Tapered vs Krenov/Hock vs Japansese Style irons

[Steve Voigt]

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.

Thanks for the pics!
So, remember when you said (I'm paraphrasing here) the mouth of this plane was cut a little differently, that it was a more difficult way to make a plane? You retracted that later, but I think you were right the first time. It's how the hard lines where the abutments begin to taper match up perfectly with the hard line that is the top of the wear. Three lines meeting perfectly, like a big left-handed bracket. That's a much cleaner look than most other oldies I've seen, and it seems like it would be a very functional thing as well.
I admit, most of the old planes I've seen, particularly double iron planes, are late 19th/early 20th c. degenerate examples. So maybe this kind of thing was common earlier, but it's new to me.

[Kees Heiden]

That is a brilliant plane! Like Steve sais, very well executed. If I may be so cheaky, can you also make a picture without wedge and iron? I am curious how the abutments terminate at the wear.

This is a very instructive thread on so many levels.

[David Weaver]

Thanks for the pics!
So, remember when you said (I'm paraphrasing here) the mouth of this plane was cut a little differently, that it was a more difficult way to make a plane? You retracted that later, but I think you were right the first time. It's how the hard lines where the abutments begin to taper match up perfectly with the hard line that is the top of the wear. Three lines meeting perfectly, like a big left-handed bracket. That's a much cleaner look than most other oldies I've seen, and it seems like it would be a very functional thing as well.
I admit, most of the old planes I've seen, particularly double iron planes, are late 19th/early 20th c. degenerate examples. So maybe this kind of thing was common earlier, but it's new to me.

I think you're right, it is cut a little different (more precisely) and at the time I thought it was different for another reason, I had thought maybe there was an extra cut into the wear that gave it a little bit more space for relief. But the difference in how its cut is more in how clean it is and how all of the lines come together, which probably has a lot to do with why it can be tight with a wear at 78 degrees and a tight mouth and still have no feeding problems. As you say, maybe it's common on earlier planes. I'll take a picture of the jtbrown jointer, which is also very well made (but it's single iron) to see if all of those lines meet. While it's not different in the way that I thought it was (the wear is just straight from the mouth at 78 degrees), there is a level of care and neatness that isn't in most of my planes, and I think that organization and neatness counts and really wouldn't take that much more time to do than just hamming it out less neatly and leaving it more open.

If I ever make another traditional plane, I intend to copy it exactly in the mortise and mouth, though I might only make the mouth that tight on a smoother.

[David Weaver]

That is a brilliant plane! Like Steve sais, very well executed. If I may be so cheaky, can you also make a picture without wedge and iron? I am curious how the abutments terminate at the wear.

This is a very instructive thread on so many levels.

I'll get a picture of that tonight.

[Jack Curtis]

Someone trying to use a japanese plane on lots of figured wood would find that they're getting piles of tearout unless they choose to take very thinner shavings - unless they use a double iron.

Thinner shavings has not ever been my preference - it's boredom by a thousand swipes of the plane. or death of time by a thousand swipes of the plane.

In the event that the wood is straight and you can always plane downhill on it somewhere, it's less critical.

And you know this from your vast experience not using your Japanese planes? It's just not true, David. And I speak from a lot of experience using and making Japanese planes.

[David Weaver]

Curly cherry, from rough, or anything similar. You don't use a plane without a cap iron and get to the same place in the same amount of time you get there with a cap iron. I know it from using my japanese planes, but once using a cap iron comes into play, they lose out because they are not well designed to use a cap iron and make any adjustments. I do like adding a jack in, because you're not going to use the cap iron for much of anything on a japanese jack, anyway. It helps keep the work flowing even when you're out of shape, to switch up types of planes. Once you get past the jack, though, you can get through the rest of the work twice as fast with two bailey planes - and with no risk. You can do no risk work with japanese planes with a cap iron installed, too, but it takes longer to set the cap iron and is significantly less convenient, and the old myth of them holding an edge many times longer than western planes just isn't true, so you sharpen just as often, the sharpening process takes longer than the 90 seconds it takes to sharpen a western plane and setting the cap iron and then adjusting depth of cut once it's set takes much longer.

That's just the way it is.

I did use my japanese planes quite a lot before the whole cap iron thing came up, but at the same time, I was dimensioning wood from rough more with machines until the last two years.

Jack, you like to target my posts, but this is going to end up just like the thread about rip saws where you were just wrong. I'm still ripping with western saws that cost $25, and the only saw that came close so far was one that was almost a grand. And a lovely saw it was that I'd love to have, but I'd be kidding myself if I thought I'd work as fast even with that as I can with a western saw.

[David Weaver]

That is a brilliant plane! Like Steve sais, very well executed. If I may be so cheaky, can you also make a picture without wedge and iron? I am curious how the abutments terminate at the wear.

