Official Luthiers Forum! http://luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
Smooth Plane http://luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=49117 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Clinchriver [ Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:55 am ] |
Post subject: | Smooth Plane |
I have plenty of power tools and no aversion to using them. But I really enjoy using sharp well tuned hand tools also. Who uses hand planes during or for the entire process of milling tops to your final dimension? And what are you using? |
Author: | ernie [ Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:30 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
I have many planes too numerous to list, including a large thickness sander.. My favorite smoother is the lie-nielsen low angle smoother adjustable plane. It seems to work the best for me. Have a chinese rosewood high angle polishing plane , but it/s more like a scraper , used on dense hdwds. The nice thing about LV and LN is they work straight out of the box. Try to use one ,if you can, woodcraft?? /rockler , etc. before you find something that suits your working style. For shooting the edges I have the L/N low angle jack, and a seperate 40deg microbevel blade for really hardwoods. If I could have only 1 plane, this would be it. That, and the L/N adjustable low angle block plane are very handy. I have veritas tools, as well but prefer L/N |
Author: | RustySP [ Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:40 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
I use a Veritas bevel- up jack plane. With a well sharpened iron on a good quality top, and good technique, it produces fine fluffy ribbons and great fun that I look forward to. ![]() Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Author: | Clay S. [ Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:23 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
Occasionally I will rough thickness a top and back plate with a hand plane. Sometimes I don't want to hear a noisy planer, and I am in no great hurry to get things done. I use a bog standard Stanley #4 smoother with a standard Stanley blade. I usually finish it up with a thickness sander or a random orbital sander. |
Author: | bionta [ Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:16 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
I don't have a thickness sander so on my one and only build so far, still in progress, I loaded up my workbench with my arsenal of "shovels and rakes and implements of destruction". I thicknessed everything by hand using an antique Stanley #4, antique Stanley #7, Lie-Nielsen skew angle block plane, card scraper, Lie-Nielsen small scraping plane. Also a couple of purpose-made bench hooks and sandpaper on a wooden block. By the time the dust settled I'd used the #4 and the card scraper most of all and I figure I could do the whole job fairly quickly with those 2 tools, at least for mahogany and spruce. |
Author: | jfmckenna [ Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
I only use a plane for the inside face of the top where the braces get glued. Then I run it trough a thickness sander till I get the deflection I'm after. I've had this Marples No. 7 since about 1990. |
Author: | Trevor Gore [ Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:30 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
I don't have a thickness sander and for top wood of normal supplied thickness (4-5mm) I rely pretty much exclusively on a standard bed angle Bailey # 5 1/2 with a thicker aftermarket blade (Lie-Nielsen). If I have a lot of wood to remove, I might use a #5 in scrub mode. Jointing I do with a Veritas low angle adjustable mouth jack. As it happens, I never use #4, #4 1/2 or #3 sized plane even though I own them. They seem to be the wrong size for everything on a guitar. I either use a #5 or larger or a block plane or smaller. |
Author: | Clinchriver [ Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:32 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
RustySP wrote: I use a Veritas bevel- up jack plane. With a well sharpened iron on a good quality top, and good technique, it produces fine fluffy ribbons and great fun that I look forward to. [ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Bevel up, so thats like a really big block plane? Nice looking work there. |
Author: | RustySP [ Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:13 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
Yes, they are in the block plane category, not bench. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Author: | Woodie G [ Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:43 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
