Member
As has been mentioned it is helpful to create a slight hollow (concavity) by planing only the "center 2/3's" of the board -- that is start partway in the board and then lift the plane up before you get to the end for several strokes. Then plane full length only until you get a full length shaving.
[OP]
Guest
Thanks Sean and Danny and everyone. I looked at my boards again and I have a mix of humps and dips. I think I have done nothing more than just work down what was there, but these tips are great.
Funny thing is you guys are getting to me. I can use my neighbors jointer, but the idea of all that noise and dust just isn't appealing - not at all - and it used to be. I don't do this for a living so I can afford the time, but I also want to have actual skills. There are so many tools that you can buy that just do things for you, but having tools that work well, but also require technique reminds me of playing an instrument, something I do and have worked at for many years. Is this part of the slippery slope?
Member
Adam et al,
It is true that Peter Nicholson, in the section entitled "To make a straight edge" (page 134, _Mechanic's Companion_, 1832 edition) describes placing two boards together in the vise and planing both edges together. So the concept of "match planing" was known, and apparently practiced in the late-18th/early-19th centuries. And this section, alone, could even be interpreted as suggesting that match planing was the standard trade practice.
But, he clearly qualifies the circumstances under which "match planing" was practiced just three pages later. He begins a short section, entitled "To join two Boards together" (page 137) with: "Shoot the edge of each board first, or if they are very thin, they may be shot together ... ." Then, in the next section, entitled "To join any number of Boards, edge to edge, with glue, so as to form one Board," the method clearly is premised on shooting one edge at a time.
My take on this is that Nicholson saw match planing as useful when the boards being joined were "very thin." Meaning, I think, when they were so thin that it becomes difficult to predictably register the plane on a single edge. (A situation where I still prefer the use of a shooting board.) Otherwise, when describing edge gluing, Nicholson specifically discusses shooting one edge at a time.
When I first heard/read about match planing, probably 25+ years ago, it seemed like a neat dodge so I decided to give it a try. Very quickly, though, in fiddling around to get the boards lined up in the vise, dealing with doubling of lengthwise deviations, etc., I abandoned it as too finicky and time consuming. The problem was that I had come to it with a bias. By the time I tried match planing, I had already been successfully and regularly shooting edges for edge joining, for several years - one edge at a time. Yes, it had taken some concentrated effort in the beginning, but the process had quickly become relatively routine. In light of that, I quickly came to feel that match planing held no advantage for me.
In light of that experience, I often wondered about the seeming popularity of the method. I could see how people might be drawn to it, initially, but was truly puzzled as to why so many came to a different conclusion. And, it was only during discussions such as this, on the internet, that I began to be aware of one underlying explanation. As part of my "apprenticeship" in cabinetmaking, the ability to shoot individual edges straight, AND square to a reference face, was treated as one of the very basic trade skills. And, through the afore-mentioned early concentrated effort and repeated experience, that acquired skill had become second nature, and I had been taking it as a matter of course that others could/had learned it as well. It finally dawned on me that the continuing appeal of match planing may be that it side-steps having to learn this basic skill and appears to hold out the promise of never having to do so.
Let me be clear. I understand that match planing does work. And, obviously, each person should feel free to use the method if that is what works best for them. But, I'm concerned about the message sent and received if its advocacy and adoption is on the basis of the fear of learning a simple basic skill.
It might be argued that it's not a necessary skill to learn. And, in the context of edge jointing, that may even have some merit. But what does one do when faced with getting out cabinet door parts? An out of straight and/or square stile, especially, can throw the whole door into wind (twist). Or when the shot edge is going to be a reference edge for constructing a carcass containing drawers? In these instances, any initial deviation from a true edge can have cascading consequences which pretty much guarantee a lot of frustration and wasted effort/time down the road. So I firmly believe there is a great deal to be gained from learning this skill. (In fact, when one online "expert" woodworker characterized this basic technique as undertaking "a fool's errand," I took it as evidence that he lacked proficiency in the most basic of hand woodworking skills.)
A jointing fence might help with keeping the edges square, but it locks you into planing in only one direction unless you're going to go to the bother of seeing that both faces of a board are true and parallel. Again, learning to shoot edges straight and square is not rocket science, and that skill allows you much more freedom in how you work any given piece of material. And, in support of that, I believe that the basic trade methods for this were developed so that anyone with even average motor skills can acquire it. It's not rocket science.
As to whether Peter Nicholson represents 18th century trade techniques, yes I do believe that to be the case, at least in general. As far as I've been able to ascertain, he was born in 1765, served a four year apprenticeship in cabinetmaking (furniture-making) beginning in the late 1770's, then worked for a time, as a journeyman cabinetmaker, in Edinburgh and London. It seems his active period in the trade likely ended in the early 1790's. I think it highly likely that his "time in the trade," during the fourth quarter of the 18th century, greatly informed most of what he later wrote concerning specific woodworking techniques, &c.
Regarding the Seaton chest essentially representing a 19th century kit of tools, I think such a statement is unnecessarily confusing and misleading. For starters, as is widely known, the tools were acquired from Gabriel in the 1790's, so were clearly manufactured in the 18th century. Now, it is true that the form of many/most of the tools underwent changes during the 18th (and 19th) century (and not always for the better), and late 18th century tools more closely resembled early 19th century tools than early 18th century examples. But that doesn't mean that late 18th century tools were essentially 19th century tools. If anything, it might make more sense to characterize early 19th century tools as essentially representative of (late) 18th century tools.
