front portion of the very top.

We were involved in a lot of e-mails and phone conversations in getting this plane made. I suspect we were involved in only a small percentage of the discussions and decisions. While there are several ways this molding could have been made, the way it was represented at the conference was anything but a casual decision. Every effort was made to be historically accurate.

Re: That molding profile and the plane

MikeW

>Wow, very nice Larry!

Thank you for jumping in with a brief description of their and your processes--and with pictures no less.

I think from looking at both profiles, mine would be the easier f the two to replicate without a dedicated plane. I think that with a center bead and a #1 or #2 hollow it could be laid out and struck fairly simply.

The one you made for Williamsburg, however, looks to be harder to replicate with separate planes even though it is a "less" complex molding. It's a nice profile. Unusual, which to me makes it all the nicer as I can see application.

Which (applicibility) is one reason I started this thread here and on roger's site. I haven't found other examples yet and probably won't of my exact molding. But with Jamey's direction and with the pictures and input from Adam and yourself, it provides me much to think about.

Again, my thanks to all who have responded--Mike

PS--Larry, is there a date for the DVDs to be released yet?

The relativity of expertise

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>Mike,

One of my lessons in my career has been (should I be saying "was" now that I'm not paid for anything I do?) that expertise is relative - on any given question, there's always someone who knows more than you, but lots of people who know less. If you can refine the question into a terrain in which you're comfortable - e.g., modern production of 18th century saws - you can state your expertise without delusions of universal expertise about 18th century saws.