Oddly enough, that very issue arose while we wandered through the PATINA dealer tables yesterday. The manufacturers and much of the user community seem to be in variance with authorities such as Mr. Leach or Mr. Walter on block planes as bench planes. Stanley - the dominant hand woodworking tool maker in the US for the last 20 years of the 19th Century and first half of the next, seems to have decided that any tool that was equipped with a bevel-up mechanism was by nature a block plane, while Lie-Nielsen and Lee Valley and even boutique plane maker Karl Holtey appear to have decided on a taxonomy for naming planes that focuses on function, rather than construction. The boss suggested that any convention that did not recognize that marketing drives usage (e.g., the creation of a whole new category of 'low-angle, bevel up' bench plane by Lie-Nielsen) as much as usage drives creation of additional options by manufacturers (e.g., entire families of low-angle, bevel-up planes from manufacturers) risks ignoring the users of those tools. Mr. Verhoeven (who found what must have been the only piece of Brazilian rosewood in the building that was not already shaped into a plane tote or knob - large enough for two back-and-side sets and just $160) opined that this was just like the boss's resistance to referring to kerfed linings as 'kerfings'...it was fun watching and listening to the ensuing discussion. |
Author: | Clinchriver [ Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:38 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
Several reasons I'm wanting to go this direction. Superior gluing surface, a chatoyance/sheen you can't achieve any other way. Not sure if chatoyance adds anything under finish but I'd like to find out. |
Author: | ernie [ Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:52 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
sharp scrapers , do bring a sharper clarity to certain woods (figured maple) wood, .Some japanese polishing planes , seem to bring out the natural polish and luster in certain woods (walnut). See the latest issue of fine woodworking magazine , on how to properly set up japanese planes. Japan woodworker, woodcraft, and hida,tool , and others as well are some of the usa companies that stock japanese planes. |
Author: | Woodie G [ Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:26 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
Film-forming finishes seem to address the micro-scratches left after sanding, so what would be an obvious difference in surface sheen prior to finish seems to even out with lacquer or varnish. Not so for oiled, waxed, or soaped surfaces, where the silky finish off a nice plane makes such a difference! I wonder how much of the Japanese focus on achieving planed (e.g., their competitions!) comes out of the preference for little or no finish on the softwood timbers in teahouse or temple construction? |
Author: | Michael.N. [ Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:25 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
The 'classic' smoothing plane is the No. 4 (4.5) or even the No. 3. Of course you certainly can use other sizes as a smoother but I guess that the typical pro furniture maker of yesteryear had to do an awful lot of smoothing. Weight becomes an issue, hence the more nimble and smaller size of a smoother. Don't forget that it really was used as the final finishing plane, just a few tenths of a mm. It was never really intended to prep timber, thickness it or to work timber 'out of wind'. As such it was set up to take extremely fine shavings, with the cap iron set very close to the blades edge to minimise tear out. You can't thickness timber with a plane set up like that unless you want to waste a lot of time. That's why it's better to use a jack plane for the preparation/thicknessing. The jack has an entirely different set up, much more suited to removing material in an efficient manner. That is the traditional use of the jack plane. I use a wooden jack with a cambered blade, what I sometimes refer to as a gentle scrub plane. It's not really a scrub plane but the term gives the idea of how the plane is used. |
Author: | Woodie G [ Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:23 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
Chris Schwartz had an interesting blog entry on the growth in length and size of smoothers over time - we have #3, #4, and 4-1/2 (the later two with higher angle frogs), and all are set up for very fine shavings in difficult wood. I have really gotten to like the #3...very nimble for people with smaller hands and lower center of gravity ![]() |
Author: | mountain whimsy [ Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:53 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
RustySP wrote: I use a Veritas bevel- up jack plane. With a well sharpened iron on a good quality top, and good technique, it produces fine fluffy ribbons and great fun that I look forward to. ![]() Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk That is such a lovely sight! Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk |
Author: | BobHowell [ Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:13 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
