#5 and #4 not flat or square?

[Jacob Mac]

I was hoping to borrow some knowledge from you guys.

I recently bought some pretty pricey planes from a vendor I do not care to name. Anyway, when I put the planes up against a high quality straight edge, granite surface plate, etc... I can see a lot of light between the sole of the plane and the straight edge and the granite plate. The toe and heel of the plane rest against the plate/straight edge, but there is a lot of bow inbetween. I can slide two pieces of paper between the granite surface plate and the plane. Also, when I use my Incra square, neither the #5 nor the #4 are square.


Am I over reacting/being fussy if I ask for a replacement? I wanted to dedicate the #5 to my shooting board. And the #4 just for general finishing work. Am I way off in asking for an exchange?

[David Weaver]

If they are expensive *new* planes, call the company and seek recourse.

It is totally unacceptable to be remotely close to slipping a piece of paper between what is presumably a new granite plate and a premium plane.

I have seen a bad incra guaranteed (or certified or whatever it is) square, but if the thing is really that out of flat, there's no reason to believe it's square, either.

If, however, these are vintage planes, you're not seeing anything too out of the ordinary. They're rarely dead square or flat, and sometimes they can be way out of flat, or even twisted from wear or movement of the castings.

[Jacob Mac]

Thanks. I used multiple measuring tools I have good reason to believe are accurate. Since they are new, I think I will send them back.

[Matt Evans]

I would recommend a phone call to the company. Most of the good woodworking companies out there today seem to have stellar customer service, whether its a small company or large. (i.e Lee Valley or M. Wenzloff)

The smaller companies may take a little longer to respond, but I have had pretty good luck myself. And, hey, if it were me, I would appreciate a call telling me something wasn't up to par. I hate hearing it, but would rather someone was up front with me and let me know that something was wrong than have a return in the mail.

But. . .That is a huge variance. I would likely send them back myself, after a phone call. Maybe only for an exchange though, if it were a tool I had been eying for a while. . .

[John Powers]

Personally, (and I know little,) this machine shop, zero tolorence stuff applied to woodworking tools leaves me cold. I wouldn't slap a level on a fretboard of a Martin Guitar or an Orvis flyrod or a plane from LN or LV. How's that plane on shaving wood? I have an old Stanley 3, a Ward Master 4, a Stanley 5 and 7 and have never checked any against a straightedge. They level out wood. I don't get this grinding planes to space shuttle tolorences. Just my lame opinion.

[Jacob Mac]

Personally, (and I know little,) this machine shop, zero tolorence stuff applied to woodworking tools leaves me cold. I wouldn't slap a level on a fretboard of a Martin Guitar or an Orvis flyrod or a plane from LN or LV. How's that plane on shaving wood? I have an old Stanley 3, a Ward Master 4, a Stanley 5 and 7 and have never checked any against a straightedge. They level out wood. I don't get this grinding planes to space shuttle tolorences. Just my lame opinion.

Usually I am right there with you. But I bought the #5 for a shooting board. And that was my biggest concern.

[Matt Evans]

Personally, (and I know little,) this machine shop, zero tolorence stuff applied to woodworking tools leaves me cold. I wouldn't slap a level on a fretboard of a Martin Guitar or an Orvis flyrod or a plane from LN or LV. How's that plane on shaving wood? I have an old Stanley 3, a Ward Master 4, a Stanley 5 and 7 and have never checked any against a straightedge. They level out wood. I don't get this grinding planes to space shuttle tolorences. Just my lame opinion.

I don't flatten mine to the "enth" degree either, unless I am selling them, or am setting one up for highly figured wood, but . . .

The shavings I take off the wood are generally 1/3 the thickness of a piece of paper or less. If there is that much variance, you cant reliably get a good surface. Since I joint and surface all my stock by hand these days, its a big deal for me if my jointer is that much out.

My fore planes and scrub planes are a bit off, and I am perfectly content with the way the work. I don't think they are off quite as much as Jacob said his new planes are though.

