The Sacrilege!

[david charlesworth]

Jim,

Thank you so much.

I had not thought of that!

David

[Daniel Rode]

I like Chris. I've enjoyed some of his videos and writing. I like his delivery in videos and his writing style. I've learned quite a bit from him. However, there are MANY people with greater expertise. There are quite a number of them right here in this forum. One of those experts, David Charlesworth, even responded to this thread. Chris picked up a lot of what he knows from David. Other's here have spent decades using hand tools to produce the highest quality work day in and day out. Chris is a popular writer and teacher but popularity is not the same as expertise.

1. How many people in the US could vie with him for expertise on hand planes? (That's a real question - he ranks #1 in my personal WW awareness, but I know little.)

[John Sanford]

Another illustration of why Chris Schwarz's advice is only relevant for beginners.

EDIT: that was maybe too generous....there are better places for beginners to get advice, too.

The above is a truly worthless, and with the edit, snarky ad hominem contribution to the discussion.

[David Weaver]

No, it really is a legitimate comment that even beginners are best to go elsewhere - especially when someone is traveling with toolmakers to give classes, or has a history of editing a magazine where a large concern is helping to sell the tools of the advertisers. No matter how unbiased an individual tries to be, their decisions will fall on the side of their friends.

The are fantastic texts and instructionals by many that don't get people bogged down in what cost level or brand of tools they should get. Ian Kirby, Tage Frid, Frank Klausz, Robert Wearing, ....

If your instructor has a premium tool fascination in a woodworking class, is traveling to shows sponsored by toolmakers on a regular basis, etc, then it's probably time to get a different instructor. It is not ad hominem, it is legitimate criticism.

It's the new era of woodworking, I guess, I'm as guilty of it as anyone else. The motto should be "we can aspire to do less with more!"

[John Sanford]

Statistics lesson #1:
Avoid drawing broad conclusions from non-representative samples.
In this case, the better conclusion would be "the type of person who is willing to shell out a few thousand bucks and a week of time to take a CS class prefers new planes."

Would that be the better conclusion? Or are your conclusions overly broad? How many OTHER people have you had the opportunity to watch for HOURS while they work with a variety of vintage and new planes? How much experience do YOU have in teaching, in recognizing the signs of frustration in a student? What, pray tell, WOULD be a representative sample??

This nostalgia for the past reminds me in some ways how some gunnies hold the Garand M1 rifle up as the BEST combat rifle EVER MADE. Now, it can certainly be argued that it may have been the best combat rifle of its era, but the best ever? After all, the similarities between guns and planes are fairly striking. Both perform a fundamentally simple task. In the case of a gun, it's sending a projectile rapidly towards a target. In the case of a plane, it's removing wood. They are both very mature technologies. Yet, for being the "Best Combat Rifle Evah", the M1 Garand is mightily neglected by the world's militaries today. Why? Is it because the M1 is less accurate? No. Is it because it's more expensive? No, not really, at least not for a military. It's because the M1 isn't as easy to use for it's intended role.

And that is much of what it comes down to with the distinction between modern planes and vintage planes. The modern ones are just easier to use. Are they easier for an master craftsman who has spent years literally honing his craft? Perhaps, perhaps not. The vast majority of woodworkers today, however, are not master craftsmen.

At its core, a plane is an incredibly simple tool, essentially nothing more than a chisel held at an angle. EVERYTHING else about it is there to make it easier to use. The flat bottom? Makes it easier to achieve a flat result. The bed? Makes it easier to keep the chisel at a specific angle. The metal blade? Saves a lot of time over chipping a flint blade. Adjustment mechanism? Again, makes things easier.

What do CS's observations boil down to? That people in his classes had an easier time using the modern planes. Perhaps it is because they have more money than sense (is that an unfair characterization of your subtext Steve?), perhaps it was some sort of placebo effect. Maybe it was because Chris's planes were sharp and their own were not. Or it's quite possible that modern planes are easier for most people to use....

[Robert Hazelwood]

What a marvelous topic. I'm strictly a dabbler. I am, as always, very impressed by the depth of your knowledge. I try hard to suck up as much of that knowledge.

But I must note that I found the Christopher Schwartz article quite wonderful.

1. How many people in the US could vie with him for expertise on hand planes? (That's a real question - he ranks #1 in my personal WW awareness, but I know little.)
2. How many people in the US give classes on hand planes? (Again, real question. I have no idea.)
3. If he ranks in the top ten, I think his observations have intrinsic value. As would the observations of anyone else in the top ten.
   
   • I will grant that the results could be biased by CS - by consciously keeping the new stuff sharper, for example. (It would surprise me, but I only know him through his writings and an occasional video.)

I learned something new.

1. Rounding the chipbreaker for cambered blades.
   
   • Yesterday I posted a Q about creating a surface that feels hand planed. My conclusion was a mild camber on a smoothing plane. So you have added an arrow to my quiver if I run into problems when I try doing that.
   
   
2. I think I also learned in this thread that new top planes have advantages are:
   
   • Irons stay sharp longer (?)
     
     • Would this apply equally to new tech irons (from LN or LV or Hock or whoever) fitted to vintage planes?
     
     
   • Their chipbreakers are closer to the edge of the blade (?)

I encourage you let me know if I am wrong.

No, I wouldn't necessarily recommend you round the chipbreaker corners. As I mentioned in my post, it didn't really correct the problem, it was just one of the things I tried. There isn't much metal at the bottom of the chipbreaker due to the hump, and so if you round the corners and then later decided to bring it back to straight, there may not be enough metal to do it (you'd have ground it back into the hump). And what David Weaver says makes sense-even if the straight edge of the chipbreaker goes past the rounded corners of the iron, it should not be in the wood. Logically, if the chipbreaker corners are hitting the wood then there is an issue with lateral adjustment or the chipbreaker is not mounted in correct alignment to the blade, or the blade edge is ground off-kilter with respect to the blade sides.

The premium planes do probably stay sharp a little longer. I don't know by how much since I haven't had a chance to use my LN 4 yet. But the steel in good vintage planes is usually very good, and sharpens easily. In fact the newer steels will take longer to sharpen if you use traditional whetstones (not so much with diamonds or ceramic waterstones) so there is a trade-off potentially. And yes, if you put a modern steel blade in a vintage plane you will have all of these properties with respect to edge retention, grindability, etc.

The chipbreaker is set by the user. Doesn't matter if vintage or premium. When planing against the grain, setting it extremely close to the edge helps mitigate tearout by breaking the fibers in the "chip" (shaving) before they can rip out the wood ahead of the blade.

[David Weaver]

What do CS's observations boil down to?

That he's not telling the individuals what their real problem is, and it's lack of experience - not lack of expensive tools (that are sold by friends of his - at least I am assuming that the sellers of the tools are friends of his). Maybe he's more interested in making the classes easier to teach, and doesn't want to get into that. Who knows?

[Pat Barry]

Isn't it that we are all set in our ways and resistant to change? Some much more set in their ways (and happy to be as a matter of fact) than others. The epitome of plane making was not the 1800's as some might have you believe. We can't really expect those old Bailey planes we all love so much to be around forever. I think the love of these old tools has more to do with nostalgia than function and more to do with the pain involved in learning to love them than anything else. We paid a big price in blood sweat and tears getting those old tools to a reasonable state of operation so with that we became attached mentally and emotionally to them (is their a psychologist in the house?). In fact, I bet the day is not too far off when those old beauties will be to valuable from a antique value point of view, to actually be used. Those old planes need to go the way of the rotary telephone pretty soon so we can all make progress.

[Sean Hughto]

So, Pat, couldn't make your vintage plane work? Must be those old planes!

[David Weaver]

Isn't it that we are all set in our ways and resistant to change? Some much more set in their ways (and happy to be as a matter of fact) than others. The epitome of plane making was not the 1800's as some might have you believe. We can't really expect those old Bailey planes we all love so much to be around forever. I think the love of these old tools has more to do with nostalgia than function and more to do with the pain involved in learning to love them than anything else. We paid a big price in blood sweat and tears getting those old tools to a reasonable state of operation so with that we became attached mentally and emotionally to them (is their a psychologist in the house?). In fact, I bet the day is not too far off when those old beauties will be to valuable from a antique value point of view, to actually be used. Those old planes need to go the way of the rotary telephone pretty soon so we can all make progress.

I haven't had a bailey plane that I brought too good state that took more than an hour in ...7 years? One that is kept dry will be just as relevant in 100 years as it was 100 years ago - as long as it's not worn out.

The viewpoint that they should go away almost reads as a satire. the only thing that can be said about them is that they might take a minimal amount more skill to work once they are prepared, but it is so small that it's less than any woodworking operation that I can think of (the skill that is).

