>As for jam-ups, I spent a fair amount of time playing with transitional planes and a few other wooden planes, and I found that the shavings actually exited more cleanly without a cap iron, or at least with it set well back. Forward curling shavings in my tranny planes would curl to the other side of the throat, and then start to snarl. Every shaving I took required taking the whole iron assembly out of the plane, and the whole thing was a goddamn nuisance. Bigger wooden planes weren't quite as bad, in part I think because of the shape of the cap iron, but still. At the end of the day, I think the combination of a normal throat with a cap iron that curled the shavings up made for a lot of hassles.
My point about the ichi-mai was that it was possible to take very fine shavings without a chip breaker, which would seem to me to be more of a point of contention than the idea that you can't take heavy shavings without a chip breaker. Scrub planes don't use a cap iron, and they move a lot of material very quickly. Jack planes are a sort of hybrid, if they're used with cambered irons, that aren't quite a smoother, but don't move as much as a scrub plane, and they're longer, to help make sure they're only taking down high spots. Block planes can remove plenty of material without any kind of cap iron. So can molding planes.
Heavy shavings are, I think, much easier to achieve than fine shavings, but neither requires more than the single iron, if the blade is properly tuned.
>Thanks for responding, James. I was reacting to your mention of taking very thin shavings on some very curly maple. In this case, one can avoid tearout with extremely fine shavings no matter how the plane is set up. On the other hand a scrub plane can often leave a curly surface worse than when it started. You can plane it very nicely with a fine setting and a tight mouth, but at the cost of many passes. I think a double iron plane is more efficient here.
>I'm reluctant to walk into the hornet's nest here, but it's not clear that the last two posters were really clear on what Larry was saying. One post seems to imply that Larry was criticizing 18th century craftsmen, when his post reads to me like he's saying they went with the best tools they could find at the time, which is something I think most people on this forum are familiar with, or it wouldn't have the sponsors that it does. And the post I'm responding to here reads more like trash talking than a thoughtful post.
Why is it better for the plane making companies and the people selling the planes? Less overhead.
The sheer number of double iron planes isn't necessarily proof of their popularity, it's proof that they were manufactured. I have an old wooden fore plane with a fantastic old Buck brothers iron that's so worn down from use that I'd have to hack an inch off of the wedge to expose the rest of the iron and make it adjustable again. The wear marks and well used beauty of the plane make me reluctant to do such a thing when I have other metal planes that work fine. My point is that the really prized planes were prized because they worked well, and the ones that worked well got used... and eventually used up. Anyone who's seen wooden planes on display at a flea market can attest to the fact that many of them clearly did not live respectable lives of care and pampering for future collectors to behold. Good tools got used, and used hard, to make a living. The fact that there are so many double iron planes left could very well be proof that they weren't as good, or they'd have been used up years ago like an old pencil.
As for the complications involved in production, the fact is that many of the old tapered irons were two piece forgings, with a piece of tool steel forge welded onto a cut blank. Whether you weld onto a machine made blank with a hole in it, or a machine made blank without a hole in it, it doesn't take a blacksmith to understand that the process is the same, and no more complicated. Similarly, making blanks for cap irons, and sticking a fancy nut into them (which is how the threads were added) isn't much more complicated if you already have the means available to stamp out the blade blanks. Demanding that someone go and forge up a blade, and do this, and do that, to prove their point to you, reads like needless trash talking to me.
Given Larry's existing body of work, the recognition he's had for that body of work, and the body of work produced in Williamsburg by the people who actually put his and his partner's planes to use, I'd say he's got enough experience in making and using planes that he's proved his point very eloqently. I don't think he has to forge up a blade special, just to prove to you that he knows something.
I'll admit, I have a biased viewpoint. I've met Larry, and learned how to make planes from him. I've talked to him about wooden and transitional planes, and others, and seen the light in his eyes, and the enthusiasm he still has after years of making planes for a living. It was pretty clear to me that he was one of those people who clearly Knows Something. And he's one of those people who has gone way out of his way to figure out what he knows.
Maybe I'm out of line, it gets my hackles up to see someone like That get tarred and feathered for trying to contribute to what was an otherwise enjoyable thread. So flame away if you must.
Either way, it seems pretty rude to me to try to put his nose in it like that.