I guess I am just thinking that while I agree with you, I also think that the tolerances should be a little tighter than the average shaving thickness.

[David Kirtley]

I am not in the flat sole society either. Remember, some Japanese planes that are intentionally hollowed. The mouth, toe, and heel are all that matter. With a shooting board, it matters even less. The mouth is held at a set distance by the edge of the board.

[Sam Takeuchi]

Japanese planes are flat where it counts, comparing that to a plane that's concave along the length is hardly the same thing. If bow is such that you can stick two papers underneath, that's not something you can ignore because that's going to give inconsistent cut at best.

You don't have to be obsessed about flatness, but sole like that is out of usable quality.

[David Weaver]

Personally, (and I know little,) this machine shop, zero tolorence stuff applied to woodworking tools leaves me cold. I wouldn't slap a level on a fretboard of a Martin Guitar or an Orvis flyrod or a plane from LN or LV. How's that plane on shaving wood? I have an old Stanley 3, a Ward Master 4, a Stanley 5 and 7 and have never checked any against a straightedge. They level out wood. I don't get this grinding planes to space shuttle tolorences. Just my lame opinion.

If your planes work well, they are 8 thou hollow in a 9 inch length, especially with the height of the concavity being right at the mouth.

The other issue is that when you buy premium planes, you are paying for that accuracy, so you should expect that you'll get something in the spec for which you're paying.

Concavity in a plane is like high frets above the octave in a martin guitar. It's likely those martin frets if they are off are all off in the same direction. One of the marks of a poorly made guitar is one where there are dead notes when it's new, because someone didn't check the frets or construct it properly. The "custom" guitar that I rail about often came to me like that. Actually, it was a custom guitar, i don't need to put quotes around it, and while not a super high dollar one, still around $3k, and it was immediately apparent nobody checked it because it had high frets on the top three strings from a construction flaw, and you couldn't actually play it - it didn't even buzz out, it was worse than that. The custom maker claimed they would fix the neck joint, and when I got it back, it was apparent all they did was file the crap out of the frets.

Anyway, just like you can't play a guitar with high frets, you can't use a smoother that's 8 thou hollow in the length.

[David Weaver]

Agree with sam, they are dead flat where it matters - at the toe and the mouth. The hollows only exist in areas where it doesn't matter, which is between the bearing surfaces. It's not really necessary to do that to get a japanese plane to perform really well in the days of abrasives and granite surface plates, but safe to say, none are hollow at the mouth.

A similar thing could be done with western planes where a hollow is intentonally made *behind* the mouth, between the mouth and the toe and before the tail of the plane. It does not make for as nice of working western plane, though, especially on pieces shorter than the sole of the plane, which there is notherwise no consequence to in a plane where the whole sole is flat.

The benefit to flat premium planes is that flat is the same thing to every plane. Eventually, if you started at the end of a board with a plane with an 8 thousandth hollow at the mouth, you could get to where it was taking a full cut. The board, however, would not be flat. That may not be the case where the plane was convex 8 thousandth, which in most cases leaves a usable plane, but not quite as nice to use as one with a flat sole.

One of the benefits of going from longer to shorter in western planes is that the surface of the wood doesn't have to be critically flat for the next shorter plane to cut immediately, it just has to be close.

[Robert Rozaieski]

Usually I am right there with you. But I bought the #5 for a shooting board. And that was my biggest concern.

Planes for use on shooting boards don't need to be square. The reference surface is the shooting board and the fence, not the plane. Use the lateral adjustment lever on the plane to make the edge of the iron square to the surface of the shooting board and go to town. It matters not if the plane's sole is square to its sides. Only that the iron is square to the shooting board.

[Sam Takeuchi]

For David's $3k custom guitar, you have the right to rant. No self respecting guitar maker should put his/her name on a guitar with sub-par quality like that.

