If you could do just one premium plane...

[george wilson]

It is definitely true that Marceau works very hard to get each and every part immaculately polished and finished. I just do not care for his totes,though. They are disproportionate to some degree. Too skinny in the middle,too heavy on top. They are almost 18th. Century esque. And I think the design of totes came more into perfection in the 19th. C.. Just because I worked in an 18th.C. setting does not mean I worship the 18th. C.. In some respects,I think it was a decadent period in several ways. Guns became more slab sided. That horrible instrument,the "English Guitar" became popular. I won't get into more detail here.

The plane in the top picture is going to be difficult to adjust with the handle in the way of the too stubby iron. Unless the user is VERY careful each and every time he strikes the top of that iron,the handle is going to start getting whacked. And,people get tired sometimes(especially me),and in a hurry. So,I put small odds of always properly being ultra careful in adjusting that stubby,close quartered iron. And,that big blob of a logo in the middle of the lever cap needs to go. It would be much nicer if the maker just stamped his name on the cap.

His knurling,while perfectly done,could be a lot more interesting if he had some microscope type knurls like I made for the cap screw I posted above. Those little details really can mar an otherwise nice design. There are those little diamond knurled knobs sticking up in several places. A lot could be done with them design wise. And,needs to be done to stay in keeping with the quality of work evident in the rest of the planes. If I had the lower plane,I'd make nicer knobs,at the very least.

I don't like real stubby plane irons. They will soon get too short with many sharpenings. Of course,these planes may never get used because they are too precious to get dirty and dusty with use. They become more like sculptures of planes than users.

Personally,I see no need for the metal/wood laminating on the front knob. It is not reflected on the tote,and I think it ought to look like a matched pair,at least,though I am grateful that he did NOT attempt to laminate the tote!!. I don't hate it,but that is just how I feel about it. And,I think chips may someday start falling off of those thin edged wood laminations. They will probably not stay flush,since wood moves,and metal(comparatively) does not. Then,the knob won't feel as good.

I see no problem with the basic shape of the metal bodies. The dovetailing is obviously perfect,too. He does do very careful work indeed. Again,it's not a question of craftsmanship. It's a design question.

If I had to pick one of yours,it would be the Sauer,single iron or not,based on design.

[Michael Ray Smith]

Always seems to be the most recent one that got me out of a trouble spot!

I heard that! One week my favorite plane may be my Stanley No. 8 and the next it may be my Stanley No. 2. The one that wins most often is probably my LV Bevel-up jack plane for its versatility, and I suppose that's what I'd pick if I had to use only one plane. If I had to live with only two, I think it would be a jointer (probably No. 7 size, or maybe No. 6) and the LV bevel-up block plane, which works very nicely as a smoothing plane. It's not that I necessarily like BU planes more than BD, but the versatility of being able to change the angle of attack just by switching blades has significant value. However, I'm probably getting a bit away from the point of the OP, which seemed to be aimed more along the lines of "what's your dream plane?" rather than "if you had only one plane, what would it be?"

[Derek Cohen]

George, you spotted the blade problem. That was one of the planes that Philip was trying to simplify (for cost) and I warned him that the handle needed to clear the blade. In the end it did not go into production. This is the plane it sprang from ...

I also do not like the "fancy" bits - I much prefer clean lines. That is one of the strengths of Konrad. However, what is interesting about Philip's designs is that one does not realise just how tank-like they are. He disguises this reasonably well. One cannot mistake the heavy construction, but look at where he started (This is a plane I own) ... Regards from Perth Derek

[george wilson]

Well,I see from the top picture that he does have microscope knurls. I wish he'd use them more often. I like the tote on the bottom picture better,except for the lower curves. If he'd combine the lower part of the upper picture's tote with the top of the tote on the lower picture,I'd like it pretty well. The way he has placed the adjustment knob,there would not be room for it. The plane would have to be re configured to allow for the meatier lower part of the tote. But,it ought to be done.

The slightest bit of wear on the cap screw of the top plane,and it would be bottoming out.

I appreciate that he has used a better knurl(though it would be better if it was wider). On the depth adjustment knob,it would be more attractive if the long,tapered area below the knurl was hollow shaped,preferably an elliptical hollow. One that got a tighter curve as it approached the knurl.

Manhattan Supply sells convex rope and straight knurls. They are meant to be fed along bars to knurl long lengths. However,they can be used as mother knurls to make wider microscope knurls from. If the plane maker does not wish to make his own knurls using taps to hob them,as I have posted here before(I think),he could use the convex knurl from Manhattan Supply. Have I posted how to make knurls here? It is a metal working subject,though,using a metal lathe.

I must say that old Stanleys do have very attractive totes,common as they are. Nice front knobs too.

The front knob of the top plane is not elliptical. It is a ball,and looks too skinny. The bottom one is better,but just not quite there. Just a little fatter in the wide part would be better.

I am probably going to drive you crazy by picking on the details. I hope not. But,to me,they are just as important as the rest of the plane. Details set apart great work from the just "good" work.

Derek,I am sure you can see that these are constructive criticisms. That is because you have a good eye yourself.

[Pat Barry]

No, I do not want a '34 Ford. My shoulder plane is not an old style. It is unique. This design FLOWS!!! How could it be said that it does not? And,it is comfortable to use.

The hammer heads flow. They are my own modern designs. The handle of this jointer flows. It is in the style of 19th. C. handles,but is definitely not a copy. It has more design features than other handles from the 19th. C..

I HAD to copy tools as tool maker,for use in the museum,but these are my own designs.

Lest this be described as chest beating,it is not. I am just trying to show some examples of good design.

You,of course,are free to make your own decisions. I just cannot agree that Lazarus's blocky parts screwed together can be said to flow.

These shoulder plane and hammer designs are certainly unique. I would love to hear the basis for the hammer design in particular. Something drove you to evolve a typical design to what you created. That story would be great for a new thread.

I have always believed that form should follow function. Not a question of flow so much as a question of there being a reason for the attributes - sometimes that is nothing more than the craftsman's own signature being left behind. Other times the nuance of the design is there for a functional reason.

I do think that variety is the spice of life and that is demonstrated by the many unique designs presented in this thread. I'm afraid sometimes the style is 'all show and no go'.

[george wilson]

Designs just come to me,then I refine them to suit the application better. Guess I was in a curvey frame of mind when I designed these hammers and the curvey(sp?) shoulder plane,though they were designed many years apart.

The quality of the curves is extremely important,though. Get them wrong and your piece will look terrible. Having drawn the shape of the shoulder plane,I designed the shape of the escapement to go with the shape of the body. If you notice,the lines of the escapement are parallel with the outside shape of the body much of the way around.

The bevels added harmonious detail. As mentioned before,I made them bolder where the body's curves are larger. I did this by changing the ANGLE of the bevels,so that the bevels do not change the unbeveled "thickness" of the brass as seen from above,or from either end. That would not look good. You have to design things so that they look good from all directions,like a sculpture would have to look.

The "over stuffing" is not something I have seen in old planes. It just came to me that it would look good,and especially if it was rounded like it is,to look as if the filling was soft,and being squeezed out of the plane. The plane would not nearly be what it is had the filling not protrude from the brass the way it does. The rounded filling made the plane quite comfortable to use,too. No sharp corners like on most shoulder planes. And,the blade is low enough that it doesn't get in the way of your palm.

This is actually the 2nd. plane I made in this pattern,but it's identical to the first. When I was in public,I lost so many tools because members of the public would beg them off of my bench,offering money that was hard to refuse!! Being younger,I just thought I could make another one. That did not always happen,but this plane was one I was determined to keep. I consider it one of my best designs.

Short coming of this design: The adjustable front sole has to be removed to extract the iron. But,shoulder planes aren't used enough to get them dull very often,so it isn't a big draw back. It was the only way I could get the escapement that gracefully shaped.

I don't feel that I've offered much instruction here,but to me,design just pops out of my imagination.

[Brian Holcombe]

HNT Gordon are a nice medium between the LN type planes and the wild in-fills.

[Mike Holbrook]

My go-to planes like Patel's are the Veritas BD planes, the large Smoother, LA Jack and the BD Jointer. So far they are the ones, like Michael Ray mentions, which have gotten me out of the most tight spots. I often find that their mass is helpful when I run up against tough wood. I recently purchased a few old Stanley's. The Stanleys I use for rougher work so I am not concerned with making them precision tools. The Stanley planes have easy to modify blades, so they all have or will soon have cambers. The 5 1/4 that arrived today is soaking in the Evapo Rust. Tomorrow I will know if the blade and chip breaker will be usable for my purposes or not. Then there are my wood planes all made by Steve Knight or myself. I use all three types in situations that they function better than the others in. If I wanted an extra nice wood plane I might be tempted, like Brian, to buy a HNT Gordon, either a smoother or jointer. The smoother and jointer are the two planes I find most worthy of extra tuning and expense. I use my Jack planes the most. Lately, the Stanley #5 with the heavily cambered blade has been helpful for tapering chair and table legs in wood too dry for my current skill level with a draw knife.

[Winton Applegate]

George,
Thanks very much for the photo of the cap screw. I was wondering which way the screw design should change.

I should have probably PM ‘d you but . . . anyway

Queenmasteroftheuniverseandbabybunnytrainer, my significant other, who is the real artist in our outfit agrees with you on the blocky bolted together plane designs. She said Nah Dude, Nah . . . my words not hers.
She is having her own one woman art show Friday night 2-13-15. Eighteen rather large oil paintings, mostly nonrepresentational “abstract” painted to jazz mostly Chet Baker and Miles Davis and the like. She says my mp3 music playlists contribute a lot to her paintings and would be no where the same without them so in a small way I’m in the paintings.
soooooo
I can’t help but put up a painting or two since this is such a big night for her . . .
but what I really wanted to ask you and get your opinion on was not her paintings
but
further elaboration on your term FLOW / it Flows etc.
See the links to photos of the two car bodies. Both Lotus cars.
One very swoopy and flowing; the other made up of flat panels and more austere but still a classic “recognize it at glance” body design.
here
and
pictures of lotus esprit
The Esprit is much wider in person than these photos seem to portray.
The second design is the Elise
pictures of lotus elise
With reference to your design esthetic; do they both flow ? What do you think of them ?
You won’t hurt my feelings if you hate them both but I am curious.

[Derek Cohen]

Perhaps we should begin a thread on reliability - planes that you can count on to work first time and without any testing. Just sharpen the blade, insert it, and go. When the chips are down, and you are taking that final shaving on a board of interlocked grain, which plane do you turn to?

The recent review of the LV Custom planes has shown what wonderful planes they are, both the smoother and the jointer I used. I would add the LN and Stanley bench planes to this group. They demonstrate that a chipbreaker is a powerful piece of equipment. But they also reveal that set up can be finicky when starting out and practice makes perfect .. but takes time. Even now I will take a test shaving before i start working, which simply illustrates that my confidence is not yet there.

Planes that I sharpen and go include the Marcou and LV BUS (both bevel up, 60 degree included angle). They are simply amazing performers. The BUS must be the best easy performer available. The HNT Gordon planes I own (smoother and trying plane) are also in this category. They are a tad more work to set up as they use a wedge and mallet, but still pretty easy.

Modified BUS ..



Regards from Perth

Derek

[Winton Applegate]

Chris,
Here is one I have always coveted.
Boy I had the hots for one of these for a long time.
I tried to buy one.
Now I suppose the price is out of my range.
I can not get enough of looking at it though.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Derek,

Interesting point of view regarding reliability. In thinking through my mention of my brass LN#4, with HAF, when I reach for it, I "know" what to expect and it delivers. Of course I have to do my part and getting used to fiddling with the chipbreaker a half dozen years ago when I first got the plane, seemed almost exasperating. But now the plane is absolutely predictable. Maybe this weekend, I'll apply some of the same effort to learning my LV BUS.

[Stewie Simpson]

Hi George. I would have considered weight an important attribute in the designing a good Smoothing Plane. The S55A and S50A Marcou Smoothing Planes each weigh 6.6 Ib. That's equivalent to the weight to a Stanley 5 1/2 Jack Plane.

Stewie;

[Warren Mickley]

I think a lot of these plane makers don't actually know how to use a plane. I saw one plane maker who wanted a flat surface on wood so he used a milling machine and sandpaper. Apparently it did not occur to him that one of his planes might do the job.

About five years ago I tried a Marcou plane at a woodworking show. It was pitiful, like driving an armoured tank down the highway. When I wrote about it on another forum you should have seen the names I was called. One guy alerted an old pensioner in England who then joined the forum just to call me names. I appealed to the forum moderators to stop the abuse; they thought I deserved it for daring to criticise the thing.

At another show I was at Ron Hock's booth and he had a plane that was made from one of the kits he sold. The iron was only 1/4 inch longer than the wedge. When I pointed out that the iron would soon be too short, he was kind of surprised, like it never occurred to him that someone might actually use the thing.

[Chris Hachet]

Chris,
Here is one I have always coveted.
Boy I had the hots for one of these for a long time.
I tried to buy one.
Now I suppose the price is out of my range.
I can not get enough of looking at it though.

Did you see the unique Japanese hand plane that Steven Neuman found a little while back? It was part of our trade. The Japanese metal and oak infill that we couldn't figure out what it was....

Neat little plane, and it cuts well. And planes like this are the reason I started the thread....I would like to own one more interesting plane, be it HNT Gordon, an older British infill, build a plane myself from beach a la David Weaver, build or find a Krenov style smoother, etc.

Does not need to be fancy, just unique.

That Japanese plane is certainly unique!