Economics of planemaking in the 19th century

[george wilson]

This thread has gotten bizarre,starting with post #23. I think I am not getting enough sleep,because I still can't make much sense of the analogies in post #23.

Speaking of manufacturing speeding up in the 19th.C.,even during the Civil War period,musket barrels were very quickly welded up from flat "skelps". Formerly like in the Gunsmith's Shop in Wmsbg.,the kelps of wrought iron were hand hammered in short steps around a tapered mandrel. About 2" was welded up. Then the mandrel was knocked out,the next section was hammered together,mandrel re inserted,and 2 more inches welded,etc. By the mid 1800's,flat skelps were run back and forth at high heat through powered rollers with progressively tighter "U" shapes cut into them. When the skelp turned into a tube that was very nearly shut,the whole tube was brought to welding heat(with flux added),and run through the final roller which brought the tube forcefully together,welding it.

I'm not sure how these developments affected making plane irons,but the Butcher planes I have had were forged to a thick,square,integral "nut"in the center of the cap iron. This might have been done in a forging die,but the cap irons were always subsequently filed or otherwise brought to a bright,and pretty well finished state. In any case,it still cost more in time and material costs to make this cap iron and the screw,and to slot the plane iron itself. Many other cap irons have the peened in brass,threaded insert added separately,as well as some separately added steel ones,though I far more commonly see the brass ones (lower friction). This eliminated the cost of the forging die,I suppose,and likely made polishing the cap iron bright faster,since it was a flattish surface before the nut was installed.

[george wilson]

I think the high cost of wood back then had largely to do with how far they had to HAUL it. Around here in the 18th.C.,trees were pretty limited because everyone needed them for firewood and for charcoal. Trees for miles around here were cut down. There are said to be more deer around here than there were in the 18th.C.. I believe it,if they had no forest.

Hauling lumber back then was slow,hard on horses and wagons(no ball bearings,wheels had to be rebuilt frequently),and time consuming. If possible,water was used to transport it. It was still a long,slow process.

The wood had to be sawn up,too. That meant more labor until later on when saw mills began to be used. The English were very slow to adopt them because the workers vigorously protected their work. Sawmills were erected in Swtizerland hundreds of years before the English would allow them. Workers would riot and burn down equipment they felt was taking away their lively hoods.

Needle grinders were paid extra,because they died younger because of "pointer's rot",from inhaling dust. When a scientist affixed lodestones to a grinder as a cure,they rejected the idea. They wanted the extra pay for hazardous work.

[Michael Ray Smith]

Thanks for sharing, George. Fascinating! I appreciate every opportunity to be educated by the masters!

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

That's always what I've heard about the forests here in Vermont too - that we've actually got more trees now than we have had any time since colonization. I remember like 5 years ago hearing the forest coverage in the state actually declined for the first time ever since the peak of mid-1800's land-clearing. About the only really old-growth trees we have are the occasional "wolf tree"

[george wilson]

Seems amazing,but when you consider that earlier people depended upon wood for heating,most houses,especially charcoal for forges,and all the other uses they had for wood,it isn't so surprising. Even during the Civil War period,charcoal burners (makers) used up a great deal of timber.

Today we have nice shade trees lining the streets of Williamsburg. Back then,they did not allow these trees in town. They wanted the town to look like a CITY,not an outpost. The place looked a lot different back then.

There was a huge garbage pile at the front end of what is now the Palace Green,next to the Geddy house. People for some stupid reason threw their trash into the stream that goes across the town. It has proven to be a rich source of artifacts. Lots of tools,bits and pieces of furniture,and other things have been taken out of the stream,just past the cabinet shop,which it runs under. People also filled up old wells with garbage. It's a wonder that disease didn't kill everyone off. Why were people so stupid as to mess up their water supplies? There were outhouses everywhere,and lots of flies and mosquitos. People up in New England lived longer-cooler climate,less bugs. The main street was said to be 40 feet wide and 2 feet deep with horse and animal leavings. Hogs,chickens and pigs wandered all over town. Those pretty little fences were there because it was considered YOUR duty to keep animals off your property. Exactly the opposite,now!!