As I've already indicated, it's unnecessary to get into this quagmire of semantics. If one is collecting tools of a given (earlier) period and/or representing one in a living history situation, then all that would be necessary would be to say that the Seaton tools aren't representative of those in use in the second quarter of the 18th century (as just one example). Or to simply say that they are representative of late 18th century tools. That seems more straight-forward and accurate to me.
Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
Member
Don - Your thoughts are appreciated. Certainly by me, who has the dual goal of doing things by hand by the most efficient means possible in the modern shop, but also is very interested in duplicating so far as is possible what was done to build most of the pieces of furniture that I'm interested in reproducing.
I'm going to suggest a couple of things - since you've done the work of looking this up in Nicholson and writing a lengthy commentary on what you found, I suggest that you preserve what you've written as an "essay" or "historic method editorial" on the C&W website. I'm also going to suggest to Zahid that this thread be included in the Neander FAQ under the "skills" section. I suspect newbies starting out with converting over to hand methods that they formerly performed by machine might be very interested.
Member
Thank you Don for your very well thought out and elegantly written response (as usual).
I think the most important thing to take away from this entire thread is that, as in most things, there are multiple ways to "skin a cat" as they say, and often, different methods are more appropriate in different situations.
Since I was the original one to post/suggest the match planing method to the OP, let me clarify my position by saying that, yes, I do use match planing. However, I use it only when it is appropriate to do so, and when it will save ME time in situations where I know that a perfectly square edge is unnecessary.
However, I also shoot boards straight and square when the situation calls for it and I need those references for future steps in the process, such as a face frame, door, drawer, case side, etc. I think both methods have their place in the appropriate circumstances.
I do absolutely agree, however, that learning to shoot straight and square boards is a basic necessary skill and that match planing will in no way enable one to sidestep learning this necessary skill. It is a skill that is absolutely needed for far too many other situations. And as you and Larry so elegantly pointed out, when your stock is too wide for match planing to work, there is no other choice in the matter but to shoot each edge straight and square individually.
Contributor
Light your way!
Edge joining 7' boards for a bench top the wood was 2 & 1/2 inches thick or a bit more. I put the board on it's edge and using a straightedge look for bumps. I remove the bumps with a smoothing plane as it does a better job. After that I move to a jack plane then the jointer plane. I then work on the next edge the same way. I mate the edges vertically with a flood light behind them. The gaps shine through! I then work on the high spots with the jointer plane two shavings at a time then 1 shaving at a time until virtual blackout along the whole joint. Turn the joint around in front of the light to check. On boards this thick and heavy (black walnut) I don't try for the tiny concave along the length because they don't bend!
It takes a while but you get there. The flood light is double heads 2x1000W halogen set a foot from the joint at the same height not some flashlight. With this method the gap errors scream at you making adjustments more precise. You can literally see what you are doing!
Moderator
William, this thread is about 7.5 years old... I'm curious if the OP ever learned.
Member
Yeah, this might be a new record for necro-posting. But I'm happy to see this thread at the top again; it gives me the opportunity to point to Don McConnell's post (#33). If I had a list of the top 10 posts on SMC ever, this would surely be near the top. Not only for the specifics of edge jointing, but also for the larger lesson about the importance of learning foundational techniques rather than relying on methods that might be easier for beginners but ultimately inhibit the development of real skills. It's well worth a read.Originally Posted by Prashun Patel
"For me, chairs and chairmaking are a means to an end. My real goal is to spend my days in a quiet, dustless shop doing hand work on an object that is beautiful, useful and fun to make." --Peter Galbert
Member
At the risk of sounding like a dumb a$$, is the jointer fence a value? Don't have one, and use the #7 often, but would like to refine my technique. I have seen many diverse opinions. What say you?
Bill
On the other hand, I still have five fingers.
Contributor
Surely it must work for some or it would have been another idea resigned to the dustbin of history.
For me it is easy to use a square to check my edge and adjust my planing to compensate anything found out of square.
This has just given me an idea, for the dustbin of history. Why not install a high powered gyroscope on a hand plane with a level for reference. Once the plane is properly oriented the gyroscope could be powered up and voila, a perfectly square edge.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Member
I find them useful, but as I've mentioned in the past, I have almost no feeling in my right hand. It makes it hard to orient a plane accurately without an aid when trying to get a square edge. I suspect most other folks can do it with practice.
Paul
Member
You mean like this?
The only real catch is that they cost thousands of dollars. That, and the ergonomics might be a little challenging.
They're terrific if you're shooting aerial photo/video though.
Contributor
Might be good for shooting the edge of a plank.They're terrific if you're shooting aerial photo/video though.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Member
I've always felt that the jointer fence is more for planing an angle or bevel on an edge than for jointing a square edge. It is a whole lot harder to accurately plane a 22.5 degree bevel than a square edge.
Probably someone else will feel differently.
Contributor
It isn't that hard to hit an angle if the piece is marked and then care is taken to hit the marks. If one is doing a lot of pieces to make an hexagon, an octagon or some other type of multisided affair then it might be best to rig up a shooting board.
If one is making a french cleat, the two pieces can be clamped together and worked. Then it doesn't matter if the angle is exact as long as they're matched.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote