Survey time... Match-planing...

a huge mistake

Larry Williams

>On the face of it, match planing sounds good. The problem lies in that the hard part of joining two boards on the edge is getting them to match along their length. Match planing supposedly takes care of an out of square to the face problem but doubles any error in matching for length. IMO anyone suggesting match planing needs to learn how to use their planes properly in the first place.

Re: Survey time... Match-planing...

Darrell in Oakville

>I always thought match planing was when you used a pair of match planes to cut a tongue and groove joint. And if you wanted to be fancy about it you could put a small bevel at the joint, so as to make a vee along the joint. Or really tart it up with a side bead.

IIRC Jim Kingshott speaks of "matching boards" this way.

Darrell

Wood Hoarder, Blade Sharpener, and Occasional Tool User

What is the proper way?

John H. in Baltimore

>I thought match planing was a generally accepted technique. Please let us know the proper way. Is it to joint each edge separately? If so, should the jointer plane's iron have a straight edge or a cambered edge? Any pointers would be sincerely appreciated.

Thanks!

John H.

Re: Survey time... Match-planing...

MikeW

>In general, if I do not specifically mention edge joinery using match planes, I mean jointing two edges of a board intended to be edge glued at the same time.

I prefer to not match planing in the sense of that definition, but have done so. Either method works. I have mentioned on other forums that the potential in doubling the amount of concavity is always present.

Take care, Mike

Re: Survey time... Match-planing...

Stephen Shepherd in the State of Deseret

>or Match-boarding (with a hyphen) is listed in the OED and describes a tongue and groove joint.

Also listed are match-plane and match-planing (with a hyphen) as indicating the same thing.

Stephen

Re: Survey time... Match-planing...

VTAndy4

>Doubling convexity would be bad, of course, but on a long joint, don't you think that doubling the amount of _concavity_ would be a good thing, provided that each board had about one plane shaving of concavity?

i agree

dave brown

>I tried match planing a few times and decided it was more aggravation that it's worth. In theory, it's great. In practice, well, the opposite of great. ;-)

Re: What is the proper way? *LINK*

Larry Williams

>John,

I believe the proper way is to start with well prepared stock. See Andrew's FETWEL post linked below. The difference is that stock for laminating isn't cut to final length and is left a little thick to allow for final surfacing after laminating.

If your stock was properly prepared, when you lay it out as it will be assembled the joints should be very close. You should be able to visually locate the problems and fine tune the fit, one edge at each joint. Use the mating board to check the fit--it's worth being picky and getting a good fit.

As to a straight or cambered iron on trying and jointer planes, it's a matter of personal preference. I prefer straight edges but Don, who's done a lot more of this than me, prefers a very slight camber. If you do chose to camber, keep the camber pretty small.

When an author suggests match planing for edge jointing, I tend to take it as a warning that they really don't use hand planes for edge jointing. It didn't take me more than trying it once to realize it is incredibly cumbersome, makes the stock unwieldy and likely to cause more problems than it solves. I can't imagine actually trying to work this way for any length of time.


FETWEL

Re: Survey time... Match-planing...

MikeW

>Hi Andy--but what is double?

Basically it is a sprung joint, one which isn't kind with hide glue rub jionts. Modern adhesives hold well, modern homes don't have the kind of humidity swings that a home 100 years ago had--one reason for a sprung joint (keep the ends together during changes). A sprung joint requires more clamping pressure, something I do not do.

But mainly I don't like the variability, or lack of repeatability, in creating it. Match planing in the sense of two boards jointed at the same time compounds this potential of variability. I do know people who believe in the concavity of a sprung joint and they do just fine from what I have seen. But it's not for me.

All that said...there are times I plane two or more boards at once. Short, thin pieces I often do. So I do it when creating boxes often.

Take care, Mike

Thanks Larry!

John H. in Baltimore

>

Re: What is the proper way?

Paul Kierstead

>Perhaps you should try it more then once before passing judgment. I won't claim to be a veteran, but I have jointed a hundred or two boards this way for lamination and found it to work very well. Of course it does amplify errors along the length, but these are (IMO) easier to avoid then off-90 degree errors. I will say that for boards over 4' or so it probably is more trouble then it is worth.

Re: What is the proper way?

Warren in Lancaster, Pa

>Paul, I think I would vote to ban the word proper from the forum. While I agree with Larry that for a skilled worker it is more efficient to joint each board separately, it seems odd to have some method declared improper. I have often seen people calling something the "proper method" that is not as productive as the one I use. I have also read where some guy tried some technique of mine three times and declared it slow. In the 18th century there were different methods by different craftsmen just as today.

Re: What is the proper way?

ThomD

>I wouldn't be so hard on it. I would say anyone who can control the lengthwise shape of the board needs to go back to planing school also. That is one of the main built-in features of a plane, that it determines longi camber. I think one might say that this style of planing is possibly a little production oriented. Two boards can be zeroed out this way while you wear a blindfold, and listen to the radio. Look at it this way. if you properly preped the faces, and you nail the edges, what harm does side by side clamping do, and it makes good use of the average 2-2.625" blade.

Seems to me this line of reasoning presumes that there is some chink in the armour of the worker, and he has to compensate. What's wrong with doubling your planing speed?

On the negative if you have out of alignment boards they may distort in clamping and you are worse off. Not all boards need to be dead nuts perfect to make complex projects. Particularly if you are using certain woods you will have problems and you just need to work around them.

Also, this method might dictate the orientation of the grain since there can be few alignments where you can both plane them when paired-up, then also plane them when they are flat, and possibly the process shouldn't drive that kind of decision.

Hmmm, an un-sprung joint ;^)

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>

Re: What is the proper way?