>That's fair. Curly maple has a well earned reputation for being ornerier than many of the crustiest woodworkers I've met. : )
I don't want to keep the pot too stirred up... read my other response of this evening, I think I've made enough trouble for myself tonight... but next time you're playing with curly maple, and trying to remove stock quickly, try planing at an angle that's as much cross-grain as long-grain. It'll give you a relatively clean shear cut that keeps tear out down considerably. It'll still be a little rough around the edges, but won't tear out as much. That should get you far enough to use a smooth plane, without a lot of fuss. That, a little camber on the blade to keep corners from catching, and a tightly bedded blade (in whatever kind of plane) should work very well for you. Whatever gets the job done... there is no cheating in woodworking.
>I've used a lot of single blade planes, and the most important thing seems to be sharpness. For example, I was having problems with an HNT smoother clogging. Terry told me to sharpen it more. With everything else the same, no more clogs. I was amazed.
With Japanese planes, tapered blades, no subblade, I get very thin shavings and very, very smooth wood, almost polished/burnished. Truly amazing.
>"The sheer number of double iron planes isn't necessarily proof of their popularity, it's proof that they were manufactured.... My point is that the really prized planes were prized because they worked well, and the ones that worked well got used... and eventually used up.... The fact that there are so many double iron planes left could very well be proof that they weren't as good, or they'd have been used up years ago like an old pencil.
As for the complications involved in production, the fact is that many of the old tapered irons were two piece forgings, with a piece of tool steel forge welded onto a cut blank. Whether you weld onto a machine made blank with a hole in it, or a machine made blank without a hole in it, it doesn't take a blacksmith to understand that the process is the same, and no more complicated. Similarly, making blanks for cap irons, and sticking a fancy nut into them (which is how the threads were added) isn't much more complicated if you already have the means available to stamp out the blade blanks. Demanding that someone go and forge up a blade, and do this, and do that, to prove their point to you, reads like needless trash talking to me....."
First you are right that single blades from this period are in almost every case laminated blades that have a wrought iron body with a tool steel bit forged welded on...but what you are conveniently leaving out is that so are the blades used in double irons. To make a doulble iron first the single blade was made...and if you were just going to make a single blade you would be done now. but with a double blade you then had to slot it, make the cap iron and the hardware to connect the two...Again please explain to me how this isn't all that much harder then just making the single blade? I have made both single plane blades AND double blades and in my experance making the cap iron and screw is much more harder then just making the blade...took easly 4 times as long.Not to mention extra material which was an important consideration back then.
....This is reflected when we look in old tool makers catalogs like the 1840s one from Marshes & Shephards where 2 inch smoothing planes with a single iron are being sold for 2 S.2 D. while the same plane with a double irons is priced at 3 S. 10 D.....for somthing that was just as easy to make it sure was priced at a good bit more.Also is amazing that any double iron planes got sold since they were so much more expensive and according to you were not as good or prized as the cheaper single iron planes. These double irons were made and sold because wood workers wanted them and were willing to pay more for them.
The augument that the reason that double iron antique planes are found much more today then single iron ones is somehow proof that it is because actually single irons ones were more common but just got used up because they worked better is to put it mildly ... uhmmm...interesting. With this logic having never seen a plane with a tin blade I can only think they must have been even more popular and better performing then single iron planes.
So we are being asked to believe that it is easier to make a cap iron and hardware and slotted blade as it is to make a single iron and to believe that for hundereds of years double iron planes were made but they were never popular and no one wanted them and the only reason they are so common today is because they were not as good and didn't get used up by all the people that bought them but didn't want to....OK think I got it .......Todd
>Thanks again for your post, James. I think you are an important voice on this forum, and I am but one of many who is following your career and hoping for your success.
I have been a full time woodworker using hand tools exclusively for more than twenty years. I have not had a need for sandpaper since 1978. Of course I think highly of the 18th century cabinetmakers and tool makers (many were both, making their own planes). It is somewhat hurtful to hear them disparaged as duped by a marketing gimmick.
My feeling is that anyone who does not see the value of the double iron system probably does not understand how to use it. I know that this puts some people who consider themselves experts into a somewhat lesser category and I apologize for it. On the other hand those 18th century workers who worked before the advent of the double iron also did fine and efficient work and are also worthy of our admiration.
>In re-reading this thread, I'm not sure that there is much difference of opinion on the merits. Larry's remarks on the virtues of single blade/tight mouth pertain primarily to finish planing, while Warren's remarks on the value of the double iron pertain to the situation where the user does not want to be limited to fine shavings. Warren used the example of the 5 thou shaving to illustrate his point, while clearly stating that the double-iron is not needed in the thin-shaving situation. [I hope I'm putting the right words in Larry's and Warren's mouths.]
