Documented Cap Iron Settings

[Graham Haydon]

While reading through "Joinery & Carpentry Vol I" from the 1930's New Era Publishing Co.

"Setting the Irons. The setting of the back iron with the cutting iron depends upon the material. For soft woods the jack plane back iron is set back about 1/8 in. from the cutting edge, and the smoothing plane and try plane about 1/16 in. full. For hard woods these distances should be halved."

This is from a series of books extending into six volumes about Joinery & Carpentery. It would suggest that the author at lest knew the importance of fitting the cap iron close if not describing fully why it needed to be set close. I would at least assume it was implied.

There is a nice bit about Metal Planes too.

"Every joiner possesses one or more metal planes, in some cases because they produce better work, and in other cases because they are time savers. Nearly every wooden plane has it's counterpart in metal, but the advantage does not always warrant the cost, and in some cases they are not so useful. For instance, metal jack and trying planes are heavy and need more careful handling because they are easily broken.
The planes may be obtained in cast iron, malleable iron, cast steel or gun metal."

And further to that on smooting planes

"The English pattern [Norris Type] is a very useful plane and the best for hardwoods and cross-grain; it is very rigid, but the irons are not adjustable. Fig 43 shows a recent improvement in which the irons are adjustable both laterally and vertically."
"The Stanley plane, or American pattern, Fig 36, is very popular because the irons are easily adjusted vertically and laterally, and it is cheaper than the English planes. The earlier types were not rigid , and inclined to chatter, but the "bedrock" pattern is quite satisfactory.
"The soles of metal planes require to be kept clean, especially for resinous woods, as the friction is considerable. Corrugated soles have been introduced to relive the friction, but they are a questionable advantage as they clog so easily"

I know many folks take a great deal of interest in these things. The reason for posting was to share the text of someone who was experienced and also gave defined setting to cap irons. Also someone in industry who felt the weight of metal planes for extented used would be a disadvantge.

I don't know much about the author apart from his name Thomas Corkhill F.B.I.C.C., M.I.Struct.E., M.Coll.H . I think he also contributed to the "Practical Woodworker" by Bernard E Jones.

[Winton Applegate]

Well let me respond since the real dudes here are about burnt out with this , I am assuming, . . .

As I understand it dudes from the thirties were out of the loop.
The guys who really KNEW were earlier.
The settings described are wide. As I understand it VERY wide.

Here is a big shot in the dark for me and take it for what it is worth but . . .
The dudes who REALLY knew from back in the day were in apprenticed _______, the word escapes me other than Unions and that isn't quite it, Craft guilds ? . . . and the real skinny was secret. Probably if a member told his neighbor how to set his hobby cap iron the BOSSES would call out a hit on him or some such.

Industrial secrets right ?
Industrial spying amounted to learning how to set the cap irons.

Or like that . . . right ?

We have come a long way baby.

[Graham Haydon]

Thanks Winton, sorry if I'm flogging a dead horse.

As I'm a metric man so I did an on line convert 1/16th is 1.58mm. That sounds quite fine to me at least (unless I don't get the numbers which would not be the first time)

Were they out of the loop? The apprenticeship system in the UK was then as it is now still in force. At that time you were likely to be an indentured apprentice for a period of six years. It is unlikely that these books were aimed at general public as they are highly technical and illustrative of industry in the 1930's.

Your concept of this being a secrets thing is also very unlikely. There were sometimes tensions between the older generation and the apprentice as the skills imparted upon the older ones was what kept them in work. This was less of an issue in rural areas like my home town.

My only motivation for posting this was that to my mind this was a relatively recent documentation of the use of planes in their final years of being integral before the advent of portable sanders. It also highlighted to me at least that the use and knowledge of this was more recent that some folks think. Apologies for a less than helpful thread!

[Kees Heiden]

I have a series of woodworking books from the early 20th century (forgot the title) that also has the same numbers. 1/32" is 0.8 mm. That is still a far cry from the 0.1 to 0.3 mm documented in the Kato video. The jack plane settiong at 1/8" is also very rough if you want to have the chipbreaker doing anything usefull.