Larry Williams

>Warren,

When I used the word "proper," I was talking about stock preparation. Regardless of whether one works by machine or hand, the concept of proper stock preparation is critical. I can think of no other way to qualify stock preparation that conveys its importance. By machine or hand the steps and the results are the same and critical to the success of any project. One couldn't even expect success match planing if one of the boards was in wind. If stock is properly prepared, good edge joints almost automatically follow which is why I believe investing time and effort in match planing is a mistake. The use of the word "proper" when discussing stock preparation is not only appropriate, it's critical.

OK...

Denis Ch�nard, Orl�ans, Ont.

>I did learn that match-planing involved jointing two folded edges, but Stephen's and others' posts seem to confirm that the expression referred to match planes in the past, and has been hijacked in modern times to represent the simultaneous jointing of two edges.

Regardless, I don't understand the animosity against the technique... If one can't plane two edges straight, they won't be able to do it on one edge any better, actually it will be worse as the plane is balanced on a narrower surface. And when checking the joint on match-planed boards, whatever discrepancy from full contact along the edges is double the error, that makes it easier to spot.

The joint is faster to make than trying to get a perfect square edge on each board, and if the edges are a couple degrees off from square that doesn't make a difference at glue-up time. Of course, if the edges end up being planed at 45 degree to the face then it becomes problematic...

Anything I'm missing here?

DC

That's what I thought, too

Ted Owen, Pittsburgh

>

Re: OK...

Wiley Horne -- So. Calif.

>Denis,

I'll only speak for myself. I really don't find it easier or faster to match plane than to do one edge at a time. On the contrary. After you do a lot of edges, it's like the plane is doing the work, and the shaving is telling you everything about the board. At one time I would do tons of checking as I went; now I do very little, and never longitudinally. The shaving tells almost all, and the stack of boards goes quickly.

The main issue I have about match planing--and again, this is just my experience, everyone else can do what suits them--the main issue I have is that the boards to be match planed really have to be securely clamped together, prior to setting them up for jointing. If there is even a scintilla of slippage, you start over. It may take 4 or more clamps to get the boards secure before you can set them up for jointing. Also, you better get them exactly right in one try, because once you get them out of the clamps, if any spot along the boards is not exactly right, how're you gonna get them set up again exactly as they were. You can't--it's a start-over. So I never realized any production advantages--I can easily get one board jointed, and sometimes both, in the time it takes me to get the two boards clamped for match planing.

In summary, for me at least, the problem is not about doubling the spring of the joint--that's easily controllable by watching the shaving--rather, the problem lies in the additional clamping and manipulation of the boards to get them set up to do the match. And heaven help you if they're not dead on when they come out of the clamps.

Wiley

Wiley

And one other thing....

Wiley Horne -- So. Calif.

>This is an intangible, but for me, it's important. Hand work is a physical tactile thing. Everything about hand work is about rhythm and getting in a zone. It's like a baseball player getting in a zone and seeing the spin on the ball really well--that happens in edge jointing, and it happens in sawing joinery, and it happens doing mortises, and othe things, too....Anywa, when you stop to clamp stuff up or get out a jig, or do some kind of a setup, it breaks the rhythm. That's one more reason I like one-at-a-time edge jointing.

Wiley

Re: What is the proper way?

MikeW

>fwiw, I agree with Larry.

It is common to read the words "best practices" in woodworking books. Semantic issues aside, it's the same thing.

Take care, Mike

Re: a huge mistake, but maybe for other reasons?

wilbur

>I can easily see how match planing doubles length errors. But the amount of this error is still pretty small, no?

Suppose that the person match planing needs a relatively thick shaving (or combination of shavings) to complete the match planing process -- 0.007". Doubling that gives you 0.014" of error, as you rightly point out, but that's still less than 1/64" of error.

With a jointer plane, which is what I would use for match planing, set to take 2-3/1000" shavings, which should be pretty typical for a jointer plane, that still gives you two or three swipes to match plane your boards and still be within 1/64".

Besides, it seems to me that if you are match planing, your are still at the stage where boards are being glued up to make a panel. In which case, the easy way to get around the length matching issue is to make the panel oversize, then cut it down to final dimensions.

There may be reasons not to match plane, and personally, I don't do it, but I don't see how errors in the final length of the board is one of them.

Re: And one other thing....

ThomD

>"Anywa, when you stop to clamp stuff up or get out a jig, or do some kind of a setup, it breaks the rhythm. That's one more reason I like one-at-a-time edge jointing."

Fair enough, so exactly why is there more of this when you clamp two boards one after the other vs two at a time? Sound like double the time and clamping to me.

I don't really see it as either, or. There are some places where it isn't practical to pair, like 3 inch wide beams. Of soundboards on guitars. But routine 4/4 stock jointing...

Valid point

Denis Ch�nard, Orl�ans, Ont.

>Hi Wiley,

I see what you're saying, then it becomes a case of making sure the boards are right before unclamping them, because getting them back in exactly the same position can be a daunting task that would eat away any time advantage.

So, for boards up to 4' or thereabouts, I put a straightedge to the boards while they're clamped. If I see any error I can keep on planing without taking the boards off the clamps and lose the registration. Any longer than that, I don't have long enough straightedges, but the majority of furniture parts are shorter than that.

Cheers,

DC

Re: OK...

ThomD

>" On the contrary. After you do a lot of edges, it's like the plane is doing the work, and the shaving is telling you everything about the board."

Only difference is "boards".

As far as clamping is concerned I just clamp the boards in the face vise, if they are around 3 feet or less. Or I clamp the ends in the FV, and support the wider on the leg and clamp the other tail to it. For me clamping is like being in the zone, my finger tips dust over the surfaces and align the parts with little conscious thought.