My observations are pretty much consistent with both Warren's and Larry's statements, and I will hurry to say that I don't approach the experience of either Warren or Larry. Also, I'd like to say that we need to be talking about planing a whole board, with all its variations--not just taking a shaving somewhere on a board.
In that context, I find generally that shavings of 1 thou or less, and I'll pick curly soft maple or curly cherry to be specific, are perfectly well taken with a single-blade plane. This is true with C&W single blade smoothers bedded at 50 or 55 degrees, and it has been true with ichi-mai Japanese single blade/tight mouth planes attacking at 43 and 46 degrees, and it has been true with Japanese double-iron planes used at 42 degrees without the subblade installed. Sharp is a given here, as Pam said.
But. When the shaving begins to get thicker than 1 thou in high-figured wood, say between 1 thou and 2 to 2.5 thou, then the C&W single iron at 55 (not 50) still works, but I need the subblade in the Japanese plane, set very, very close to the edge, and the ichi-mai gets set aside (it's a finishing plane, period).
Now as the shaving gets up into the 5 thou range, I either need the double iron set close, or more typically, a cambered blade. This is purely anecdotal, but my observation has been that a slightly cambered smoother is better than a flat-ironed smoother as the shaving gets above 1 thou, and that the camber on jacks and foreplanes does much to control tearout (again, curly wood) for shaving thicknesses up to about 10 thou.
As you get up into scrub plane thicknesses (1/32 or better), my observation is like Warren's--I'm at risk of tearing out peppercorns of curl. This is one reason I like fore planes over scrubs.
Anyway, on the merits of this issue, many of the apparent differences that have been stated are quickly resolved by distinguishing between the finish planing (thin shavings) and more generally planing while doing stock preparation, or panel flattening.
Wiley ..... who thinks that planing competitions should be about 'who can take the thickest shaving without tearout'
>I can appreciate the argument. I don't think they were necessarily "duped," though. I think he was trying to say that they weren't, and that the master craftsmen of the day turned to the used tool market of their day to find what they wanted or needed, if it wasn't being sold anymore. Hence the overabundance of double iron planes that are still around. Wooden planes aren't like iron planes, they get used up and worn out with use. And the ones that got used the most aren't in evidence anymore... the only trace they left was in the work they helped to produce.
Larry does have a valid argument though. Tool makers are known for coming up with new gimmicks. Some gimmicks work, some don't. But in a saturated tool market, it takes a new gimmick to sell something new to a crowd of craftsmen who already think they have what they need. Whether it's a laser line on a circular saw, or a level in a cordless drill, or something more elaborate than those simple examples... today, circ saws and drills are a dime a dozen on the used tool market, so tool makers have to come up with new gimmicks and niche products to keep their manufacturing company afloat. It doesn't help anymore to manufacture lasting quality, if it means that those tools will be around for long enough to dent your new tool sales later on. In a world where wooden planes had been around for a while, maybe something new helped sell some more new planes. I wasn't there, I don't know personally, I can only extrapolate based on what I've seen myself in recent times.
I've seen for myself as the guy across the counter, that many people will buy what they're offered, and try to make do. The persistence of Groz planes, soft aluminum "precision" straight edges, and any number of other poorly thought out widgets are proof positive that people still buy bad tools. It's not always reflective of the level of craftsmanship, though. Marples used to be a premium tool, and while they're still good, they're not what they were, thanks to being bought out by Irwin, which is a subsidiary of Rubbermaid. They work, but they're not Lie-Nielsen. Still, they sell very well, and I've seen people do great things with them. The genius is not in the tool, it's in the hands using it.
I've seen people do miraculous work with some really, really bad tools. And I've seen (and unfortunately sold) a lot of really bad tools. And I've seen some really obnoxious, pushy sales pitches on the part of the tool manufacturers. For instance:
Freud is currently insisting that the stores that carry their product only display Freud, and remove CMT bits and blades from their stores. I understand they did a similar job on Amana bits over at Rockler. It's not that CMT or Amana make bad products. Quite the contrary, they make very good stuff. But Freud is more aggressive about their marketing, and bumping out the competition.
General finishes managed to push both Rockler and Woodcraft into allowing them to come in as a primary vendor for all things finishing, which pushed Bartley's into a corner, and they had a hard time, and recently got bought out.
Freud is a worthy product, despite their sales scheme. General Finishes, on the other hand, was not as good as the companies they pushed off of the shelves.