This is a very instructive thread on so many levels.

P1030661.jpg

Not a whole lot to see, Kees. But that's probably part of why the plane works well. (the abutments stop right around where there is a little bit of fuzz...one of the reasons I thought there was an illusion of extra room at the bottom there is because where the abutments run out, it happens cleanly and then there's a whole bunch of open space and nothing for chips to catch on. )
)

[Pat Barry]

No worries, there are a lot of people who buy a couple of japanese planes and don't use them often. Count me in that group (I have more than a couple, actually). They would make more sense for someone working mostly with softwoods, but the mechanism by which they are maintained (full bevel sharpening) and the fact that they're less convenient (more time consuming) to set the double iron and then adjust depth while it's set makes less sense where something like a bailey plane is ideal (medium hardwoods, especially if they are figured and you are doing more than smoothing).

It's nice to have a cheap japanese plane as a jack plane, though - one where you're not afraid to grind a significant camber on the iron and use it as a break from pushing planes.

Just catching up with this thread - Interesting! Would never have occurred to me that someone would actually want to grind a big camber into a Japanese plane so it would provide a break from pushing planes. It sounds more like masochism.

[David Weaver]

It works well, for real. The inexpensive japanese planes usually have irons that sharpen agreeably on just about everything and are soft enough to be more on the tough side than hard - good for coarse work, or you can just use a fine belt on a belt grinder or sander and then just run a small microbevel onto them (i've done both, just by hand now). (Trizact belt followed by a polish stone works well if one goes the belt grinder route).
.
You never really have to take a break, though. By the time you start to get tired of pulling with your left arm, it's time to pick up a plane that you push. And then the converse.

[Steve Voigt]

Not a whole lot to see, Kees. But that's probably part of why the plane works well.

Dave, I'm not seeing the attachment. Would like to see it if you have the pic.

[David Weaver]

Fixed it. Not exactly sure what went wrong.

[Steve Voigt]

Fixed it. Not exactly sure what went wrong.

Thanks!
One last question. Are the abutments a consistent thickness all the way down, until the sharp taper for the last 1/2" or so? Or, do they taper gradually for most of their length, and then taper sharply at the end?
By the way, nice to see the square bottom of the chipbreaker slot. I'm able to cut those slots by machine, but setting that up is such a hassle that I usually just chop it by hand. Nice to see some precedent for that--every other plane I've seen, old or new, has a round, machine-cut slot.

[Jack Curtis]

...
Jack, you like to target my posts, but this is going to end up just like the thread about rip saws where you were just wrong. I'm still ripping with western saws that cost $25, and the only saw that came close so far was one that was almost a grand. And a lovely saw it was that I'd love to have, but I'd be kidding myself if I thought I'd work as fast even with that as I can with a western saw.

As I told you once before, I do whatever I can to avoid your posts. Only when you're so wrong do I speak up. You were so wrong about Japanese planes. I don't remember any specifics about your western rip saws; but my basic attitude is I don't care what you use. Nor should you care what I use. I use Japanese saws mostly these days because I get better and faster, much better and much faster, cuts than I ever did with western saws. And yes, I used western saws to very good effect, just not as superior as the Japanese pull saws.

So, if it bothers you that I respond to any of your posts, I'd suggest that you make sure you only speak from experience and that your experience is good. Once that happens, I'll gladly never speak to you again.

[Kees Heiden]

Not a whole lot to see, Kees. But that's probably part of why the plane works well. (the abutments stop right around where there is a little bit of fuzz...one of the reasons I thought there was an illusion of extra room at the bottom there is because where the abutments run out, it happens cleanly and then there's a whole bunch of open space and nothing for chips to catch on. )
)

Thanks for th epicture David. Indeed, not much to see
I wonder, could you cut the abutments with a saw, or sidefloat in this plane? I have seen planes where the front edge of the abutments, if continued down, would end up in the wear, so you wouldn't be able to use a sidefloat to cut that line.

[David Weaver]

Jack I don't lack "good" experience with any Japanese tools I comment about. Now, the original context was that someone earlier in the post said they didn't care how japanese get things done, because they didn't think they were missing anything by not learning (paraphrased) and the answer to that is it's true. There is no great deal of difference once you have familiarity with either one. That's true. I said that when you say something like that, the fringe elements come forth with a negative reaction - now that's happened. If charlie were still here, he would poke some fun at the mysticism and ask someone how they intended to cut an intricate curve with japanese tools.

And the rip saw issue is out there still - find a widely available Japanese rip saw that matches the speed of a $50 vintage western ripsaw when working rough lumber in quantity-hard or soft-a very practical issue that I'd love forum discussion to solve by encouraging a maker of manufactured saws to offer such a thing.