Adding to the chip breaker-single iron debate ...

[Derek Cohen]

One of the members of the Aussie forum recently posted an interesting smoother. He collects Siegley planes and the #3 (type 7, around 1897) he showed is simply beautiful ...











What caught my eye was the adjustable mouth ...





What is also particularly interesting about it is that it is a single iron plane, at the time Bailey/Stanley were building planes with double irons.


The relevance of this is that there has been much discussion over the past year about the lost art of setting the chip breaker (in a double iron) for interlocked grain when smoothing. This is done in combination with a larger-than-average mouth (otherwise the shavings will jam it).


Here we have a single iron plane (i.e. no chip breaker) that instead uses the mouth size to control tear out. I asked him what was the angle of the frog on the Siegley. He replied it was 48 degrees (I suspect it is actually 47 1/2 degrees, the same as UK infills).


The issue is that the "lost art of the chip breaker" argues that this information faded into the background only fairly recently, somewhere in the last 20 or 30 years when most of the leading educationalists (video and books) in modern times only referred to the size of the mouth or the cutting angle as methods for controlling tear out.


Now the Siegley plane represents a design that precedes these years, is smack in the middle of the Stanley chip breaker period, and yet is not following that theory/method. Indeed, Siegley were purchased by Stanley and then continued to offer this design (rather than converting it to their format, or simply scrapping it to reduce competition).


What is suggests is that there may have always been two schools of thought for controlling tear out, and both with a history of success in use.


Regards from Perth


Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Well, the Stanley was a succes, the Siegley apparently not

Of course there have always been three schools of thought regarding the tearout issue. High angles, tight mouth and chipbreakers. Holtzappfl describes all three in his book. You can combine the three methods too, with more or less succes. Back when steel planes were very rare, the tight mouth method was troublesome. It's not easy to realise a very tight mouth in a wooden plane without introducing clogging issues, and if you manage to do that, subsequent flattening sessions will open the mouth sooner then you wish. High angles (more then 50 degrees) have always been around, after the invention of the chipbreaker especially in moulding planes.

Nowadays the issue is pretty mood. We are literally swimming in cheap 45 degree, double iron planes. That makes the chipbreaker method the method of choice for most people. But when you want to work with high angles or tight mouths, options are plenty available too, specially in bevel up planes.

[David Weaver]

Siegleys are not uncommon enough that someone would go broke over here trying one. However, a common pitch plane even with a tight mouth is not always desirable. The cap iron always stops tearout. The tight mouth at common pitch just makes it less, but you are barred from taking something like a 6 thousandth shaving before you do your final work, because it will still be relatively rough.

Many ways to skin the cat, but the double iron seems to have been the most popular by far.

[Derek Cohen]

Keep in mind, David, I am not offering evidence to debate which way works best - choose your own poison - but just that there was likely to have been a similar debate 100 years ago over methods for controlling tear out.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Derek, since we don't really have much in writing (that I know of) comparing one to the other, I sometimes wonder when someone goes away from the norm if it is purely for marketing purposes. Some of the collector types might know the siegley story.

I had a chance to get an edwin hahn #7 sized plane for $20 last year, and left it behind only because I felt I'd be a pig if I cleaned out an antique dealer's booth near my parents. (actually, the booth had one hardly used #6 for $15 that I bought, and four #7 sized planes - the other three were stanley - those were $20 each). Of course, I changed my mind overnight and someone else had bought all of the planes between when I was there and when I went back.

The hahn plane would've given me a look at that type, but I probably would've flipped it, and I generally don't flip tools to make money. Someone else bought them to do just that, though, so it was a stupid courtesy on my part thinking they might be left to users.

Anyway, a 55 degree plane with a moveable mouth would be an entirely different story in terms of capability. It would be nice to see some ad literature or something explaining the virtues of the plane and asserting what qualities the maker would've felt superior (there must be some such thing, soft assertions of the type were made in all kinds of advertisements back then).

[James Taglienti]

The siegley lever cap plays double duty as a chipbreaker. Thats why it has two set screws that reference it off of the crossbar- so it can be perfectly adjusted. It was never sold or marketed as a single iron plane.

[Kees Heiden]

You could try to find the patent descriptions.


Edit:
Here it is. And indeed one of the intentions of the design is the height adjustable lever cap (which works like a chipbreaker).
http://www.handplanepatents.com/no-5...-siegley-1893/

[David Weaver]

Presume that chipbreaker is set on the plane? It looks only mildly more convenient than setting the cap iron on a japanese plane, then. When I was putting together the article on wood central, I played with the japanese planes a fair amount, too, and really wanted to like them for double iron work but on a dai with a tight mouth (which most premium planes have) setting the cap iron takes so much longer than it does with a bailey plane, and depth adjustments can affect it negatively. For practical use (in terms of time spent), cap irons that are mechanically attached to the iron are much better.

[Derek Cohen]

You could try to find the patent descriptions.


Edit:
Here it is. And indeed one of the intentions of the design is the height adjustable lever cap (which works like a chipbreaker).
http://www.handplanepatents.com/no-5...-siegley-1893/

That is fascinating!

Whether it worked, and how well it worked, is not the issue. The issue is that it was intended to work.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[george wilson]

Derek,for some reason,I cannot access your pictures. All I get is a forum I must register to get into.

[Chris Griggs]

Derek,for some reason,I cannot access your pictures.

I can't either. Would love to take a look if there's a fix.

[Derek Cohen]

Are the pics visible now? I had linked them from the Australian forum earlier. I have since copied them into Photobucket, and linked to that.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Chris Griggs]

Yes! Can see them now. Very cool. That's a beautiful old plane. Thanks!

[David Weaver]

We have never seen much (or at least I haven't) in discussion on the various types of the siegley planes. I remember clint jones years ago selling a few on woodnet, and it was like he had to twist arms to sell them.

Is there a type study for them online? If there wasn't, it would be interesting to see their descriptions in one.

[Pedro Reyes]

Well, the Stanley was a succes, the Siegley apparently not

We could say the same about the amount of Furniture Ikea sells vs all this forum combined. Not a jab, I know you meant it in jest...

Many ways to skin the cat, but the double iron seems to have been the most popular by far.

... but with very few exceptions (e.g. The Beatles) popular is generally not the best. So I think it was merely convenience, just my comment, don't want to start war over best tearout, ultimately feels to me (IMHO) more analysis paralysis.

peace

/p