And that's something to keep in mind... the tool making companies didn't necessarily have to sell to the craftsmen. They had to sell to the companies who sold tools to craftsmen. And those middle men didn't/don't necessarily know as much about tools. If you look around their website, you'll find that Woodcraft's current team of new product managers include a woman who ran a bike shop, and is a confessed novice, a guy who restores motorcycles, and a career retail man. No real woodworkers to be found, and not much experience in actually using these tools... but they're the people who decide what tools and products to put on the shelves. And, in turn, that will affect what makes its way into the workshop. Craftsmen work with what they have available, and they don't always have time to hunt around when they need something.
A craftsman doesn't have to be duped at all... he just has to select from what's being offered by the tool monger. From rumors I've heard from friends of mine, if you watch Woodcraft, you'll soon see some of the well known premium brands get phased out, including Bench Dog, Tormek, CMT (thanks, Freud) and who knows what's next. I wasn't duped, and neither were any of you. But our tool suppliers were.
I can't say that this was why tool sellers 200 years ago decided to switch to cap irons on their planes. But a saturated market does weird things to manufacturing and supply companies, and cap irons may very well have been just what the doctor ordered to help bring a little more cash flow into the tool industry's pockets. Iron planes are another good example... I love my old Stanleys, don't get me wrong, but the popularity of wooden planes kept their production going in Europe (as I understand it, and I could be wrong) up until the 1960s. The superiority of iron bodied planes may not have been as obvious to other woodworkers, but it's clear that their sellability certainly appealed to the tool companies and their distributors.
>And now you know why almost everyone uses Windows. I find these anti-competitive practices despicable (guess what all the 19th century gun fighters' descendents do for a living). Add to these "best practices" SPIFF's for the salespeople, and it's a wonder any good tool ever gets sold on its merits.
if I would not know what you mean, I'd say you are offending all of us toolmakers who build tools made to last a lifetime or three.
I believe today we have an unprecedented diversity of handtools on the market, readily available from quite literally around the world.
No need to let you strong-arm by large marketing budgets, let the mouse do the walking and purchase the tools that meet your need perfectly. 100% your choice, how amazing is that?
Ok, back to chip-breakers...
Chris
Atlanta, GA
Galoot-Tools
[...] It doesn't help anymore to manufacture lasting quality, if it means that those tools will be around for long enough to dent your new tool sales later on. In a world where wooden planes had been around for a while, maybe something new helped sell some more new planes. I wasn't there, I don't know personally, I can only extrapolate based on what I've seen myself in recent times. [...]
>Mine skip from 45� or so to 90-100� (scraper plane, of course). I have plans to use one iron for a range of dai from 32� to 60�, but haven't done it yet. Many would say that the higher angles would be too hard to push/pull; but I have no problems with the 60� HNTs.
Re: I'd really like to hear Larry's/James' respons
Larry Williams
>Pam,
Tod's response involves a little faith based fantasy.
The truth is that, even in the early 18th Century, metal work was big business. The real world then involved roller mills, trip hammers and factory work. It wasn't some back-yard blacksmith and his dog pounding out an occasional plane iron.
Plane makers traded supplying basically mass produced double irons at a fixed price for what Pye called workmanship of risk--the intensive hand work involved in making properly bedded and tight mouthed planes. The labor and cost of making bench planes was reduced but the price and profit went up. You can chose to believe it was for the benefit of the end user if you'd like.
In fact, with the introduction of double irons the variety of traditional cutting geometries of bench planes were discontinued. How many factory made planes have you seen at York pitch or steeper? The British plane makers tended to go for 47 1/2� and the Americans went for common pitch. I've seen some craftsman built infills at steeper angles and but the only ones I know of that may have been factory made rather than kit planes were a couple Slater infills I've seen. I think Slater was one of those who did offer kits but I'd have to check that out.
>If one lays out a few hundred planes, in order by age, that span the history of wooden plane making; one of the dramatic things that becomes apparent is a steady decline in quality from somewhere in the last quarter of the 18th Century. You'll also see that American planes declined at a more rapid rate than British planes.
Then start with the newest and look at the features that changed from previous planes. Ask yourself if it represents and improvement? Does the plane show some evidence of problems? If you make a serious effort at doing this, I think you'll probably end up seeing the same things I've seen.