A dead horse was excavated just outside the cabinet shop. It had been shot,apparently from the rear during the Civil War,fell down the little hill,and was just allowed to stay there!! A deer was killed next to the highway in front of my house,a few hundred feet away from the house. I had to argue with the highway people that it was on their right of way. It took 4 days to get them here,and I can tell you,in that short time,the smell was getting REALLY ALARMING. Imagine a horse just outside your shop,and you working in there with the windows open in the Summer.

Even in the very early days,wood was exported back to England. There is a large Elizabethan building in London that is fitted out with cedar from America. They needed ballast after unloading cargo,and trees were available in the early settlement times. Walter Raleigh commented on the "Sweet timber"(the cedars) he saw in North Carolina.

All this is from things I learned 40 years ago,so I hope it is mostly still accurate!!

This is getting away from plane making,but it points out that wood had to be hauled a long way,at least.

[Adam Cherubini]

The John Head account book from early 18th c Philadelphia indicates Head paid to have timber hauled to the sawyers, and boards brought back to Head in Philadelphia. I suspect this was done via the Delaware. Don't recall the exact cost, but it was not too terribly considerable. The price/cost of lumber (at least in the Head account) was the cost of sawing.

[george wilson]

True,Adam,sawing was done by hand. But,you still had to pay those men who spent their time,wagons,horses and ships hauling timber. Everything cost more back then,in relative terms.

When men went into jungles with oxen to get mahogany,I've read that they might lose 50% of their number to malaria and other causes(It HAS been a long time since I studied these things). Then they spent a lot more time sailing slowly and rather perilously to the customers.

Probably the cost of hauling depended upon where you were,and how much timber was being hauled there. Philly was a large center. The English regarded American sawn wood as inferior since it wasn't as skillfully sawn. Likely made a big difference when you had to hand plane it to accuracy.

Like I said,it has been many years since I studied some of these things,and my memory isn't always the best at 73,about things that don't directly involve making things. Making things is much more deeply ingrained in my head because I still do that.

[Larry Williams]

Larry,do you make your own irons? Is the reason you offer single iron planes because you can't find anyone to make double iron plane irons economically,and therefore feel you must push the value of the single iron system? ...

That's pretty insulting. I assure you we have the tools and skills to make double irons if we want. We don't care to go that way.

The supply chain costs are a lot more relevant than labor costs per plane by early makers. Today's makers have a very different market. Most wooden planes of the past were sold unsharpened and with no finish on the wood. That wouldn't fly today. The finish has to be near perfect and the planes have to be finely tuned. Anyone who's actually fine tuned a wooden plane knows it can't be done without a sharp iron.

[Larry Williams]

Thanks a lot for the wonderfull catalog scans. Are these a little later? The earlier catalogs didn't contain pictures....About the inventory costs and the never ending spiral down to cheaper and lesser. I hear you Larry. But in the catalogs from the 19th century I still see a bewildering assortment of planes. Different kinds of irons, beech or apple, several levels of trim, double or single iron. I don't see anyone making an effort to save on inventory costs.

The Greenfield catalog is from 1872, the Ohio Tool catalog is from 1910 and the Sandusky catalog from 1925. The Greenfield is interesting because it dates from near the competitive peak of the larger American wooden plane makers. The Sandusky catalog seems to be the last catalog from the last of the American makers. Greenfield seems to have been competing by offering variety while some makers were going for cheap prison labor.

If you doubt the effectiveness of steeper pitches all you have to do is look at the recent market for low angle bevel-up planes. Even with their significant clearance angle issues they've done very well. It's surprising to me how few people seem to understand clearance angles, what’s going on in the wood during the cut, and why it’s important to understand it all. The reality is that there’s no artifactual or textual evidence the blunting of cap irons and the extremely close setting was ever trade practice in Anglo/American woodworking. It wasn’t lost, it wasn’t done.