Clinchriver wrote: Several reasons I'm wanting to go this direction. Superior gluing surface, a chatoyance/sheen you can't achieve any other way. Not sure if chatoyance adds anything under finish but I'd like to find out. 20 years ago I built a small end table with a walnut top about 24" by 16". I was able to smooth the top with my new hand made wooden plane without any sand paper. I had just read James Krenow's book and made the plane from his plans. It was beautiful but looked the same, when finished, as a similar top sanded down to 600 grit. Ove the years I have turned many bowls and lided boxes on my lathe and sanded up to 1000 and 2000 grit to remove all scratches. Fine sand paper is as good as the plane blade. How fine depends, I guess, on your eyes. |
Author: | Link Van Cleave [ Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:29 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
BobHowell wrote: Clinchriver wrote: Several reasons I'm wanting to go this direction. Superior gluing surface, a chatoyance/sheen you can't achieve any other way. Not sure if chatoyance adds anything under finish but I'd like to find out. 20 years ago I built a small end table with a walnut top about 24" by 16". I was able to smooth the top with my new hand made wooden plane without any sand paper. I had just read James Krenow's book and made the plane from his plans. It was beautiful but looked the same, when finished, as a similar top sanded down to 600 grit. Ove the years I have turned many bowls and lided boxes on my lathe and sanded up to 1000 and 2000 grit to remove all scratches. Fine sand paper is as good as the plane blade. How fine depends, I guess, on your eyes. I would disagree with your overall sentiments. I think a lot of it depends on the type of finish, wood etc. If you use a film finish you want a flat surface and sanding works well for that. It may have "looked" the same but it certainly doesn't feel the same. And with slight scallops from the hand planing and open pores it catches the light differently. Surfaces have a shimmer. If you bury it under finish then of course you will lose that. For most table tops and tops of guitar tops I would sand or scrape to even things out and to provide tooth for certain finishes or sand finer for certain finishes. To proclaim that sanding is "just as good" does hand planing a disservice and dismisses it without telling the story. Different methods have different uses and validaties. I don't mean this in a snarky way but 1 small table 20 years ago is a small sample size and your first effort. I have seen many, many pieces of furniture displaying beautiful hand planned surfaces that wouldn't look the same sanded. It is not appropriate for all styles or pieces though. One thing hand planning does is it gets through the compression wood caused by machine jointing, planning, and some drum sanders. A lot of time if you just sand you get down to a flat surface you leave some of the wood that is compressed. The rows of compressed wood you see on a lot of mill work is what I am talking about. It will look like it is gone with some sanding but will reappear when the wood gets exposed so some humidity. Raising the grain with a damp cloth is a good idea. When you hand plane you can see and feel when you get past this compression wood. Hand planing is an art but I would say that sanding is as well. I digress. L |
Author: | BobHowell [ Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
Link Van Cleave wrote: BobHowell wrote: Clinchriver wrote: Several reasons I'm wanting to go this direction. Superior gluing surface, a chatoyance/sheen you can't achieve any other way. Not sure if chatoyance adds anything under finish but I'd like to find out. 20 years ago I built a small end table with a walnut top about 24" by 16". I was able to smooth the top with my new hand made wooden plane without any sand paper. I had just read James Krenow's book and made the plane from his plans. It was beautiful but looked the same, when finished, as a similar top sanded down to 600 grit. Ove the years I have turned many bowls and lided boxes on my lathe and sanded up to 1000 and 2000 grit to remove all scratches. Fine sand paper is as good as the plane blade. How fine depends, I guess, on your eyes. I would disagree with your overall sentiments. I think a lot of it depends on the type of finish, wood etc. If you use a film finish you want a flat surface and sanding works well for that. It may have "looked" the same but it certainly doesn't feel the same. And with slight scallops from the hand planing and open pores it catches the light differently. Surfaces have a shimmer. If you bury it under finish then of course you will lose that. For most table tops and tops of guitar tops I would sand or scrape to even things out and to provide tooth for certain finishes or sand finer for certain finishes. To proclaim that sanding is "just as good" does hand planing a disservice and dismisses it without telling the story. Different methods have different uses and validaties. I don't mean this in a snarky way but 1 small table 20 years ago is a small sample size and your first effort. I have seen many, many pieces of furniture displaying beautiful hand planned surfaces that wouldn't look the same sanded. It is not appropriate for all styles or pieces though. One thing hand planning does is it gets through the compression wood caused by machine jointing, planning, and some drum sanders. A lot of time if you just sand you get down to a flat surface you leave some of the wood that is compressed. The rows of compressed wood you see on a lot of mill work is what I am talking about. It will look like it is gone with some sanding but will reappear when the wood gets exposed so some humidity. Raising the grain with a damp cloth is a good idea. When you hand plane you can see and feel when you get past this compression wood. Hand planing is an art but I would say that sanding is as well. I digress. L I only report what I have noticed. No opinion. |