On the later bench planes, one thing I bet you'll find is a lot of damage inside the escapements from clearing chokes. I think you'll find evidence of choking is much more frequent in double iron planes. Have you ever really looked at how the wedge horns and abutments terminate in the mouth of a double iron plane? It's much farther up the escapement in a double iron plane so the effectiveness of the wedge is reduced. Could blade chatter on double iron planes as a result wedge problems be the reason the went to thicker irons right after the introduction of double irons? I've never seen an elegant or even good solution to ending the wedge horns on a double iron plane so that they don't pose a potential choking problem.
Why did they continue to offer molding planes in the traditional pitches after discontinuing it in bench planes. Could it be because it's effective? Go read Steve's information and then go measure the distance you have your cap irons set from the edge. Are your cap irons set within .010" from the edge? .004? Would you get better results using different pitches?
The elderly gentleman mentioned earlier saw traditional trade practices as they were passed down from generation to generation. The bench trades in Great Britain survived much longer than in the US. Ever wonder why US antique stores continue to find container load after container load of hand made furniture in Britain?
>I think a look at the Dominy craftsmen on Long Island gives a different picture of things. Nathaniel IV made at least a dozen single iron bench planes in the 1760's 70's and 80's for his own use. He paid between 1s and 1s6d for plane irons in this period. In the late 1780s his son, Nathaniel V recieved training in another shop and had his own account books in 1789. Then in 1790 here they are buying two double irons for 6s, double the price. In 1790 the price they charged for making a wool wheel was 10s, the same as in 1765.
In 1793, after 30 years of making single iron planes, here is old Nathaniel IV making a double iron plane. Was he getting lazy? Losing his skills? No, actually he made some of each in that decade. Were they influeced by the trends of the times? Actually Nathaniel V made a high chest for family use which, if not documented, would have been judged to have been made 40 years earlier. After Nathaniel IV retires Nathaniel V makes planes that look just as handsome, though, if I recall mostly double iron planes. It looks for all the world as if they might actually have preferred the double iron planes.
My double iron beech trying plane was about 80 years old and hardly used when I bought it in 1979. Since then it has been used hard and has wear on the side from laying it down to protect the iron. But as of tonight there is not a single scratch in the escapement and I cannot recall it ever being jammed. I can't recall any jamming at all in any double iron plane since I learned to refine the cap iron in 1975.
In my experience people who disparage double iron planes invariably make comments which lead me to think they do not really know how to use them.
Re: I'd really like to hear Larry's/James' respons
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>I've often wondered why there wasn't more variety in bedding angles, including from C&W (Or have I missed something lately?). I suppose most get the angles they need by adding micro- and back-bevels, varying their angles, but this seems so wasteful to me, of both time and valuable blade metal.
>"Tod's response involves a little faith based fantasy....
Plane makers traded supplying basically mass produced double irons at a fixed price for what Pye called workmanship of risk--the intensive hand work involved in making properly bedded and tight mouthed planes. The labor and cost of making bench planes was reduced but the price and profit went up. You can chose to believe it was for the benefit of the end user if you'd like...."
Looking in the July 1791 inventory of Christopher Gaberiel you will see that even on this early date he had 180 doz [2160!] seperate cap irons for double irons. These cap irons were vauled at about the same as what a single iron was. While not plain it is believed that these single irons were slotted for cap irons and so a non sloted iron would be cheaper.
Is apparent that adding a cap iron to a single blade about doubled the price of the iron.
Not to many single planes are listed but I do see in the april 9th 1800 inventory 28 single iron jointers listed at a vaule of 5 lbs. 2 S.....right above them are listed 17 double iron jointers vauled at 5 lbs 1 s. ...Is obvious that not only were the double irons more expensive but also that the planes using them were too and by a good bit...not a fantasy here but a fact....
...Now maybe it didn't cost Gaberiel or the hundereds of other plane makers any more to make a double iron plane then a single iron plane, maybe they all got together and conspired to just charge more for them so they could make more money. I don't think so but lets just say Lary is right here and the cost to the maker went down somhow by the use of these expensive double irons OK. Is there any doubt now that they sold these planes for more and that woodworkers were willing to pay more for them to?
These wood workers were willing to pay a good deal more for these planes because they felt they were better planes then the much cheaper single iron ones which they still could buy if they wanted to. Other wise why would they buy them? I don't think of wood workers as being the type that are "loose" with thier money either. When Stanley came out with the Bedrock line of improved planes they did not cost all that much more then a regular stanley [604 went for $4.85 a no. 4 $4.40] yet not to many wood workers figurative speaking thought they were worth this little bit of extra cost....yet when it came to double iron planes most wood workers were prepared to pay much more for them and did so for well over a 100 years....is this a Fantasy or Fact now, eh?...
