Tapered vs Krenov/Hock vs Japansese Style irons

[David Weaver]

Worse...they were made of cherry!

I thought about making them out of beech (I have plenty of it), but I thought if I did that instead of making them out of offcuts of a current project, someone would say "well, I don't have beech, and I'm not going to build them".

I thought about making them look nice (they literally still have a rough opposite side), but figured also that might discourage someone from making them if they've never made a plane before.

If I was going to try to make a try plane, I'd try to better the plane pictured above. There are some things I could do a little better (the handle and the details around the edges of the plane, and maybe the aesthetics of the wedge), but I seriously doubt I could cut the mortise cleaner or fit the wedge as well as that one is fit to the abutments. That's kind of discouraging!

I couldn't do it for $66 either.

[David Weaver]

...BTW...but just becasue I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, doesn't mean that I retract my Sponge Bob Cranky Pants comment

Oh on, it's accurate! It's not malicious or haphazard crankiness like is being alleged, though. It's honest crankiness and desire for some sort of progress in discussion. We have, at least, gotten away from the popular prevailing notions that were present five years ago (figured woods demand an infill, stanley planes are junky, old wooden planes are doorstops, LN chisels are far better than vintage, can't do accurate work without premium tools, anything but premium is a waste of time for a beginner.....There wasn't even the remotest discussion about design elements back then).

that's progress! Look how much better the average saw handle made by a forum user is now than 5 years ago.

[Steve Voigt]

Pardon me - the try plane is a griffiths of norwich…

It's a very nice looking plane. As you say, the fit of the wedge prongs to the abutments is pretty amazing for a plane that was probably made 150 years ago. Another nice feature is how the sharp line that begins the taper of the abutments lines up perfectly with the top of the wear bevel.

Two questions:
- How far from the bottom do the abutments terminate? From the pic, it looks like they go quite far down, but I can't tell for sure.
- How big is the wear bevel, and any idea what the approx. angle of the wear is? I was interested in Kees' remark that the Seaton double irons have an 87° wear angle. I really need to get my hands on that book.

[george wilson]

Even if some think David sounded cranky,I have read everything he said about design in his last few posts.I have to say,I do not disagree with any thing he said. I would not make a nice plane either,and put a blocky square iron in it. It spoils the lines of the planes. Truly it does. This just has to be taken as fact. They only seem to work in Krenov planes(which I am not crazy about personally),but then,the irons in Krenov planes always seem so short,they would not last for many sharpenings before they's be shorter than the wedge above them. I leave edges and bevels crisp. I do pay careful attention to carving the eyes of my planes (That plane above has very nice eyes,David)(It seems the English did have a knack for getting eyes correct).)

As for wood,I have a good supply of 16/4 hard maple that I might use instead of beech. It is much harder than beech,so why not? I think beech was just cheap and plentiful. I am sure David knows that. I had another "Master Craftsman" proclaim to me that "It was impossible to use a maple workbench". His own bench was oak. And,from oak's grain structure,it sort of fell apart if little knife,chisel,or saw cuts were made close to the same location. This master never designed anything from scratch in his life. He made the same thing over and over until he retired. My own bench was maple. There was no supply of beech when I first joined the museum. They did have 16/4 maple on hand. I needed a bench NOW.

It would be better instead of getting offended,if some members took good advice and used it. The problem is,some people do not know what good advice is. And I do not mean that in a sarcastic way. Do not take it as such,or as arrogance on my part. Truth is truth. I have seen plenty of beautiful craftsmanship that was impeccable,but poorly designed. Especially in knife makers,for some reason. They seem to get carried away by fantasy,and frequently design handles that only fit the hand in 1 position,while a knife WILL be held in many positions in real use. As a long time craftsman who has trained many people,I think the hardest thing for students to learn has been good design and good drawing skills. It seems like they either had it,or they didn't. I have had otherwise good craftsmen working in my shop who could only draw at less than a 4th. grade level. They were best left to straight copying.(fortunately for them,museum work often involved copying old work). If they tried designing anything, it was a trainwreck. I had one journeyman who tried designing a vine inlay on the neck of a lute. It looked like a thorn bush. He seemed to have no idea what LEAVES look like. Or how to draw graceful curves. Yet,he thought his design was good. It wasn't. But,the craftsmanship of his instrument was quite good.

[David Weaver]

Steve, that was the plane I originally offered to picture because I thought it had some extra work below the abutments, but found it's just cleanly done.

I'll check the angles and find out what they are. The mouth is tight on it for a double iron plane, but it doesn't get in its own way. The picture of the bottom doesn't do it justice, because the iron is partially retracted. Just how tight the mouth is while not interfering with feeding is a testament to how much the maker felt it was important to make it that way, even though they were fighting costs on some of the other aspects around the outside of the plane.

$_5745.jpg

[Pedro Reyes]

For the record, I was not discouraged, I appreciate the insight and value everyone's opinion on the matter. And while I am not shooting for an authentic look over function, much less please anyone, I will give that a shot (using an old traditional blade), because why not? Why not make it look nice without sacrificing function, I do have an old (German) blade that came off a wooden plane (freebie).

