Did oldtime craftsman flatten their plane irons?

[Brian Holcombe]

It is sooo hard to get an experienced dresser nowadays... How is a working stiff to do without one....

I look forward eagerly, counting the seconds, until your fashion post.

Stan

Best approach is to poach one from another workshop, it's an expensive proposition but smooth boards are worth it The telltale sign of the existence of a classically trained dresser on staff is how well the planing robes are kept.

On a serious note with slightly more relevance to this thread, lol, I flatten my Japanese tool backs very accurately, and western stuff not far up from the leading edge. Most importantly and this is truly when the light went off in my head, the edges must meet accurately and without any remaining wire edge. So even if they did not flatten the entire back, I'm quite certain that they must have worked the back to some degree to be able to attain this with repetition and without much aggravation.

As Warren notes a good fine edge lasts longer, so if your goal in the long term is spend less time at the stones then you have to be able to get a good edge which means accuracy in the front and back of the plane iron. I can't say what they did everywhere, but I would imagine the top shops would have kept their tools just as well as anyone does currently who produces similar quality of work.

[Warren Mickley]

When you examine the bottoms of old table tops and find striations in a surface that otherwise seems to have been cut with a sharp iron, is that an indication of an unflattened back? I've seen a lot of that over the years and wondered how the guy got all those " nicks in the iron". Since scrapers were the principle tool for final surface ,instead of abrasives,the striations would be no real problem. Does this make any sense?.

No. You are looking at a surface the craftsman did not care about. What you are seeing is plane marks of a jack plane. Jack planes get beat up somewhat because of doing rough work, and they don't need to be nick free in order to do their work. If you want a smoother surface than the jack plane affords (like the top of the table) it is a whole lot faster and a lot less tiring to use a trying plane than to use a scraper.

[Mel Fulks]

Thanks Warren, that does make sense. My own use of planes has been mainly for fitting to openings or making some type of glue joint, easy for me to forget the traditional plane " division of labor" and practical reasons for it.

[Mike Holbrook]

There seems to be violent agreement that we do not have a large enough quantity of tools, untouched since they were sharpened a couple centuries ago to make definitive judgement. Certainly there is no disgrace in not knowing, we get to make up our own minds with little fear of being "proven" wrong. The older I get the more I find out how little I actually know for a fact to be unequivocally true which for some reason just makes me more inquisitive.

Brian and Stanley, can't you two just let your wives dress you like everyone else!

[Scott DelPorte]

The Studley book has an interesting couple pages on what they called "Studley the Sharpener". They examined the edges of his chisels and planes and tried to draw conclusions about how he sharpened. They assumed that most of the edges were done by him because they had consistent scratch and polishing patterns. A couple conclusions they drew were.

1) Studley sharpened the whole bevel. Not much evidence of using a micro bevel.
2) Bevels consistently had a slight convex shape from sharpening. Some evidence of a hollow grind, then slight convex wear patterns over it from his sharpening
3) He spent a lot of time lapping the backs, but polished close to the edge more then the rest of the back. Looked like something similar to our "ruler trick" was used
4) He liked cambered edges

Much more. Interesting read. There is a picture of him in his shop wearing a tie and dress shirt under his apron, so Brian has got it right.

[Stanley Covington]

Brian and Stanley, can't you two just let your wives dress you like everyone else!

Mike:

The subject of proper dress for the sacred act of planing is so important that I must defer humbly to Brian's greater knowledge.

My good wife aside, I do question whether or not a woman could possibly serve as a certified and licensed dresser. A question for the Gods of Handsaws.

On the other hand, I took my daughter in law to an exhibition near Nihonbashi here in Tokyo put on by a group of blacksmiths from Niigata. Nakano san had setup a planing beam with some very nice hinoki wood for visitors to plane using a selection of his planes. After about 5 minutes of instruction by Mr. Nagano and me, she was planing with confidence and speed creating beautiful full-length fragrant shavings. Another thing I must ask the Gods of Handsaws.

