How to read grain direction?

[Pat Barry]

Fascination with adjusters on planes suggests a lack of progress in actual planing. At one time, I thought backlash was an enormous problem, and now I can't seem to find a plane where it is. The only problem I've encountered with adjusters is planes where the adjuster direction is reversed from the norm. That's a problem.

In general, it seems that machinists and mechanical engineers seem to have a problem leveling with themselves about what's really material in planing woods.

George is an exception, though I'd imagine he started with wood and went to machining later.

One of my woodworking buddies is a mechanical engineer, and he has a lot of trouble separating fascination with the tool from woodworking. He is appalled by a lot of things that don't matter at all, and thus doesn't use his hand tools very often.

A craftsman will have no time for that kind of stuff, and it's good for us to try to get to the point that we're craftsmen.

I think your points regarding the classification of engineers are ludicrous. Also, adjusting the Bailey plane depth is a pain in the rear. The sloppiness of the adjuster drives me nuts. I don't want to develop craftsmanship with inferior tools - you can if you wish. I suspect the root of this adjuster problem with the beloved Bailey planes is due to lack of quality in the design and materials because those things would have priced them out of the market. Why is it wrong to want a tool to work without all the fuss? Today's engineers don't get paid for sloppiness of design. They are expected to deliver high quality at low cost - not an easy task in today's ultra competitive world. Anyway, that's my experience as an engineer. I do use the Bailey style planes most of the time and they do get the job done of course. They have a certain charm due to their age and history but I don't think, if they were selling them new today, they would actually have many takers. We all love them because we can find them so inexpensively. Lets face it, we are all tightwads and wannabe craftsman.

[Winton Applegate]

little brass hammer

I would ACTUALLY rather discuss little brass hammers but David W. refuses to answer my queries about those.
so
alas
I am reduced to discuss how terrible BU planes are for your health, or was it vision, mental out look that was it ! ! !

right ?

Sorry I have such a pore, pour, . . . dang it . . . poor memory these days for facts and details. My memory is like the bird wing butterfly, it flits prettily here and there, but alas is now almost completely extinct.

What was it we were discussing ?

Foolishness !
I have to have the skill and good mechanical sense to know how to allow for a bit of foolishness.

OK I’m with you now.

ADVISE

I’m not talking about you or your posts.
You missed that ?
Keep watching the posts.

OK you convinced me. Bevel down planes are best because it is logical that they are the best.
Because. . .
well because uhmmmmm
oh yah
Because there are a lot of them.
So the best car to have is a pinto, beetle or what was that other awful thing there were so many of . . . . ?
I learned to drive in the nasty thing for Bob's sake . . . in the driver's ed classes in the practice lot . . . kept wiggling all around on it's coil springs just rolling around the lot . . .
oh well . . . did I mention my memory isn't very good ?
It is like a . . .
like a . . .
the thing you drain rice through for heaven sakes . . .
no matter.

Won the planing competition with a Stanley.
Wow in spite of a handy cap like that. Show off.
Apparently a true feat of planing prowess would have been to win it with a BU.

OK really I got to stop. I was already afraid the thread was stopped by the moderator.
I'm going to do chores.
Be nice.
It's only woodworking.
Only . . . Hah ! ! ! what am I saying.

[george wilson]

Oh! Do keep on being stubborn,Winton. But,it is not conducive to improving your knowledge. I was not aware of how to correctly set a chip breaker. Nor was I enamored of my few,old Stanley planes. I will not dismiss scientifically proven information as shown in the Japanese video. It would just be foolish to do so.

I will repeat that some of the sloppiness in Baileys MIGHT be due to many years of use. And they are being made better today,but at high cost,of course. I'll still warn all that brass is a soft metal,and it will wear eventually,even on fancy new stuff. Or,are the adjustment screws made of stainless steel? I had an LN BU,and I think it had brass. Haven't had an LV BU.

Winton,you did preface your "advise" paragraph with GEORGE, to point out how everyone is using it wrong. How am I mistaken about you addressing that to me?

If I got that wrong,I might DANE to suggest,with extreme diffidence,that your posts are a bit convoluted. They do become hard to follow.

How can adjusting Stanley planes be much more difficult and fussy than constantly changing type fonts?????

[David Weaver]

I think your points regarding the classification of engineers are ludicrous. Also, adjusting the Bailey plane depth is a pain in the rear. The sloppiness of the adjuster drives me nuts. I don't want to develop craftsmanship with inferior tools - you can if you wish. I suspect the root of this adjuster problem with the beloved Bailey planes is due to lack of quality in the design and materials because those things would have priced them out of the market. Why is it wrong to want a tool to work without all the fuss? Today's engineers don't get paid for sloppiness of design. They are expected to deliver high quality at low cost - not an easy task in today's ultra competitive world. Anyway, that's my experience as an engineer. I do use the Bailey style planes most of the time and they do get the job done of course. They have a certain charm due to their age and history but I don't think, if they were selling them new today, they would actually have many takers. We all love them because we can find them so inexpensively. Lets face it, we are all tightwads and wannabe craftsman.

The fact that you think that the stanley adjuster is hindering you in some way that actually has to do with woodworking tells us what we need to know (keep in mind a very long stretch of stanley plane manufacture targeted at professional woodworkers paralleled norris type adjusters, they could've used something of the sort if they thought it was actually worth it, or rather if their customers thought it was actually worth it).

If bailey planes didn't sell well these days at a fraction of the cost of premium planes (figure they'd probably be half as much for something the quality level of a vintage bailey pattern plane when they did decent machining and used rosewood), then it would be because the buyers are beginners. That's not something we should strive to base our expectations on.

i do categorize engineers (it is a generalization, meaning there are exceptions) as I did because I have seen many who are fascinated by gadgetry on tools or precision that literally doesn't matter for hand tool woodworking. Or like my friend, in the end they decide that hands and eyes and brain aren't capable and if you can't make something precise and jigged, then you have to get a tool that completely removes the individual. He uses the exact same line that you just used, that tools that did fine work for decades or centuries are inferior and difficult to work with. He doesn't have a clue (his dad, a professional, literally wore out a few stanley planes) and believes that there isn't enough time left in his life (he's got decades of life left) to learn to work by hand with anything but the most precise tools available. He makes decent looking stuff with super tight joints and is fascinated by wood worked to the thousandths. He couldn't choose or cut a moulding or an appealing curve that didn't come by bending a flexible stick. He got me into woodworking and is a good guy all around, but we diverged once I started to use my imagination.

[Jim Koepke]

Fascination with adjusters on planes suggests a lack of progress in actual planing. At one time, I thought backlash was an enormous problem, and now I can't seem to find a plane where it is. The only problem I've encountered with adjusters is planes where the adjuster direction is reversed from the norm. That's a problem.

Backlash, slop, play et al. has never caused me a problem. It is just something to learn to live with in life. Must have been the training I got with my old 1957 VW van that liked to wander.

A few of my planes are type 6 or earlier. The adjuster is reversed from all the later planes. It just keeps me on my toes to remember which plane is in use.

And,I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about with your ADVISE bit. I use the words advise and advice correctly. And the spell check will not help anyone,because,used right or wrong,if the words are spelled correctly,the checker will let them stand. So will the checker let stand incorrectly used YOUR (when it should have been YOU'RE),THERE,when it should have been THEIR,(or even they're), STEAL instead of STEEL(In a machinist's forum!!!!!), and all the other grade school level foolishness that goes on out there.

I know it is wrong, but I can not help giggling and having my imagination run wild when someone mentions acquiring a new vice.

I am still having too much pleasure with all my old vices.

jtk

[Pat Barry]

The fact that you think that the stanley adjuster is hindering you in some way that actually has to do with woodworking tells us what we need to know (keep in mind a very long stretch of stanley plane manufacture targeted at professional woodworkers paralleled norris type adjusters, they could've used something of the sort if they thought it was actually worth it, or rather if their customers thought it was actually worth it).

If bailey planes didn't sell well these days at a fraction of the cost of premium planes (figure they'd probably be half as much for something the quality level of a vintage bailey pattern plane when they did decent machining and used rosewood), then it would be because the buyers are beginners. That's not something we should strive to base our expectations on.

i do categorize engineers (it is a generalization, meaning there are exceptions) as I did because I have seen many who are fascinated by gadgetry on tools or precision that literally doesn't matter for hand tool woodworking. Or like my friend, in the end they decide that hands and eyes and brain aren't capable and if you can't make something precise and jigged, then you have to get a tool that completely removes the individual. He uses the exact same line that you just used, that tools that did fine work for decades or centuries are inferior and difficult to work with. He doesn't have a clue (his dad, a professional, literally wore out a few stanley planes) and believes that there isn't enough time left in his life (he's got decades of life left) to learn to work by hand with anything but the most precise tools available. He makes decent looking stuff with super tight joints and is fascinated by wood worked to the thousandths. He couldn't choose or cut a moulding or an appealing curve that didn't come by bending a flexible stick. He got me into woodworking and is a good guy all around, but we diverged once I started to use my imagination.

Not hindering David. Just annoying and quirky. I can see the point others have made that this adjustment is something that modern tools have overcome. I recall previous discussions on this and there are those here who just accept the sloppiness and work on. I just find it to be annoying.
With regard to your comments about engineers, I think the engineers here will be fascinated by your categorization. At the same time they will wonder what exactly fascinates you about sloppiness, finicky setups, 'fetteling' for example. I read that as you trying to make do with a tool that really isn't designed properly. Sure, your 'craftsmanship' and 'imagination' may overcome the lousy design, and you can fettel, er improve, the tool as much as you want. Lets face it, you do it out of necessity. Necessity to make the subpar tool work as you need it and necessity to continually defend your opinions of it. People today don't really find that acceptable.

[David Weaver]

Beginners don't find that acceptable, a non-beginner will find no material difference. Remember I had the premium planes (well, I still have some, just not bench planes), at one point that's just about all I had. I favor a stanley bailey over anything LN or LV makes for actual woodworking. Maybe it's because I dimension a lot of wood from rough. It's not making excuses for planes, it's using them, and not just fiddling with an adjuster to try to get really thin smoother shavings.

Remember, norris was making two different styles of adjusters while stanley was making planes and selling a lot more planes than norris (there are probably more problematic norris adjusters than stanley adjusters).

As far as fettling goes, I didn't "fettle" the smoothers I have for very long. No more than a half hour each. I spent about an hour total on the millers falls jointer I have, including flattening it.

I remember what I preferred as a beginner. I know what I prefer now after a lot of dimensioning. They aren't the same thing. I remember being fascinated with the fine adjustment on the premium planes, though the lateral adjustment left me a bit cold. The LN adjustments are nice (the lateral adjustment is better and the adjuster wheel operates nicely), but they have an inferior cap iron design (that on some planes can't even be used properly), a thicker iron (which again, may benefit a beginner, but I don't favor it), weight that's not needed over a bailey pattern....I just prefer the stanleys. Sure, they aren't machined as closely, but they weren't selling to beginners who think that all plane work happens with one thousandth shavings. If they were selling to people who weren't proficient with using planes, maybe they would've used malleable cast (they used it for some school-bound items) and ground things more tightly and used set screws, etc, but they made a plane that was needed to do good (or great) work and left it at that.

[george wilson]

Winton, you are comparing apples to oranges. There really is a difference between a cheap car and a plane that was made and used by just about all the professional woodworkers. There were Craftsman,Dunlap and other cheaper knock offs for the amateurs,just as there are cheaper cars for the less monetarily endowed(or perhaps more parsimonious) customers. That is what they used. Maybe they drove to work in a cheap car,but those planes were by far the predominate ones that they worked with.

Stanley did make a BU plane. After all,ALL LN does is copy old Stanley designs,making them better,some think not,but they are still copies. If the Stanley BU plane was such a superior design,WHY did it not become their most popular model,instead of an expensive collector's item due to their comparative rarity.

Who made MY favorite planes? Why,ME,of course!! Though I must confess I love my LN miter plane,which IS a BU design. I think the boxy body is cool. A left over bit of design from 18th. C. metal miter planes,sans dovetailing. STILL a Stanley copy,though. They(LN) could have left off with trying to "streamline" the hot dog handle(I'll make my own,thank you!).

If you like your BU planes,and want to defend them,and ignore the facts about chip breaker use that have recently come back to light,I suggest you continue to do so. It might be for everyone's best interest that you drop the argument without a Parthian shot. No one here is convincing anyone else to change their opinion. I do not intend to be goaded into participating in any more locked threads. No one comes out of those happy.

By the way,Pat,I am not among the wannabe craftsman. I'm a been there(to many times around the block),done that and too worn out to do it too many more times craftsman!!!

[David Weaver]

Stanley did make a BU plane. After all,ALL LN does is copy old Stanley designs,making them better,but they are still copies. If the Stanley BU plane was such a superior design,WHY did it not become their most popular model,instead of an expensive collector's item due to their comparative rarity.

The only thing wrong with the stanley 62 that I can think of is the fact that the casting is weak at the mouth, but I don't know if it took abuse to get it to crack. If there was a significant demand for the plane, stanley could've made it with malleable cast (there was overlap in the 62 and the 80M scraper), but they chose not to.

They did, however, sell gobs of low angle and standard angle bevel up block planes.

[george wilson]

Probably they sold gobs of BU low angle block planes because they are too small,and it would have been an extra expense to fit them with chip breakers.

[David Weaver]

haha...

I'd assume that a lot of those block planes went to carpenters.

[Kees Heiden]

Ha, I've been sleeping very well, and look what I find this morning!

I'd like to pick one item from your story Winton. The rest has all ready been dealt with pretty exhaustively I see.

You think that the very tip of the blade is vibrating when cutting wood? I know that the Bailey blades can flex a bit when pressed really hard, which leaves chatter marks in the wood. This can be dealt with in various ways up to the point that it is hardly a problem anymore. In Australia I can see how a Bailey might not be your plane of choice, but I have no experience in that teritory.

But the bevel itself flapping in the breeze? A very short triangular piece of hardened toolsteel, bending back and forth? That's very hard to believe. Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Does it leave any marks on the wood surface?

To counter this idea of the floppy bevel, I'd like to present the case of the classical infill plane. These are widely regarded as the ultimate in solid, chatterproof delivery of the edge to the wood. And they are bevel down with a thick blade, thus long bevels!

And if the force on the edge is really enough to stretch out the steel on the face of the blade and compress the steel on the clearance side, then the pretension of the chipbreaker just behind the edge should provide more support then the thin sole of the bevel down blade which is a lot further away.

BTW, I am not a mechanic, it's much worse, I am an electrical engineer.

[David Weaver]

Kees, when I made the comment about engineers, of course I know you're an engineer, too, but there are exceptions to generalities.

This has been a fun discussion when I first got online, I was way into premium planes, and I remember some of the long time woodworker preferring some types of planes that pat refers to as inferior. I just couldn't understand how they could, because it was plain to me that taking a thin smoother shaving was smoother with the heavier premium planes. And, of course the generalized notion was that the less precise planes couldn't control tearout, but we know that's not true about very many planes now. Strangely enough, the plane I probably use most productively is a $25 wooden try plane...I like it even better than the Stanley 7.

[Kees Heiden]

Hey, I'm as bad a bad ass engineer as all the others! I love tools and geeking about them endlessly . But I also like skills and learning new ones.

The Bailey plane is a brilliant design. It has its limitations, but the more I learn about them, the more I like. The light weight, the thin blade, the adjuster, the curved chipbreaker. All these points of critique are in fact brilliant when you learn how to use them. And as much I like my wooden planes, I must confess that the Bailey is easier to use. It's one of the most succesfull planedesigns ever made.

The light weight means less fatique and it makes them nimble.
The thin blade means less sharpening time.
The adjuster has backlash but it works perfectly allright and is very durable even when you clamp the blade a bit too much. Norris adjusters wear out faster especially when you clamp the blade too tight to the bed.
The thin curved chipbreaker. It takes quite a bit of finetuning usually to fit it to the back of the blade, but then, it is the easiest one to adjust to a fine setting in my shop.

And the planes work very well when proparly tuned. Even my type 11 #7 which is more then 100 years old. It didn't even need sole flattening, it's as flat as it can be. The post war UK made models are fine too, though they needed a bit more attention. Learning how to set the chipbreaker was a quantum leap in how they perform.

Wooden planes take more adjusting time, but when they are properly set, they glide so nicely over the wood, that's special too.

[george wilson]

Wooden planes do glide nicely,and they are less likely to damage your piece of work if you butt into something,or knock something with the wooden plane.