Hand Tools Archive

Subject:
Derek--handle profiles.. *PIC*

david weaver
I figured that the angle on my prior photo might have been a bit misleading, my handles are forward leaning a little more than those pictures suggest. So I took some pictures, and here are my thoughts about these things.

A comparison picture to start, the LV most forward-tilted handle compared to my try plane. I kind of wish there was a little more bottom to the LV handle, even though this is the most tilted one, I'd like one that has more angle yet, but I haven't yet made one like that to try. The location of the mouth may make things a little different for the LV plane.

You'll notice on the wood plane handles the handle comes straight up out of the plane and then the amount of tilt is taken care of by cutting the top curve further forward, rather than necessarily making a handle that is cut leaning forward from top to bottom. This may be a bit different for wooden planes because of how far above the mouth the handle is, not sure.

The handle on my jack (this plane is mostly a copy of a matheisen closed handle jack). This handle is way on the back of the plane, and I could've cut the top a bit more in like the original. Not unpleasant, but not quite as good.

The handle on a jt brown jointer (something from the early 1800s). I modified this pattern a little bit to make my three bench planes.

Griffiths of norwich.

My favorite stanley 4:

The stanley compared to the LV (the LV looks similar to the stanley, but I think the mouth location and the way the top curve is chased way up to the top makes it feel more upright):

The mathiesen jack. Radical, but quite comfortable. Very downward leaning, but the handle is way on the back of the plane and might be downward leaning like that to compensate. I may move the top in on mine a little more, the mathiesen feels a bit more like you're walking with it, mine feels more like you're pushing it from behind and it's got to be in front of you a little more. A small difference visually, but really does have an effect:

An old infill I made, the first full sized infill. I have two more infills I'd like to make, but I don't know when I ever will. I don't actually use them, but they do work wonderfully. Keep the wax handy. (I did not know george when I made this plane, and the aesthetics show it. A shame. It would've taken no more work to make a more attactive plane, and this billet of wood was an ULTRA rare piece of vintage bois de rose. A comfortable handle to use nonetheless, and very much out at the bottom and in at the top, more so than the wooden handles.

And an 18" panel infill spiers kit. This handle was poorly cut, this plane is from the near death era of shepherd kits and they did a poor job cutting the mortise. When I got it fit, the handle was left a bit too upright. A very authoritative plane, made from an OK plane into a killer with proper use of the double iron (I didn't know how to use one when I made it, so the mouth is only 9 thousandths on this plane - even with a mouth at that, at common pitch, it still tore out enough to effect the smoothness of the plane in the cut, but not enough to make a surface disaster. It goes any direction with the cap iron and stays smooth). The upright handle encourages you to keep it out in front of you. Also a keep the wax handy plane at just shy of 9 pounds. I'd have preferred it with a more conventional angle, even though such a thing would encourage more downward force. Wax mitigates the effect of that.

© 1998 - 2017 by Ellis Walentine. All rights reserved.
No parts of this web site may be reproduced in any form or by
any means without the written permission of the publisher.

WOODCENTRAL, P.O. BOX 493, SPRINGTOWN, PA 18081