Stan

[Brian Holcombe]

You are too kind, I am simply in the company of great knowledge . It was not until finding such expertise did I truly understand and appreciate the powers of a bold glen plaid.

On a serious note, those who have not done so you would be wise to inspect Stan's photos in the Kiyotada thread. The bevels are flat and the backs are as well, that level of preparation makes resharpenings much easier and helps work toward an edge which will last longer. That is spotlight on how a fine craftsman, who earned his living with his tools, keeps his tools. I can say that because anyone capable of a toolbox of that level is a very fine craftsman.

I would imagine the same if you to walk into George's shop and picked up a chisel, it would have a fine edge on it. He notes as well a good process for getting a very sharp edge without much fuss and getting back to work.

I bet these two would not differ greatly from 18ty century craftsmen who made their living with their tools.

[Kees Heiden]

I had a quick look in Nicholson, The Mechanic's companion. He has a short chapter about sharpening in the joinery section. Describes the grinding wheel, the Turkey stone, the coarse rub stone, about grinding the bevel and wetting a secundairy bevel. All interesting stuff, but not a single word about the face side. Not a single word about stropping either, so maybe his description isn't very complete.

An interesting question is, how did they get their planeirons sharp when we all now that the sharp edge is the combination of two faces? I think for plane irons at least I have an answer. The planeshavings do a remarkable good job of polishing the face side of the iron (if he face wasn't too rough to begin with). So when you only pay attention to removing the burr after honing the bevel, using a strop to really get into that corner, then you end up with a nice sharp edge without any polishing or flattening of the backside.

I am not so sure about chisels though.

[Derek Cohen]

Here's a question or three: if you come to the conclusion that cabinetmaker's of yesteryear honed the bevel alone and "sort of" removed the wire, without any effort to work the back of the blades .... would you change your current sharpening regimes and do the same?

In the same vein, knowing that oilstones probably do not go above the equivalent of a Japanese waterstone rated 6000 grit, would you stop honing above this level (whatever you use)?

Perhaps you are reluctant to change what you do. Is this because you do so out of habit, or because you believe that a modern day sharpening regime is superior to one from yesteryear?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Tony Zaffuto]

Over on the ukworkshop forum there is a guy named Jacob. He is running a holy war against flat backs on chisels and plane irons. He never gets tired of learning everyone around that flattening backs is a modern fad.

I would agree with him if I didn't alwas acquire irons with pitting and heavy dubbed edges on the back. So I continue polishing backs, but keep my efforts centered on the last 1/2" or so.

Jacob argues with everyone and occassionally himself! He hates modern "dosh", and has been known to fashion an axe head out out of a stone to hew a timber just to prove one does not need anthng made recently.

[Stanley Covington]

Here's a question or three: if you come to the conclusion that cabinetmaker's of yesteryear honed the bevel alone and "sort of" removed the wire, without any effort to work the back of the blades .... would you change your current sharpening regimes and do the same?

In the same vein, knowing that oilstones probably do not go above the equivalent of a Japanese waterstone rated 6000 grit, would you stop honing above this level (whatever you use)?

Perhaps you are reluctant to change what you do. Is this because you do so out of habit, or because you believe that a modern day sharpening regime is superior to one from yesteryear?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Three zingers in one post!!

My answer to Derek's Question No. 1: The physics of the wedge have not changed since the universe was first formed, regardless of how us humans have chosen to perceive it at any particular time in our short sojourn on the third rock from the sun. But to answer more directly, I don't believe the skilled cabinetmakers of yesteryear in any country where high-quality work was in demand were satisfied with "sort of" removing the burr. The idea is preposterous. To believe otherwise is to assume the professional cabinetmakers of past centuries were idiots that could not tell a ragged edge from a sharp one in a time when handtools were the only option, and starvation was common. If I could find a way to dramatically improve my sharpening regime without significantly increasing cost or time requirements, I would be thrilled to do so, but only an idjit would downgrade an effective sharpening regime to comply with an obviously mistaken theory based on unreliable evidence and nonsensical nostalgia.