To use a vintage wooden plane (and to bring one back to spec) might be a bit more difficult in some cases (if wedge work is required or if a cap iron has been abused, etc), but a stanley bailey plane from the best era (early 1900s to about wwII?) is a platform that can basically do anything, the only possible place where it's short on function might be planing something like cocobolo with a lot of silica. But an LN comes up short there, too.

There is, though, a very real desire for some of the teachers to spec high quality tools for students in the class so that the teacher is past the point of having to decide whether or not a student's tools are limiting. That is another thing entirely, though, what's best for the instructor all the way around isn't necessarily best for the student.

The real crisis in another several decades is going to be getting decent wood at a price that you can afford to work it as a hobbyist.

[Pat Barry]

I haven't had a bailey plane that I brought too good state that took more than an hour in ...7 years? One that is kept dry will be just as relevant in 100 years as it was 100 years ago - as long as it's not worn out.

The viewpoint that they should go away almost reads as a satire. the only thing that can be said about them is that they might take a minimal amount more skill to work once they are prepared, but it is so small that it's less than any woodworking operation that I can think of (the skill that is).

To use a vintage wooden plane (and to bring one back to spec) might be a bit more difficult in some cases (if wedge work is required or if a cap iron has been abused, etc), but a stanley bailey plane from the best era (early 1900s to about wwII?) is a platform that can basically do anything, the only possible place where it's short on function might be planing something like cocobolo with a lot of silica. But an LN comes up short there, too.

There is, though, a very real desire for some of the teachers to spec high quality tools for students in the class so that the teacher is past the point of having to decide whether or not a student's tools are limiting. That is another thing entirely, though, what's best for the instructor all the way around isn't necessarily best for the student.

The real crisis in another several decades is going to be getting decent wood at a price that you can afford to work it as a hobbyist.

I was aiming for a bit of humor,

but none-the-less, I do suspect with tool hoarding demonstrated by numerous folks around here that the world market for decent old planes is rapidly drying up and this will force the folks to try something new.

I do happen to agree with your point about the coming difficulty of getting quality wood for a fair price though.

[David Weaver]

When the market starts to try up and it's time for me to get some vintage tools, that's when I'll jump ship and start talking about how no work can be done with vintage tools!

I'll have to make something up - like at age 175, some of them turn to powder.

[Steve Voigt]

Would that be the better conclusion? Or are your conclusions overly broad? How many OTHER people have you had the opportunity to watch for HOURS while they work with a variety of vintage and new planes? How much experience do YOU have in teaching, in recognizing the signs of frustration in a student? What, pray tell, WOULD be a representative sample??

This makes no sense. I pointed out that Chris's conclusion was too broad. The one I suggested ("the type of person who is willing to shell out a few thousand bucks and a week of time to take a CS class prefers new planes") was much narrower. So if you think mine was too broad, was does that say about his? I think what you really mean is that you don't like my conclusion. That's another matter.
Anyway, what does my teaching experience have to do with anything? I criticized the logic of Chris's argument, not his skills or experience.

What do CS's observations boil down to? That people in his classes had an easier time using the modern planes. Perhaps it is because they have more money than sense (is that an unfair characterization of your subtext Steve?), perhaps it was some sort of placebo effect. Maybe it was because Chris's planes were sharp and their own were not. Or it's quite possible that modern planes are easier for most people to use....

Nope, I didn't mean they had more money than sense. There really wasn't a subtext. I said just what I meant: that this wasn't a representative sample. Such a sample would have to include people like me, who never took a class and learned by reading and doing.

As an aside, I quite like Chris's writings and own a couple of his books. I don't agree with Dave at all on this--but we can disagree without getting all hot and bothered about it. It's just an opinion.

[David Weaver]

\
Anyway, what does my teaching experience have to do with anything? I criticized the logic of Chris's argument, not his skills or experience.

When I read the stuff he writes, I feel like I'm reading tractor books by randy leffingwell (there is about one person in the world who would get that).

BUT, I do like it when he publishes work other folks do. I've got a couple of books LAP has published that were written by other folks, and they are top shelf.

[Gary Muto]

The way I see it... that makes sense to me.

People taking Chris' classes have significant disposable income. Typically that comes with Less time to Money ratio.

The classes help steepen the learning curve and the tools compliment steeping the learning curve. The tools are easy to acquire and they work with a light amount of honing. Fairly easy to maintain.

To each their own!