As a guitar maker, I want to address this:

I wouldn't slap a level on a fretboard of a Martin Guitar

You should. Checking high frets is one thing, also checking correct neck relief makes tremendous difference in how it feels and plays, assuming string height is adjusted right and nut slots are filed properly. Frets wear out, sometimes they come loose from fingerboard due to loose fret slot or wood shrinkage, it's the area which goes through most physical change in a guitar. If any part of the guitar to be thoroughly checked every now and then, it's the neck and frets. If you ever come across vintage acoustic guitars, look closely at the fingerboard (binding if there is one) and frets. You often see edges of frets sticking out from edge of fingerboard, or binding coming loose due to fingerboard shrinking while frets stay original width. New guitars don't go through dramatic change over night, but frets' unwillingness to accommodate fingerboard movement put them under a lot of stress from the day frets are hammered in. So as far as guitar goes, I say check frets few times a year at least.

Even if it was brand new, I wouldn't trust factory setup to suit you or me. Even the most expensive Martin guitar (the one that's not custom made for you) leaves factory with the anticipation of final setup by the player. No matter how expensive guitar is, you should check for buzzing and pitch. Incidentally straight edge can pin point high and/or low frets if there is one right away.

[David Weaver]

. Incidentally straight edge can pin point high and/or low frets if there is one right away.

The following is probably only for the few people who like guitars, and doesn't relate to the topic. I thought about not posting, but I figure george will be either entertained or appalled since I know he would never make a guitar like this, and it follow's sams discussion of finding high frets with a straight edge.

A starrett edge was extremely telling on mine, and it reaveled something rotten - the high side of the fingerboard had a huge dip in it at the dovetail joint to the body - one that you could see with the naked eye looking down the neck. The dovetail joint was off (twisted) and the neck is slightly below the body on the high side (some genius at the maker's shop glued it up anyway). The maker either didn't check it or got lazy and clamped a fingerboard onto it, anyway, which left the fingerboard higher past the neck joint. This creates obvious and immediate problems.

I'm not above sanding a fret that's a bit proud of the others, but this was a much larger problem and I was hoping to preserve the ability to dump the guitar at a later date after all the trouble I had. I called the maker and told them that it was completely dead on the high strings as soon as you fretted a note several frets up the nut, and explained why, and they said "oh, we can fix that easily, you'll never know there was a repair and it'll be perfect" (this had already been a relations fiasco with the maker just getting the guitar). I got it back really quickly, and it was clear that they had just sanded the frets *very* hard past the neck joint. I could've done that myself. It's a shame because the guitar has sparkling tone and a big sound on the lower frets, but it isn't consistent all the way up the neck.

It doesn't intonate, either, so you couldn't record anything with it, anyway.

I have had three other (still have two) off-the-rack instruments from the same maker, and they are all very good, but none is a guitar.

That's a long way of saying, you don't have to worry about checking a
martin with a straight edge, because someone at the factory already did.

Should've broke out the extra bucks and commissioned a george wilson guitar! Next guitar I bought off the rack was a bourgeois. It is relatively plain and made with a level of fit and finish that boggles my brain. Very valuable lesson, especially to anyone here with deep pockets who is just picking up the guitar. There is a reason why pricing is different on guitars that appear to be the same spec (irrespective of "signature" models and all of that kind of nonsense, those are a separate issues).

[David Kirtley]

Japanese planes are flat where it counts, comparing that to a plane that's concave along the length is hardly the same thing. If bow is such that you can stick two papers underneath, that's not something you can ignore because that's going to give inconsistent cut at best.

You don't have to be obsessed about flatness, but sole like that is out of usable quality.

Yes ,I am talking about the hollows between toe and mouth and between mouth and heel that are specifically scraped away with a dainaoshi ganna to relieve the friction of the sole. It is basically a scraper plane that is used perpendicular to the length of the plane. It also might be called tachi ganna.

Not to be confused with a shaped sole plane such as a hollow or round plane or a compass plane.