My answer to Derek's Question No.2: Ha ha! I like the way you twisted the question. 6000 grit is fine for many tools especially where quick and dirty work is required. But even if a 6000 equivalent grit oilstone would produce an adequate edge, they are just too damned slow compared to a synthetic waterstone. So yes, I am reluctant to change.

My answer to Derek's Question No.3: I am reluctant to change over to an imagined archaic sharpening system because I know the modern one (which really is quite ancient) is superior.

Great fun Derek. Please post pictures of the concealed esky drawer in the lingerie cabinet when it is done. Magnetic seals?

Stan

[Mike Holbrook]

Interesting questions Derek.

Certainly, back then as well as right now, the sharpening media commonly used might very well be the constant in an analysis of how things were made sharp. I remember darker days in my youth when all I had were a couple "oilstones". The amount of time necessary to rework a bevel or flatten a back with less abrasive media certainly reduced the chances of my tackling such a project. I suspect my attraction to CBN wheels, diamond plates, coarse stones....relates to many hours of frustration trying to do large jobs with fine sharpening media.

Although there were hand powered wheels around back in the day, one might wonder how many tool users had access to these wheels every time they needed to grind something. There are still a few "professional" tool sharpeners around today, I suspect that there was a greater demand for someone who had a way to regrind tools all those years ago.

Once again my thoughts about dramatically improving sharpening capability lead me back to better grinding media.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Here's a question or three . . .

One of the things we deal with today is an excess of options. Some of the things people buy today would have cost many weeks wages in the 1700s. As a practical matter if you were a craftsman of yesteryear I doubt you would purchase a 16000 grit Japanese stone to use in polishing the tertiary bevel, unless you were truly a master and could truly get a result from the tool honed on that stone that you could not otherwise get. The equivalent of the options we have today would have been too rare and expensive, and the people doing this work were largely working for a living and not for leisure.

Today anyone with a credit card can buy very fine tools and very fine stones. People do seem to buy the 16000 grit stones. I see several possible reasons: (1) the person buying it has enough skill to produce a better product with that stone than without (2) the buyer is getting "sold" by the people who sell sharpening stuff (3) the stone provides some social signal or other benefit apart from any work produced (4) the buyer is simply curious.

So setting aside salesmanship, curiousity, and trying to buy social status, and regardless of what they did in yesteryear, I think if you have the skill to get a better joint from a chisel honed to 16,000, it probably makes sense to do that. If you don't have that skill, you are probably better off focusing on the skills and not the stones.

[don wilwol]

Interesting topic. I've asked this question for a long time as well. I've come to the conclusion that since almost all of the planes I have restored, almost none of them were sharp, so craftsman of old never sharpened their planes. (just kidding of course)

I've have certainly found more old irons that didn't have a flat back than those that did. Of the ones that did have a flat back I've often wondered when it was flattened.

Having sharpened a plane or 2, and knowing what works and what doesn't, its hard for me to understand how they got a really smooth surface with a smoother if they didn't flatten to some degree. I don't know the real answer either, so I hope the conversation continues.

[Kees Heiden]

I don't think you can compare oilstone "grit" with the manmade SiC grit scale. Oilstone grit works differently, it becomes more rounded and starts to burnish the steel more then actually cutting it. And then, most oldtimers would strop after wetting. How do you compare that to a grit scale?

And I also don't think that "just removing the burr" is giving you a much worse kind of edge then going through the modern sharpening regime with surgical flattened backs and 16000 grit stones. Especially when strops are involved, you can get quite a polish right at the edge without a flat back. That is in addition to the polish you get from the wood shavings. Have you ever looked through a strong microscope at the wear bevel on the face of a plane iron?

And then there is the case of diminishing returns. When you can cut your wood cleanly with a 4000 grit edge, then a 16 000 grit stone isn't going to bring you a whole lot more.