Suggestions how to make this 23" krenov plane more usable/comfortable to hold?

[David Weaver]

you may not agree with his blade/chipbreaker settings, but you cannot refute the results.

It is the part of the process before the wispy shavings that the cap iron is most useful for - to get the wood to the point that you can take the wispy shavings if you so desire to finish (instead of scraping, sanding, etc).

You can get to that point very slowly if you've got no other reservations on your time, or you can use a double iron and take a wide shaving not too far below a hundredth thick in those passes.

[Kees Heiden]

How about putting some really fancy handles on you rplane, like in plate 13 from Roubo? http://www.toolemera.com/bkpdf/roubomichaudBK.pdf

I am not sure if that is going to improve the ergonomics though.

[Jeff Heath]

Using wooden planes is a terrific way to get great feedback through the 'feel and feedback' you receive when working wood. In my opinion, you don't get the same feedback from working wood with metal planes.

One of the great attributes of making your own planes from wood, or having someone else make them for you, is that you can shape them anyway you like. Traditionalists often feel that a woodworking plane has to "look the part", and stay true to form. For me, that just isn't so. I shape the planes I make and use to fit my hands, which are very large. I find using the Krenov-style planes to be quite comfortable, and I have had long, hard sessions using them. I flattened the 8' long and 24" wide bench I recently built out of maple with, in part, the plane posted earlier in this thread. I also used these.....a maple jack and a bubinga smoother.



As to the chipbreaker part of the discussion......I made two smoothers just for fun to try this out. I used hock irons in both, but removed the chipbreaker from one, just to see which would work better. The bubinga plane in the above ^^^ photo has no chipbreaker, and here it is smoothing curly flame birch against the grain. No problem. Here's another picture of the other bubinga smoother I made using the same style hock iron, this time with the chipbreaker, and note the maple wedge. That's how I know which is which......



For the woods I work, which are predominantly North American Hardwoods.....often with plenty of birdseye, curl, flame, crotch, and all the other adjectives you can use for somewhat more gnarly grain.....either plane works very, very well. Both are bedded at 50°.

Here's a maple jack plane taming and flattening the curly cherry top of a recent media cabinet I built last year. Piece of cake, and this plane is bedded at 45° with the same hock iron/chipbreaker combo.



My point is, you can shape these planes to fit YOUR hands, and they are no less comfortable to use for lengthy sessions than a toted and knobbed plane. However, if a tote and knob are your thing, then by all means, add them. If it means you'll work more efficiently, then go for it. Before doing that, though, I would try shaping your plane a little more to fit your hand.

The first jointer plane I made had no "grip" behind the iron, as in my jointer plane that I showed originally. It was not as easy to grip for long sessions, and I found my right hand slipping after a while. Especially as I worked up a good sweat. Adding the "humpback", as I call it, gives the place between my thumb and pointer on my hand a place to register to, and it became a whole lot easier to use for longer periods of time.

Give it a try.

I'm also dabbling with making planes more in the traditionally shaped styles, like this coffin-style smoother in maple



I actually like this plane a lot, but I need to round the rear of the plane a little more to make it a little more comfortable to use. I also recently made a 22" long try/joiner plane that is one piece, will be toted (I made it yesterday, but it's not installed yet) and have a strike button......just like a traditional plane. This will be my first chance to see which style plane, if any, is easier to use for extended sessions. I made it out of honey locust......a very hard and dense wood



A long winded post indeed, but I wanted to make the point that the only thing that matters is that you're working wood. If you want to use hand tools, I personally think that's awesome. It's the reason why we all hang out in the Neander section. But, there's no reason why you can't think a little out of the box and do what works for you. Shape that plane up to your liking. It's a good idea that you are shaping the construction grade lumber first, to find out what feels good for you, before tearing into your finished plane.

That's all I got for now.....

[Brian Holcombe]

practicing my reading and comprehension skills today.

[Kees Heiden]

Winton, when you want to know all the nitty gritty about chipbreakers, you'll have to read Steve Elliotts website. He has collected quite a bit of the Japanese research papers.

http://planetuning.infillplane.com/index.html

[Jim Matthews]

You're not alone in this sentiment.

I think his approach is lasting.
His design sense? Not my speed.

Still, some amazing stuff followed...Gere Osgood desk.jpg
I can't imagine Gere Osgood or the studio furniture movement
getting traction in the marketplace of ideas before Krenov.

[Jim Matthews]

Your stuff is like clever song writing;
it's always a good deal better than it must be.

The fit and finish of your tools carries into the furniture you've shown.

* I'm going downstairs to bang nails into my sideboard, now *

* sigh *

[James Conrad]

Krenov sculpted his planes to his liking and use, I would hazard to say he would expect others to do the same. Just because you’re making a plane using Krenov style construction does not mean you have to copy his designs. When he made a plane for someone, you got it unfinished in terms of final shaping. Like any tool, it has to be comfortable in your hand or you are not going to use it. So, add a horn or traditional tote if that works for you. Krenov took his cues in making his planes, if I remember correctly, from period German style planes and then put his own twist on them to suit his needs, you should do the same, some great suggestions have been given earlier in this thread. I’m sure you will find something that will suit your needs an as long as it keeps you woodworking by all means go for it. I enjoy wood using wood planes, especially for smoothing, and for green woodworking they are a must for sure.