Maybe tradtionaly there were some plane makers that used double irons that promoted that they were better...maybe there were some plane makers that couldn't make or choose not to make double irons say that thier single iron planes were better...Interesting perhaps but still doesn't change the facts that wood workers wanted double irons and were willing to pay more for them....and did.....Todd
1) the number of fine cabinetmakers who needed ultra performing planes was a lot lot smaller than carpenters and joiners who needed good tools that lasted. In the 1830 census there were 4 or 5 times as many joiners and cabinetmakers in London than cabinetmakers, chairmakers and other furniture makers. Of the latter very few did the like of work that needed planes that could plane anything. On a piece of furntuire most of the time is spent planing stock to measure not finish planing.
the high angle, narrow mouth, single iron plane does perform better in terms of planing but it has two major flaws: You need to take fine shavings, and tool wears out as the mouth wears.
A double iron plane cannot plane as finely as a perfect single iron plane - even with the second iron set properly. BUT it will do a decent job on decent wood, at a thicker shaving, and won't wear out as quickly because the mouth doesn't need to be as fine. And of course in the 19th century when planemaking became industrialized it was far easier to make a double iron body than a top notch single iron plane.
For an 18th century cabinetmaker speed is everything and ideally you would want a double iron plane for most of your work, following up the smoothing with a single iron super smoother where needed on fancy wood or tough to plane wood.
single iron planes wear out and in general in the 19th century there is far less hand cabinetmaker going on compared to joinery and carpentry. so there is even less incentive for manufacturers to offer the harder to make tool
Today of course we mostly use planes for final smoothing so single iron, high angle is a better way to go. and very few people use the planes enough to wear them out quickly and cost ineffectively.
Almost all major tool catalogs from 1860 - 1940 of any size offered parts of infill planes. Blades, cap irons, and in some cases, castings. That's why everyone craftsman build planes look like they have the same castings. Slater was a tiny company. Slater, his wife, and later his son. He didn't make the castings, he probably bought the same castings as everyone else, or less likely owned patterns that he had cast. Wooden plane manufacturers could also buy brass fittings for their planes from most of the major hardware seller.
>Yeah, I'm not trying to offend any of the smaller tool makers that are out there. I'm glad for the internet, because it means that anyone can set up shop in their basement, and run a small virtual storefront. If we left it all up to folks like the ones who work for companies like Home Depot, Lowe's, and even Woodcraft and Rockler, our tools would all have to justify themselves on the basis of profit margin and how pretty they look in a catalog.
I could make the argument that from a marketing standpoint, smaller batches and niche tools could be viewed as a gimmick in their own right, but I'm not going to. The reality is that it's the small tool makers who really seem to come up with the best stuff. Your blades look amazing. WoodJoy tools, C&W, Gramercy... I know there's more, I just can't think of them yet... all small operations, but it sounds liek they're just dedicated guys who geek out and produce the tools they'd want to use, and make them the way they'd want them to be made. I think they're more of an asset to the woodworking community than the bigger corporate tool mongers can hope to be, given the big money mentality.
I've had similar experiences to Larry's. It may be because my planes are worn, but the way the cap iron terminates and the way the wedges taper away, leaves this little area vulnerable to catching a shaving. It isn't so much the joint between the cap and iron. I clean that up to ensure a tight fit. Its the joint between the wood and the cap. This may have been different when the plane was new. But my planes' worn soles place the cap irons further up in the abutments.
What I've found is that cambering the iron really helps. Even the tiniest bit.
Also, I've had some troubles with smoothers with mouth patches. No matter what, the patch must form a sort of shelf that I find interferes with the cap iron. The cap iron must be backed off and then I encounter the problem I described above.
I can't reconcile the history. And i have planes with double irons that work fine. But if i were buying or making new planes, I'd skip the cap irons. I've never felt they helped me and have only created headaches.
I'd like to hear more from folks on this subject. I just finished an article on restoring planes and I kinda glazed over this area. What I wanted to do was saw my plane in half so folks could see this better and understand the problem. But I had no way to saw the plane blade. If anybody has the means, and would be willing to saw my plane and blade in half, please ping me offline. I think this would be helpful in this conversation. This is probably something Larry should do and post on his website. I'm not convinced everyone can visualize the geometry he's talking about.