But I don't think numbers like this were very usefull in the woodworking shop back then. I guess even a vernier caliper would have been a rare sight in a shop back then. So in other books you read sentences like "as close as possible".

I don't think it was a trade secret either. Nicholson and Holtzappfel have documented the function of the chipbreaker quite detailed. Without exact numbers though.

[Graham Haydon]

Thanks Kees, upon reviewing my numbers (I warned I was thick!) 1.5mm is much to far away as Wilton said. I shall hang my head in shame :-).

[Kees Heiden]

No need to hang you head. It's easy to get all the numbers mixed up. Far easier to just look at the narrow line of reflected light and push it as close as you can.

[Graham Haydon]

Cheers kees!

[Bob Lang]

Just because something was published doesn't make it true, and that goes for old books as much as it does for today's books, magazines and believe it or not, the internet. Then as now, people repeat what they read somewhere, and not everybody who writes writes from experience. When I see a statement like the one about corrugated soles clogging, I doubt the reliability of the whole thing.

Bob Lang

[Dave Paine]

I have a book called "Planecraft" published in 1934 by the old Record company. Recently republished by Woodcraft. Great book by the way.

There is a section on recommendations of distance of the cap iron from the blade edge

"For rough work cap iron 1/32in to 1/8in from the edge
For finishing work, cap iron 1/64in from the edge
For hard woods with irregular grain - as close as you can get it to the cutting edge"

This generally works for me. I have found that each plane can have a bit of its own personality, so we sometimes need to adjust based on the plane, the wood, and the grain orientation. No hard and fast rules. I start with perhaps 1/32in and then sometimes move closer to the edge and sometimes farther back.

[Graham Haydon]

Dave, I have that book too, now it's no longer an infomercial it's a very good read.

Bob, having never used a corrugated sole I can't say. A skeptical outlook is a wise one however It might be unwise to write off the whole thing based on your experiences with corrugated soles. I clearly demonstrated a great deal of numerical ignorance but that's not to say they are not good books. They are aimed at Joiners and Carpenters and I have found them a useful reference when working on all kinds of projects relating to those subjects.

[Winton Applegate]

Hold your head high my friend, I knew where you were going, 1/16 = ~ 1.6
And then half that.

No secret settings.
Well that's good to hear.
That means there is a chance I can read enough to learn how to do this woodworking thing yet.

Maybe the secrets started with the recent teachers, Krenov and Klausz etc.,
EyeDun'O

PS:

Apologies for a . . . . helpful thread!

NO DON'T this is interesting !

[Graham Haydon]

Cheers Winton! Always assume some numerical dyslexia when I'm about

[Winton Applegate]

look at the narrow line of reflected light and push it as close as you can.

. . . then . . .

. . . hang your head . . .and shake it side to side

Ha, ha,
I'm with you most of the time and learning but that last method you described produces a moment in woodworking which is about the most "Fun" I can have .
The cap iron hangs up a little or the big flat screw (which has been DESIGNED (as far as I can tell) to come off and get lost in the shavings because it has two threads on it . . . but I digress. . .) . . .

anyway the big flat screw is a tiny bit snugs vill and so I am looking and sliding and looking and . . .
. . . here is where the fun begins . . . the chip breaker slides over the edge of the freshly sharpened blade. . . . while attempting to move it no more than one or two thousands of an inch . . .
. . . wwwwwrrrrriiiiiggggghhhht . . .
At this point I begin to use "F" words like :

FUN, FUN, FUN

nah dude, nah just press gently into some wood and set the cap iron screw tight . . .
hah, hah if it is still in the cap.
It is moments like this that make me ask "Why am I doing this again ?" and pick up the contra-ban BU.
Call me a wimp.

[Kees Heiden]

Stanley also had a booklet. This one was for the Australian market, about 1950: http://toolemera.com/pampdf/stanleyhintsplaneAU.pdf

On the 7th page they write:
To obtain a smooth surface plane with the grain. If the grain is cross or curly, set plane iron cap as near cutting edge as possible and adjust the plane iron to take a very thin even shaving.

[Kees Heiden]

You can do it too Winton. I'm sure you are not half as clumsy as I am.