Krenov respected wood and believed each piece should be made the most of. The majority of his case construction was veneer work due to that philosophy, so there was not much need for wasting large amounts of wood, and the scale of his projects were much smaller as well. He put forth a lasting design style that is unique pulling from Scandinavian, Eurpoean and Asian influences that stands on its own, collected by Museums around the world, and he had a strong desire to pass along his knowledge of woodworking. He wasn’t paid by an employer to build things, he was a successful craftsman on his own, with his own style and woodworking philosophy, which is difficult for any artist to accomplish. Whether you like Krenov’s planes or his furniture design style, is certainly up for debate, his influence on the history of woodworking, not so much.

[David Weaver]

The design could be made more adapatable to the whole range of cuts in woodworking if it was given a razee handle and possibly some fixture on the front (the back handle being more important, even if it was the rear saddle like a continental smoothing plane has, though that might be problematic with the short irons that are usually installed in them).

One thing that I don't particularly follow is that when someone doesn't favor the style of a given woodworker, it's always extrapolated into the accusation that they are claiming such a person has no influence on woodworking or design or whatever. If there was no influence, nobody would say that they don't like someone's designs. I've never seen anything that krenov made that I have found much favor in, tools or furniture, but that doesn't change the fact that every single power tool woodworker who I've ever come across has mentioned james krenov at some point figuring that I must be a disciple. In most cases, they have read his books (they are novel to those folks), but I personally have not.

I don't consider myself a traditionalist, either, though - at least not any further than for guidance on what will work the best when someone is actually working on normal cabinetmaking type things or furniture with just hand tools. As in, not veneering or studio pieces, I don't live in a studio. I get the sense that looking to the eras when people made those types of things (furniture and cabinets not designed for studios) in numbers would be a better indicator of what to do.

There's a whole list of things I don't find favorable - especially stuff like nakashima tables - I'm baffled by that kind of thing - slab some wood, remove the dirt, put a few doodads on it and charge a lot. Really, I can't make sense of much of anything that wasn't designed for utility at least to some extent. I would much rather see a secretary, chest of drawers (that's practical), a side table etc.

I don't for a second doubt the influence of the newer stuff, though. i have heard more about any single "new" woodworker than all of the stuff I like combined.

[Brian Holcombe]

There's a whole list of things I don't find favorable - especially stuff like nakashima tables - I'm baffled by that kind of thing - slab some wood, remove the dirt, put a few doodads on it and charge a lot. Really, I can't make sense of much of anything that wasn't designed for utility at least to some extent. I would much rather see a secretary, chest of drawers (that's practical), a side table etc.

I don't for a second doubt the influence of the newer stuff, though. i have heard more about any single "new" woodworker than all of the stuff I like combined.

I'm baffled by this, I understand that you don't like nakashima stuff, but it's practically nothing but utility. An architectural base and heavy wood top...

[David Weaver]

I suppose the smaller stuff makes some sense, but at what cost? I don't know, maybe it's the cost that I find more offensive, and if the average person wanted to just put down a slab table with a slab that cost a few hundred bucks, that'd make more sense to me.

The bigger stuff becomes an unexpandable very heavy object with no ability for variation (drawers, shelves, ...I recognize that there are a few pieces of furniture that I've seen - and I don't know if they are nakashima, or just nakashima-esque - that have a shelf or drawer or two - but most don't).

[James Conrad]

David, my post has nothing to do with making any extrapolations or accusations concerning someones design likes or dislikes, never mentioned whether I like his design or not either. The intent was more for general consumption as I always find when Krenov is mentioned it becomes some heated discussion in some terms, almost like Clearvue devotes, but few people know much about him, or how he worked. It's almost like calling Sam Maloof a one trick pony, as you always here about his rocking chair and little else. Would enjoy discussing that statement, but we are starting to hijack a thread... That is funny that you found power tool folks that know about him, my experience is the complete opposite. I think I am with you on the nakashima tables... If I were to recommend a Krenov book, it would A Cabinet Makers Notebook, but read it more for his thoughts on woodworking than anything else.

[David Weaver]

I agree with you, the impact that krenov has had on the woodworking world (and it extends well beyond the handtool lunkheads like me) is undeniable.

I have seen the same accusations of maloof. I have never been a fan of any one particular woodworker (but that doesn't make me an anti-fan, I just operate at the "thing" level more than the person), but I wouldn't guess that any of these guys would be restricted in what they make.

I'll bet sam made mostly chairs because people wanted sam to make them chairs, and sam made chairs for pay. If someone paid me good money to make planes, I'd do nothing but make planes, and it wouldn't much matter that I could make any number of other things.

Woodworking for hobby vs. woodworking for pay. I don't doubt that krenov could've made just about anything he wanted to make. I'm guessing he made what moved him.

I am so glad we don't have dust collection arguments down here!!

[Tony Shea]

I am so glad we don't have dust collection arguments down here!!

Great quote David.

So David, this is way off topic but am curious what your inspiration is in terms of planes and plane makers. I assume this is what most interests you in the woodworking side of things. I have to admit that as far as furniture and cabinet making Krenov has been a huge inspiration in my work at least in terms of how think about working wood.

[Brian Holcombe]

I find the current cost a bit ridiculous, but mainly because they were reasonable at the time when they were being produced for the clients originally commissioning his work. The current, auction prices are insane and the price of pieces made in his style are proportionally expensive because they are the alternative to incredible auction prices.

I've seen plenty of his stuff with drawers, shelves, leaves, ect.

I don't particularly like 'live-edge', so most I'm sure would find it strange that what I appreciate about nakashima is the japanese joinery and handmade aspect. This was a man finishing with a plane and cutting things by hand when the bulk of the industry was moving in the direction of cheap and fast.