Author: | BobHowell [ Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
I read a book when I first began using a plane, that described in detail how to use one. It stressed how one inadvertently imparts English or spin to the stroke. Good technique is as important as the tool itself. This is why many rustic woodworkers are able to obtain great results with crude tools. Also, working to flatten your plane sole makes limited improvements to your work. A lot has been reported about this in Fine woodworking over the years. I have moved towards wooden planes for many uses. I even made a hybrid by installing a frog in a wooden body. I saw the plans in an old issue of FWW. |
Author: | Link Van Cleave [ Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
Quote: Also, working to flatten your plane sole makes limited improvements to your work. Don't mean to pick on you but you shouldn't make these statements with a broad brush that are completely untrue. If your plane sole is already flat I would agree with you but if it isn't then it needs work, how much depends on how out it is. A flat sole is critical on a jointer plane. For a shorter plane not as critical but if your sole is concave you won't do to well and if convex not so great either. If you have a bump or hump in the sole behind the blade no go. Just to head this off the wave on a Japanese plane is essentially flat, you just have 3 points to bring into plane with each other but once on the wood it is like a flat sole with less resistance. All the technique in the world won't overcome a poorly tuned plane. Quote: I only report what I have noticed. No opinion. Quote: Fine sand paper is as good as the plane blade. Quote: Also, working to flatten your plane sole makes limited improvements to your work. What I have noticed is that those look like opinions to me but it really doesn't matter, IMO you are spreading false information. Sorry to be so blunt but with bad info folks can go down a wrong road and make things hard for themselves. L. |
Author: | AndyB [ Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:19 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
Link, I believe the issue is one of context, with the comments you quoted. And so it is to whole hog call it "false information". Context matters. There are no lack of situations where fine sandpaper is indistinguishable to a planed finish. And maybe in some circumstances, better in certain ways. Then there are circumstances where a planed wood finish is preferred, et cetera. It matters on the circumstance, and then frankly to a level of "who gives a hoot" detail. In the world of craft, my experience has been that people like to hyperfocus on minutiae "this is better than that" discussions. YMMV ... As an example, maybe, I prefer planed finishes for joining tops. Lots of people use sandpaper for this. I prefer the precision of the plane, along with a sense that the glue-up is stronger (no proof on my part) than a sanded surface where fibers can be crushed and pores filled with dust. The aforementioned is conjecture on my part ... and likely navel gazing. Precision doesn't matter until it matters. Hopefully one will find out when it matters to them ![]() Andy |
Author: | Link Van Cleave [ Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
AndyB wrote: Link, I believe the issue is one of context, with the comments you quoted. And so it is to whole hog call it "false information". Context matters. There are no lack of situations where fine sandpaper is indistinguishable to a planed finish. And maybe in some circumstances, better in certain ways. Then there are circumstances where a planed wood finish is preferred, et cetera. It matters on the circumstance, and then frankly to a level of "who gives a hoot" detail. In the world of craft, my experience has been that people like to hyperfocus on minutiae "this is better than that" discussions. YMMV ... As an example, maybe, I prefer planed finishes for joining tops. Lots of people use sandpaper for this. I prefer the precision of the plane, along with a sense that the glue-up is stronger (no proof on my part) than a sanded surface where fibers can be crushed and pores filled with dust. The aforementioned is conjecture on my part ... and likely navel gazing. Precision doesn't matter until it matters. Hopefully one will find out when it matters to them ![]() Andy I believe the issue is misinformation in which context plays a huge role which is why I objected to the statements. In this context it is false information. But then that is the order of the day these days. L. |