I hope I don't offend anyone, but usually only about a page to a page and a half is good on most threads, before it goes down an arguing path.

peace

/p

[Kees Heiden]

That looks like a really fine mouth for a wooden plane! I never stumble on stuff like that. Do you have some measurement, or maybe even pictures from the mouth and abutment area of that plane?

[Chris Griggs]

It's honest crankiness and desire for some sort of progress in discussion. We have, at least, gotten away from the popular prevailing notions that were present five years ago (figured woods demand an infill, stanley planes are junky, old wooden planes are doorstops, LN chisels are far better than vintage, can't do accurate work without premium tools, anything but premium is a waste of time for a beginner.....There wasn't even the remotest discussion about design elements back then).

that's progress! Look how much better the average saw handle made by a forum user is now than 5 years ago.

That's dead on accurate...I started about 5 years ago. At the time the majority of what was being said online was..

- Vintage planes are only good for coarse work..you NEED a newly made LN/LV smoother and jointer
- If you must use a vintage plane you NEED to throw out the iron it came with and get a new thick iron...(emphasis on word need vs want)
- Chipbreakers are only there to stabilize thin irons that Stanley made thin to save money
- etc...

Some of that still exists, but its much more individual sentiment and more often spoken about as a personal preference than a need/nice thing to have. There really is a lot of great info out there now being regularly shared that just wasn't present in the online or print woodworking world 5 years ago.

[Daniel Rode]

I have a couple of poorly made modern planes, a modern WR #4 smoother and a 100+ year old #6 with the original thin iron. The Wood River smoother is nicely made. Not a thing wrong with it and it works well. I'm sure the tolerances on the LV and LN smothers are even even smaller. However, I really don't think it slices wood any better. If I had it to do over, I'd go with a vintage #4 Stanley Bailey style.

The #6 works great and the junk planes work like junk.

That's dead on accurate...I started about 5 years ago. At the time the majority of what was being said online was..

- Vintage planes are only good for coarse work..you NEED a newly made LN/LV smoother and jointer
- If you must use a vintage plane you NEED to throw out the iron it came with and get a new thick iron...(emphasis on word need vs want)
- Chipbreakers are only there to stabilize thin irons that Stanley made thin to save money
- etc...

Some of that still exists, but its much more individual sentiment and more often spoken about as a personal preference than a need/nice thing to have. There really is a lot of great info out there now being regularly shared that just wasn't present in the online or print woodworking world 5 years ago.

[David Weaver]

That looks like a really fine mouth for a wooden plane! I never stumble on stuff like that. Do you have some measurement, or maybe even pictures from the mouth and abutment area of that plane?

Yeah, I'll take pictures either tonight or sometime in the next couple of days if I can remember. I was surprised how fine it is. Compare it to american planes of the same period, which generally have a pretty wide open mouth, probably just because it simplifies the fitting and testing process significantly when you use a double iron.

I can't remember why I was looking for such a plane on ebay, but when I stumble upon something inexpensive that is better than I can make (without spending an inordinate amount of time doing slow work to do it finely) I usually buy it.

I never do see stuff like it locally, though.

[Kees Heiden]

I just accidentally bought a Dutch 18th century rabet plane. In exchange for your pictures I will post pictures from mine (as soon as it arrives).

[David Weaver]

accidentally...

You can be honest with us, even if you're just practicing with what you're going to say to your wife

[David Weaver]

As for wood,I have a good supply of 16/4 hard maple that I might use instead of beech. It is much harder than beech,so why not?

The mortise is so much easier to cut by hand with beech than it is with maple, and the beech is more forgiving when cutting the mouth. If i had your skillset I might consider maple, too! A couple of splinters around the mouth or splinters on the handle on a plane that I was trying to make nicely would drive me nuts, though.

if the makers were doing a lot of the work by hand 200 years ago, I'd bet they chose beech because it was plentiful and cheap, easy to work relative to its hardness, and because there wasn't a lot of higher priced competition for its use.

[george wilson]

By the way,a gauged iron is tapered. It is about twice as thick as a regular iron,but is still tapered the same. My Norris jack plane has a gauged iron in it. A gauged plane iron was always something to be prized if you came across one!!

When speaking about plane irons,David was speaking in terms of aesthetics,not reliability of hardness,etc. I had to use antique planes daily for 16 years,and found them good for the most part. I found the most durable ones could barely be cut with a new,fine cut Nicholson mill file. That was my test back in simpler days,when I had no hardness tester. But,today's metallurgy is of course more reliable,and hardening and tempering is also. However,it would be nice if SOME modern makers would give a little effort to aesthetics. If I had to use a Hock iron,I would at least grind the top of it into a more pleasing shape. Luckily,I don't have to rely on other guy's irons though.

[David Weaver]

Kees/Steve - two more pictures.

The mouth is about a 64th or so. The wear is 78 degrees. the iron was super tight and I had to relieve the sides to get some lateral space to adjust it, so the fact that the wedge isn't lined up with the abutments has to do with my laziness in getting a picture.

The abutments terminate gradually starting 3/4ths inch from the mouth or so, and the wedge follows them neatly all the way down.

P1030657.jpgP1030658.jpg