[David Weaver]

Larry, have you not been reading anything in the last year? I can't speak to the preparation of the cap iron as trade practice, but there are plenty of text examples describing the use of the second iron for controlling tearout. How do you think they did it, do you think they set the cap iron far away? if the effective angle of the cap iron was 40 or 45 degrees stock, it still would've buried a single iron plane with pitch anywhere close, and in the hands of a skilled user it will bury a plane with a 55 degree iron when set at common pitch. And just like a current inexpensive bench plane, it works well on everything, from soft woods to tropicals.

The simple fact is that double iron planes took over, and it wasn't a blunder or some misstep that they did. It is because in function they are superior to any single iron plane, and in the case of a user who wants to learn to use them correctly, superior to any pair of single iron planes.

[Adam Cherubini]

George, you've forgotten more about woodworking and craftsmanship than I'll ever know. You make more stuff and nicer stuff at 73 than I do at 49.

Adam

[Charlie Stanford]

The Greenfield catalog is from 1872, the Ohio Tool catalog is from 1910 and the Sandusky catalog from 1925. The Greenfield is interesting because it dates from near the competitive peak of the larger American wooden plane makers. The Sandusky catalog seems to be the last catalog from the last of the American makers. Greenfield seems to have been competing by offering variety while some makers were going for cheap prison labor.

If you doubt the effectiveness of steeper pitches all you have to do is look at the recent market for low angle bevel-up planes. Even with their significant clearance angle issues they've done very well. It's surprising to me how few people seem to understand clearance angles, what’s going on in the wood during the cut, and why it’s important to understand it all. The reality is that there’s no artifactual or textual evidence the blunting of cap irons and the extremely close setting was ever trade practice in Anglo/American woodworking. It wasn’t lost, it wasn’t done.

Every woodworking book I own written by a Brit from the late 1800s through the Alan Peters edited edition of Joyce's Encyclopedia from the late 1980s mentions extremely close cap iron settings to control tearout. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

[Charlie Stanford]

George, you've forgotten more about woodworking and craftsmanship than I'll ever know. You make more stuff and nicer stuff at 73 than I do at 49.

Adam

Hear, Hear. Based on the photos I've seen George produced world-class wooden planes and their irons all in a day's work. In between building musical instruments. For $hits and giggles.

[Kees Heiden]

I think nobody doubts the usefullness of steeper pitches. In molding planes the middle and half pitch are as relevant as ever! When we translate all this to today, a lot of people choosed to dump their trusty Stanley #4 in dispair and bought a bevel up plane instead. It's a godsend for these people that they can now easilly learn how to use their double iron plane to its fullest potential. Saves a bunch of cash beter used for buying wood, or tools you really need.

About knowing how to use the double iron, there are plenty of accounts from the 19th and 20th century about how to use it. When you don't find info about the obtused front end of the chipbreaker, it's possibly because in daily practice it seems not to be so neccessary. The standard Stanley chipbreaker works well enough.

The oldest account we could find is in Salivet. http://books.google.nl/books?id=Ksk9...page&q&f=false
A crude translatoin in English:

When walnut is reversed as the workers say, or wavy, it must be worked with a toothing plane, an end plane, or a plane with two irons. The toothing plane is something other than an ordinary plane, in which there is an iron, the back of which has an infinite number of grooves. It sharpens like any other iron, and it produces small curly shavings. This method is excellent for all cases where you want to glue or map onto strong wood, thin pieces of precious wood. The end plane is a tool with an iron inclined to less than the ordinary inclination of forty five degrees. Finally, the plane with two irons, the invention of which is not very old, that it appears we owe to the Germans, is something other than a tool, in which is placed two irons, lying back to back, the one as the other with opposing bevels. But then the iron is inclined in the usual manner. The iron below being very inclined, consuming wood as in all common bench planes; but as in this case it throws many chips from the shaving location of the mouth, following this inclination. The bevel of the top iron, turns up the field of the shaving, and forces it to leave the inclination that it began. But it is not that the two bevels merge into a straight line; the lower must extend a little more, & the less it exceeds the second, the less it will make chips. To the point where you are able to plane the united oak branches, the same almost still green, and this is the highest test, since there is no work as difficult to plane as log timber. We hope that our readers will forgive us this discretion which is no more appropriate with walnut than any other wood.


Salivet also has a picture of a chipbreaker with a very obtuse frontend.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=hhY1...page&q&f=false
But of course, he is just a Frenchman

I showed you the picture of the blunt chipbreaker in the german text from 1934:
http://www.holzwerken.de/werkzeug/hobel.phtml

The japanes seem to have accepted the chipbreaker reluctantly. It doesn't realy fit in with their ideal of a perfect plane, and it is a western invention, making it even more suspect. But they did find it just too damned usefull to let it go. Chris Hall describes in his blog how the chipbreaker is being obtused. In the comments section you find a discussion about the exact shape and level of polish, but none of these Japanese plane veterans denies the tradition of blunting the edge.
http://thecarpentryway.blogspot.nl/2...-block-iv.html

When you look to the English writers, they indeed don't directly mention the blunting of the chipbreaker edge. Nicholson writes that the front edge is "rounded". Of course the degree of roundness isn't mentioned, at least not as flat as a Lie Nielsen capiron.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=v3YO...page&q&f=false

Holtzapffel describes the front edge to put a near vertical wall in the shavings path. That means a close to 45 degree front edge when used in a 45 degree plane. In fact that is just like the Stanley chipbreaker, which is good enough in most kinds of woods. Holtzapffel clearly didn't see the Kato video! Otherwise he would have used the chipbreaker closer to the edge then 1/50"! I don't know if he could really meassure that kind of distances with any kind of accuracy. It's difficult enough with my vernier calipers, destroying the edge in the process. BTW. Hotzappfel does describe the use of steeper pitched smoothing planes further in the text for curly wood. It doesn't say if these smoothers were equiped with or without chipbreaker. He also mentioned the bevel up miter plane. He is very complete in his description of the full range of planes to mittigate tearout. The double iron is described on pahe 480:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=rVBI...20iron&f=false

All the later English woodworking books describe the setting of the chipbreaker as "a hair from the edge" or "as close as possible". Charly Stanford mentioned some of these books in the other thread a week ago. I don't really want to wade through that one again.

To be sure, I think you make great planes. Everyone who works with them is full of praise (just a pitty you don't sell them anymore). That doesn't mean it's the only way to plane difficult types of wood of course.

And another point, I still don't see the burnishing effect when planing, despite testing all kinds of configurations on different types of wood, last week. With a bevel angle of almost 45 degrees I do see some polish, but it is still not quite what a real burnishing looks like. I think we can safely assume that with a decent clearance angle of 15 degrees there is no burnishing effect at all, until the blade is totally worn out, with or without chipbreaker.


Ps: And here is another admirer of George's work.

[Charlie Stanford]

I think nobody doubts the usefullness of steeper pitches. In molding planes the middle and half pitch are as relevant as ever! When we translate all this to today, a lot of people choosed to dump their trusty Stanley #4 in dispair and bought a bevel up plane instead. It's a godsend for these people that they can now easilly learn how to use their double iron plane to its fullest potential. Saves a bunch of cash beter used for buying wood, or tools you really need.

About knowing how to use the double iron, there are plenty of accounts from the 19th and 20th century about how to use it. When you don't find info about the obtused front end of the chipbreaker, it's possibly because in daily practice it seems not to be so neccessary. The standard Stanley chipbreaker works well enough.

The oldest account we could find is in Salivet. http://books.google.nl/books?id=Ksk9...page&q&f=false
A crude translatoin in English:

When walnut is reversed as the workers say, or wavy, it must be worked with a toothing plane, an end plane, or a plane with two irons. The toothing plane is something other than an ordinary plane, in which there is an iron, the back of which has an infinite number of grooves. It sharpens like any other iron, and it produces small curly shavings. This method is excellent for all cases where you want to glue or map onto strong wood, thin pieces of precious wood. The end plane is a tool with an iron inclined to less than the ordinary inclination of forty five degrees. Finally, the plane with two irons, the invention of which is not very old, that it appears we owe to the Germans, is something other than a tool, in which is placed two irons, lying back to back, the one as the other with opposing bevels. But then the iron is inclined in the usual manner. The iron below being very inclined, consuming wood as in all common bench planes; but as in this case it throws many chips from the shaving location of the mouth, following this inclination. The bevel of the top iron, turns up the field of the shaving, and forces it to leave the inclination that it began. But it is not that the two bevels merge into a straight line; the lower must extend a little more, & the less it exceeds the second, the less it will make chips. To the point where you are able to plane the united oak branches, the same almost still green, and this is the highest test, since there is no work as difficult to plane as log timber. We hope that our readers will forgive us this discretion which is no more appropriate with walnut than any other wood.


Salivet also has a picture of a chipbreaker with a very obtuse frontend.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=hhY1...page&q&f=false
But of course, he is just a Frenchman

I showed you the picture of the blunt chipbreaker in the german text from 1934:
http://www.holzwerken.de/werkzeug/hobel.phtml

The japanes seem to have accepted the chipbreaker reluctantly. It doesn't realy fit in with their ideal of a perfect plane, and it is a western invention, making it even more suspect. But they did find it just too damned usefull to let it go. Chris Hall describes in his blog how the chipbreaker is being obtused. In the comments section you find a discussion about the exact shape and level of polish, but none of these Japanese plane veterans denies the tradition of blunting the edge.
http://thecarpentryway.blogspot.nl/2...-block-iv.html

When you look to the English writers, they indeed don't directly mention the blunting of the chipbreaker edge. Nicholson writes that the front edge is "rounded". Of course the degree of roundness isn't mentioned, at least not as flat as a Lie Nielsen capiron.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=v3YO...page&q&f=false

Holtzapffel describes the front edge to put a near vertical wall in the shavings path. That means a close to 45 degree front edge when used in a 45 degree plane. In fact that is just like the Stanley chipbreaker, which is good enough in most kinds of woods. Holtzapffel clearly didn't see the Kato video! Otherwise he would have used the chipbreaker closer to the edge then 1/50"! I don't know if he could really meassure that kind of distances with any kind of accuracy. It's difficult enough with my vernier calipers, destroying the edge in the process. BTW. Hotzappfel does describe the use of steeper pitched smoothing planes further in the text for curly wood. It doesn't say if these smoothers were equiped with or without chipbreaker. He also mentioned the bevel up miter plane. He is very complete in his description of the full range of planes to mittigate tearout. The double iron is described on pahe 480:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=rVBI...20iron&f=false

All the later English woodworking books describe the setting of the chipbreaker as "a hair from the edge" or "as close as possible". Charly Stanford mentioned some of these books in the other thread a week ago. I don't really want to wade through that one again.

To be sure, I think you make great planes. Everyone who works with them is full of praise (just a pitty you don't sell them anymore). That doesn't mean it's the only way to plane difficult types of wood of course.

And another point, I still don't see the burnishing effect when planing, despite testing all kinds of configurations on different types of wood, last week. With a bevel angle of almost 45 degrees I do see some polish, but it is still not quite what a real burnishing looks like. I think we can safely assume that with a decent clearance angle of 15 degrees there is no burnishing effect at all, until the blade is totally worn out, with or without chipbreaker.


Ps: And here is another admirer of George's work.

Nice recap.

As to burnishing and burnishing effect, this fellow is purposely using a cornstraw burnisher on a very nicely made component with a mitered breadboard (towards the end of the photo essay):

http://maxwells.smugmug.com/photos/s...lbumKey=rSWtPW