Author: | Woodie G [ Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:51 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
Hand tool use is a big part of the experience for me in my current situation, so this discussion has been an interesting one...enough so that I dropped a note to one of the gentlemen in the shop. The response was interesting, and I hope that Mr. Van Cleave and Mr. Howell will forgive my attempt at framing their discussion in the context of how we all bring different competencies and experiences to the craft. Quote: This is a baseline issue - Link's right, but the other guy is too, given the differences in the likely experience baselines re: hand plane use. Link probably knew how to use a plane before he did a couple years with Jim Krenov at College of the Redwoods, which was one of two seriously challenging, hand-tool focused cabinetmaking programs in the country back in the 1970's and early 1980's. The other gent IIRC from your earlier note learned from reading books and trial-and-error. Van Cleave has a couple decades of messing around making a living with hand planes as a custom furniture maker. Not sure about the other guy, but you can see the baseline issue, right? Link's probably dealt with planes like that #3 I had you work up the first month you were in the shop. Remember I made you do the blade and CB first, then try to work a couple different sticks? Recall that you kept setting the blade too shallow to cut, but as soon as you set it just a bit deeper, it took a thick chip and tore everything out. Also recall that once we started leveling the sole, we found a big hollow area in front of the mouth...that hollow is one of those things that you can;t believe can make that much difference until you encounter the problem, but once you do, you get why the toe, the area in front of the blade, and the heel all need to be in the same plane. Link understands the issue because he's had the problem - it's on his list of 'absolutely, positively matters' stuff, while the other gent may not have seen that particular issue...especially with if his baseline does not include vintage Stanleys or wood planes, because most of the modern stuff from LN, LV, or other higher end plane makers comes with that particular problem taken care of with sole that is flat to half a thou.
John says it better - you don't know what you don't know. See you Fr |
Author: | BobHowell [ Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:58 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Smooth Plane |
Link Van Cleave wrote: Quote: Also, working to flatten your plane sole makes limited improvements to your work. Don't mean to pick on you but you shouldn't make these statements with a broad brush that are completely untrue. If your plane sole is already flat I would agree with you but if it isn't then it needs work, how much depends on how out it is. A flat sole is critical on a jointer plane. For a shorter plane not as critical but if your sole is concave you won't do to well and if convex not so great either. If you have a bump or hump in the sole behind the blade no go. Just to head this off the wave on a Japanese plane is essentially flat, you just have 3 points to bring into plane with each other but once on the wood it is like a flat sole with less resistance. All the technique in the world won't overcome a poorly tuned plane. Quote: I only report what I have noticed. No opinion. Quote: Fine sand paper is as good as the plane blade. Quote: Also, working to flatten your plane sole makes limited improvements to your work. What I have noticed is that those look like opinions to me but it really doesn't matter, IMO you are spreading false information. Sorry to be so blunt but with bad info folks can go down a wrong road and make things hard for themselves. L. I chased chatoyance from the hand plane, for a time years ago, and found it illusive. I have worked on it since but still find sandpaper can match a cutting tool. The plane is a very useful tool but with the thin woods involved tareout can ruin you. I use a smoothing plane to obtain the thickness desired and then sand. I hand sand as I have no drum sander. The last top I went up to 320. On the underside I left the surface from the plane. I have however improved my sanding skills, so that I can obtain similar results. The finish used was the same; Watco Danish Oil. I discussed this with professionals at Turning Seminars and found the general opinion was that harder woods required you to go to finer grits. I also spent time grinding my second hand plane soles flat with a grit slurry on a piece of steel. I found they were already flat for my purposes. My time was better spent elsewhere. Articles about Japanese planes and others convinced me I was on the right track. The OP asked what others were doing and I gave my findings. As for disinformation; that is certainly a mater of opinion. The discussion on opinion/ or not, is hard to follow but the experience of others is what we are all after. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |