Economics of planemaking in the 19th century

[Dave Anderson NH]

While this thread has not yet become uncivil, the antagonistic tones are right on the border.

As in all threads on SMC disagreement and controversy is both allowed and encouraged as long as it generates light and the level of heat is kept moderate. Those not interested in the minutae and the discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are invited to avoid revisiting those types of threads. SMC does and will not censor folks about content with the following exceptions:

1. Profanity, sexual inuendo, implied profanity.
2. Accusations against sellers, makers, or others UNSUPPORTED by factual information
3. Unauthorized use of copywrited material (piracy)
4. Personal attacks against anyone

For a full explanation of prohibited behavior refer to the TOS (Terms of Service) located on the lower right hand corner of each page of this website.

[Hovey Moore]

First I want to say that I meant no personal attack against anyone, I'm all for discussing chip breakers or most anything else tool related. There have been quite a few good points made my many people.

So here are my thoughts on the subject: Yes they do work IF placed very close to the edge (~0.004"), farther back and I think they produce a negligible effect. Others have confirmed this by testing, watch the video if you haven't yet. There are plenty of other ways to handle tear out though such as: a tighter mouth, lighter cuts, toothed irons, scraping, higher angled irons, wetting the grain, and sanding. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. Pick one that works for you. Chip breakers also don't work terribly well with cambered irons unless you grind the iron to match the profile. Easy enough to do if one is so inclined. They can also can cause the mouth to clog, have shavings get underneath, slip, and annoy one in a host of possible, but preventable ways.

Personally, I don't use them much anymore as I cant hold a #4 Stanley for any length of time do to a combination or large hands and an injury. I had to go bevel up planes just so I could grip a hand plane as my hand needs the extra clearance. But I do still have a #3 (sentimental reasons), a #6, and #27 (used more like a scrub) that have chip breakers. As course tools with lots of camber I really don't see a point to a double iron on them. Actually, the 27 is set so course it would definitely be a lot better without a double iron. On a smoothing plane, yes, there is some point. For the rest of my planes, I don't miss the extra step of removing it before sharpening. I don't miss having to adjust a chip breaker close to the cutting edge after I sharpen. And I don't miss the rare oops moment when it slides past the edge and dulls a blade. And I haven't missed it when planing curly maple or any other wood.

And all of this was taught to me back in the 80's long before this or any other web site existed. All common knowledge at one point in the not so distant past.

[Kees Heiden]

Hovey this is funny. Did you read my last post about the lawsuit in 1833? You have the same name, but yours is the first name and William Hovey used it as a last name.
Is this a very usual name in the US?

BTW, don't forget, you can set the chipbreaker TOO close to the edge. 0.004 is in most cases too close. Planing becomes difficult, very hard pushing. I get much better results at 8 to 12 tou. Planing is suddenly a lot lighter, and the chipbreaker is still in full effective range. Especially when you blunt the front end of the chipbreaker a bit. Of course, I am stupid enough to actually meassure the distance sometimes for posterities sake. Most people just eyeball it.

David explained how it also works for lightly cambered blades. It's an ideal technique for a jointer to prevent accidental deep tearout.

And not to forget, be happy with your other planes and have fun.

[David Weaver]

It's not a common name here, but gotta give Hovey credit on the coincidence given his registration date.

The BU planes are very nice, the new crop of them that is. They're nearly indestructible and very smooth.

I've never measured the distance on my planes, but I would guess they're in the range that Kees states, maybe on the short side of it. There's no great reason to measure, though, you can tell by the resistance to planing if the cap iron is too close, and by the complete lack of work on a thick chip if it's too far away. I've got no clue what the effective angle on a stanley chipbreaker is, but whatever it is, it works well.

[Hovey Moore]

Yes I have been following along and I was aware of the similar names, also William is my middle name to further the strangeness. Hovey is an English surname, but its actually of Scandinavian origin (not all of them were Viking raiders and some of them settled in England). However, Hovey is a very uncommon first name. Not really sure why I got that name, but maybe my parents were drunk and got confused? Just kidding, they don't drink. I really have no idea.

I would never recommend buying an older BU plane. If you are really a collector you would know all about them already, and if not then don't buy one. They cost as much as a modern LV or LN and weren't made as well. This is one case where modern materials and construction are superior to the old iron. Not sure I would say indestructible as the handles are still made of wood...maybe if we can get Rob Lee to try out a new composite handle on the next production run.

I should have clarified my gap preference a little, for a smoother taking very thin shavings, I like around 0.004-0.006" for a angled chip breaker and a little farther back for a blunted one. That would be too close for a jointer that should be taking slightly thicker shavings and WAY too close for a fore plane.

If you listen carefully, a happy plane will sing.

[Mark Wyatt]

Just a piece of information to add to the general discussion, my circa 1904-1907 Vonnegut Hardware catalog contains wood body planes, unlabeled but likely Sandusky or Ohio:

Single Bit Smooth Plane = $0.70
Double Bit Smooth Plane = $0.90

Single Bit Jack Plane = $0.85
Double Bit Jack Plane = $1.00

Larger sizes were not offered as single bit. By way of comparison, a Stanley #4 was $2.20 and a Bedrock #604 was $2.50.

The bargain among planes? Perhaps the Stanley #9 for $3.75, but I would vote for the complete set of hollow and rounds for $9.45.

[Steve Elliott]

For those not aware of Indianapolis history, it may be of interest that the writer Kurt Vonnegut worked for a time at his family's business, Vonnegut Hardware. He wrote about his family history in his book, Palm Sunday.

[Derek Cohen]

I've been travelling a bit, so have not contributed to his thread since it started. While flying back to Oz yesterday I was listening to the audiobook version of The Jointer and Cabinetmaker (edited and published by Chris Schwarz about two years ago) recently narrated by Roy Underhill ... he does an excellent job .. such fun ...

The original book was published in 1839.

Lots of interesting information, and one bit specific to double iron planed smoothers. The narrater notes that the chip breaker is placed as close to the edge of the blade for use with Mahogany having much interlocked/reversing grain. There is a little bit of discussion about this technique for planing, and it is clear that a differentiation is made between straight grained and interlocked woods, and that moving the chip breaker up is a common technique used to deal with the latter.

Regards from Sydney (where it is Hot)

Derek

[Rick Whitehead]

I'm late to this discussion, as usual, but I've been following it with great interest.I think it's great! Where else would you get a passionate discussion by people who are considered heavyweights in the historic hand tool world? Not only have they thoroughly researched their material, but they have extensive experience using the tools they are discussing.I love a good debate, especially between scholars!
Regarding single-iron planes, I have less experience with them than with double-iron ones. I have had experience with one of Larry Williams' single-iron planes. I tried it out at a tool collector's meeting where Larry was set up. I tried it on a piece of birch that he had lying on is bench.I planed the face of it in with the grain and got a smooth surface without tear-out. I then reversed the piece of wood and planed against the grain, expecting the usual tear-out. I didn't get any. The surface was as smooth as the other face. That really impressed me!
That convinced me that Larry was right about a cap iron being unnecessary for a finish-planed surface.On the other hand, I also appreciate the recent articles about how close to set the cap iron on a double-iron plane. I've been setting it too far away for years.
Keep up the good work, guys!
Rick

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Rick

To re-iterate one of your points, here is a modified copy of a reply I made elsewhere. I think that it is important to maintain a balanced view ..

I was asked to comment on the results of the testing I completed a while back on chip breakers and bedding angles.

"The context of this was within the posting/discussions/and experimentation of several others on the role of the chip breaker, initiated by the Japanese research.

In short, my results indicated that moving the chip breaker close to the edge (about 0.4 mm) changed the nature of a shaving and enabled the plane to mimic a higher angled bed. My estimate at quantifying this was about 10 degrees up. So a 45 degree BD plane acted like one planing at 55 degrees (and a 55 degree BD plane acted like one planing at 65 degrees this became evident when a LN #3 with a 55 degree frog was able to reverse the results and out perform a LV BUS with a 62 degree cutting angle after the chip breaker was moved up).


It must be understood that this technique takes some practice to get right. Too close to the edge and you can dub the blade and/or cause the plane to choke (even with an open mouth - incidentally, that the mouth size now became irrelevant simply supports the impression that we are dealing with a change in chip formation). The reason I used specific numbers was simply to record what I was doing and for others to reproduce what I had done. Many others were doing their own research at the same time. Much of the conclusions reached supported one another. Mine was a tiny contribution compared to others here and on WoodCentral, such as David, Kees, and Warren.


There is a danger in throwing out the baby with the bathwater when something new comes along. In this case, the old stuff include high angle single-iron and BU planes. I think that this would be impulsive and inappropriate. Both can make for equally superior set ups. Indeed, everything is a compromise, and there are advantages and disadvantages with all plane types.


All things equal ...


The disadvantage of a BD/double iron plane is that it can be finicky to set up. Too far back, and the "chip breaker effect" does not take place. Further, it is not simply placement of the chip breaker; it is also that there is a chip breaker to place. Off-line chip breakers make it harder to set a square blade.

One of the compelling arguments for a fine set chip breaker on a common angle plane (over a high cutting angle) was that the lower angle will leave a smoother, clearer surface. In theory I agree, but my practical experience is that this is wood dependent. I have also recently been present at a repeat of a planing experiment using mechanical feeds and different cutting angles. Some very glossy finishes on hard Maple were coming off a plane with a half pitch cutting angle. If there were an effect, I doubt that you could tell the difference, especially after a finish. On the hardwoods I use you would not.


There will always be those who prefer the ease of set up and use of a high cutting angle in either a single iron plane or a BU plane.


So, on the one hand I am convinced about the effect of chip breakers in that they can mimic a higher cutting angle, and that this increases the range of the Bailey-pattern type plane. At the same time high angle BU (LV and LN) and single-bevel planes (e.g. HNT Gordon, Old Street) continue to offer quality performances, as they always did.


It is your choice which you wish to use.

Regards from Sydney

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Completely agree with you Derek. For me it's simple, I don't have anything other then vintage Stanley's and wooden plane. So learning to use the chipbreaker has been a major improvement.

Mark, thanks a lot for the catalog scan. Your post made me think a lot the other day. In researching a bit the economics of planemaking in the 19th century I completely forgot about that other "minor" development, the invention of the Bailey plane in the 1860's . I don't really know a whole lot about the Stanley and Bailey history. I do know they became quite a succes. It kind of crowns the development from the small scale, mostly handmade, planemaking business, early in the century to the big factories with loads of machinery in the end. It is also funny to see that the metal planes didn't catch on very soon in Central Europe. in The Netherlands the company Nooitgedagt started abouth the same time as Bailey. In Germany you also find new factories around that time, making wooden planes like Ott (Ulmia) in Ulm, 1877.

The last quarter of the 19th century also saw the rise of the Britisch infill plane. These were produced on a much smaller scale than the Stanley planes. Clearly targeted at the high end user, the cabinet makers, the joiners doing top nothed stuff. Expensive planes. They were a further devellopment from th eiron mitre planes. i have seen these mitre planes described in older german books from the 18th century, basically a wooden bevel up plane with an iron sole. They got more and more metal and less wood over the years. These were not only used for mitering purposes, but also for planing difficult kinds of wood. Holtzapffel describes them too.

Well, enough for me to delve into. Interesting stuff.

Edit: Funny to see, the Stanley Bailey #4 was priced around the top of the line Boxwood smoothers, at the start of the 20th century.

[Kees Heiden]

There are some very interesting catalogues on handplane.com: http://www.handplane.com/category/li...reproductions/
Especially interesting is the Tyzak catalogue from 1908, because it contains wood planes, Stanleys and infill planes. Prices for smoothers are roughly:
Wooden smoother double iron = 4 shilling
Stanley #4 = 8 shilling
Infill smoother = 20 shilling

In the early 20th century 1 britisch pound is about 5 to 6 dollar. And there are 20 shillings in one pound.

[Kees Heiden]

I found some older data supporting my little theory that double iron planes were sold at a premium over the extra cost of the more expensive iron bits. In a thread from 2006 on woodcentral, Todd Hughes answers to claims that the double iron was a cost saving exercise for the planemaker. The thin 18th century irons were prone to chatter and needed more work in bedding the iron. The extra support of the double iron would be helpfull for the planemaker, while the extra iron costs would be just passed on to the buyer of the plane.

Todd Hughes:

As to cost the copy of Chistopher Gabriel day book, an 18th and early 19th century London tool merchant, page 72, 1800 inventory...17 doble iron jointers sold for 5.1.0 while 28 single iron jointers went for 5.1.6...many other examples scattered though it of how much cheaper single irons were.
Later examples...the book "Some 19th cent, English woodworking tools" page 113...Price List of 1824Sheffield edge tool....23/4 in. double irons sold for 20s a doz. single irons in the same size only 10s per doz...also on page 254 it has the price 1829 list of planes sold by the tool dealer J.wilks...Smooth planes....double iron 3.6 while single irons went for only 2.2....[hmmm smooth planes ain't that a cabinet workers tool?] all of the planes they sold had simular price differences with the double iron planes being more expensive


So, the double iron jointers in 1800 were almost twice as expensive as the single iron ones. 6 shilling for a double iron jointer versus 3 sh/8 pence for a single iron one. Sure, double irons were expensive, but not a whole single-iron-jointer-plane-expensive. So the buyers were prepared to pay a considerable premium for the privilige to buy a double iron plane. If reducing costs in planemaking was the sole purpose of the double iron, you would have expected a relatively lower price.

In the next sentences you find a similar deal. In 1824 single irons were 10 shilling a dozen, while double irons were 20 shilling a dozen. So the difference between 1 single and 1 double iron was 10 pence. When we look at the 1829 J. Wilks smoother prices we see a difference of 16 pence. So again, the buyer didn't share in any theoretical cost savings, but paid a premium instead.

So now I have 3 sources (Arrowmammet catalogue, and the two above) from the first half of the 18th century that double iron planes were not being produced to save costs, but were worth an extra high price. In the Britisch catalogues from the early 20th century I don't find this premium anymore, but single iron planes play a very secondary role in these catalogues anyway.

The cost saving theory was illogical in the first place. If it was so difficult to bed a thin single iron, the logical way to improve the situation would have been a thicker single iron. Not an expensive contraption like the double iron is.

The other argument mentioned that the planemaker saved on logistics because he didn't need to make and store four differently pitched planes for each and every type, doesn't hold either. In the first place I seriously doubt planemakers were making 45, 50, 55 AND 60 degree planes on a regular basis. In The Netherlands from the 16th century to halfway the 19th only 50 degree planes were made. Likewise you never see different pitches advertised in the catalogues from the 19th century, but you do see a bewildering assortment of planes. And in the second place, IF the planemakers had these storage problems, a rational course would have been to limit themselves to 45 and 55 degree planes for example (which would have suited 99.9% of the woodworkers), not to dive into the expensive double iron adventure.

So, I think we have now debunked the cost saving theory without any doubt. We allready debunked the theory that double irons weren't used to plane "curly and crossgrained woods". And today in our own workshops we prove that the chipbreaker is a valid and practical aproach to mittigate tearout.

But, of course, when you don't want to fiddle with chipbreakers I can understand that. I would suggest you just quit buying food for your children and spend the money on one of the "premium" planes available today.