Did oldtime craftsman flatten their plane irons?

[Jim Davis]

I think it also likely that trillions more thick shavings were planed off than paper thin ones. If I need to take off .002 on an inche in a spot, I'm grabbing a scraper and then sandpaper, not a No. 4 plane with a mirror polished edge. Diamond grits into the thousands would not have been found in a working cabinet shop. Even then, time was money.

I'll just run and hide behind the shop now til the dust settles.

[Bryan Cramer]

I can see the unimportantance of a flat back in a plane iron, but what about a chisel? I was taught and always thought that chisels rely on a flat back to work properly. (bench chisel more than a mortise chisel) Also isn't a truly sharp edge the perfect intersection of two faces and it is only as sharp as the coarsest face? If the back was coarsely ground or flattened, yet the bevel was polished wouldn't the edge be less sharp than an edge that was polished equally on both sides? This could explain the back bevel (lifting) theory. I would think only the finishing tools need this truly sharp edge so the focus was on say the smoothing plane blade's back.

One thing to point out is the working properties of the wood were different. The wood wasn't kiln dried (even green) so it can work easier with a less than perfect edge cutting edges.

Maybe the old tool makers were just that good at delivering properly lapped blades that were flattened and polished according to their intended purpose. this would be more likely pre-Stanley era; maybe? If the tool maker can produce a properly flatten blade that saves so much work.

Another angle is the Japanese have hollow ground their chisels blades and as far as I know always flattened the backs perfectly according to one of my old instructors. This was easy due to the softer steel of the backs and the hollow.

I flatten the backs of my chisels perfectly. Because I bought them from Lie-Neilson they were perfectly flat before I received them. Some of my planes (except bevel up) have a back bevel. The Lie-Neilson have backs that are perfect so I didn't back bevel them. I don't know this is sure an interesting question and I look forward to see what others say.

[Mike Henderson]

Most of the responses here are saying the same thing…that the old tools you own don't have flat backs, so nobody ever flattened their backs. I think this is a suspect line of reasoning. Very few of us own tools made before the late 19th century (there are some exceptions, I know), and most were made in the 20th c. Either way, nearly all were sharpened and used in the 20th century. Your prize chisel with the rounded back may have been bought new in the early 1900s, and last used and sharpened by the buyer's grandson in the 50s.

Now, if this is what you mean by "ancestors," fine. But if you mean "what did cabinetmakers and carpenters do in 1800, when there weren't any power tools to help", then I don't think you can draw any conclusions from the tools you own.

A related question that people sometimes ask is "did previous generations flatten their stones?" And most people will respond with "all the old stones I've seen are dished." But in The Joiner and Cabinetmaker, written in 1839, it states that workers would be fined for not dressing their stones and leaving them flat. Unfortunately, we don't have any plane irons and chisels that we know for sure have been unused since the early 1800s, and that we know were only used by competent workers. So we really can't say.

Anyway, I don't have an answer to Fred's question. But what I am sure of is that if we draw all our conclusions from 20th c. woodworkers, whether from looking at their tools or reading their books, we're looking in the wrong place.

I have wooden coffin planes from the 1800's and the backs of the irons were not flat (irons are laminated cast steel). I've never seen an iron from an antique plane - no matter when it was used - with a flat back. The only exception was one plane I received from another woodworker, who had flattened the back.

Mike

[Stanley Covington]

Bernard E. Jones, in his book The Complete Woodworker first published in 1917, wrote as follows regarding sharpening plane "cutters" and chisel blades on page 58 of the 1980 reprint by 10 Speed Press:

"Pressure is required in sharpening, and three of four minutes' work at least is necessary to obtain the keen edge on a plane-iron after grinding. The face of the tool, whether cutter or chisel, is then rubbed on the stone, as shown in Fig. 136, to remove the wire edge that invariably turns up, but the tool must be kept perfectly flat, as otherwise the sharpened edge will be seriously damaged."

Figure 136 shows an aproned torso and two arms wearing a white long-sleeve shirt with the cuffs rolled up. A black vest is slightly visible underneath the white apron. The hands are holding the flat of a chisel blade on a stone at perhaps 15 degrees from the lengthwise axis of the stone.

I suppose this can be read a number of ways, but clearly, not a lot of ink was spent preaching about a the importance of a flat back. Perhaps this is because it was not thought important, or perhaps it is because it was assumed to be common sense. Whatever the case may be, Jones did specifically write about removing the burr on the flat, and the importance of keeping the blade flat on the stone to avoid it being "seriously damaged." This clearly indicates that Jones saw a dubbed flat as seriously damaged, and by inference, that the workman doing the sharpening should make an effort to maintain the flat of the blade flat, if only to make it easier and quicker to remove the burr.

A couple of pages earlier, Jones writes about using a sharpening stone properly so as to avoid wearing "troughs" in the surface, and about remedying such troughs using glass paper or emery cloth. This would indicate that a flat stone was an accepted practice

On a more important subject, I propose that the manner of dress worn by workmen of the period as seen everywhere in Jone's book would seem to support Brian's theory of the importance of proper dress when planing, and the efficacy of his planing robe and embroidered planing slippers. Brian, please send pictures! The fashion world hungers for enlightenment!

Stan

[Steve Voigt]

I have wooden coffin planes from the 1800's and the backs of the irons were not flat (irons are laminated cast steel). I've never seen an iron from an antique plane - no matter when it was used - with a flat back. The only exception was one plane I received from another woodworker, who had flattened the back.

Mike

So what? How does this refute, in any way, what I said? Do you know when the irons were last sharpened, and by whom? If you can prove to me that the plane was made in 1800 and last used by a skilled joiner in 1820, then you've got something. Otherwise, you've got nothing.

Moreover, "from the 1800s" is meaningless, especially in the U.S. In 1810, most things of wood were still made entirely by hand. By the time of the civil war, most furniture was made in factories and most houses were framed with pre-sawn dimensional lumber. The days of people routinely thicknessing lumber by hand, as an important part of their jobs, were long gone.

[Brian Holcombe]

Stan,

If a proper planning robe is impractical due to the nature of the work at hand, then I default to a coat and tie.

It's always best to have an experienced dresser on hand to assure the practice is followed with expertise.

I will document this practice in the coming weeks.

[george wilson]

All of the USED plane irons from the 18th. C.,which I have seen were really rounded over on their back sides in order to make them into higher angle planes that would not tear out wood as easily. These irons were apparently honed on dished whet stones. The cutting edges were cambered also so that the corners of the irons would not leave scars on the edges of their cuts. And,some of the ORIGINAL carpentry,like chair rail moldings and stair cases and their components,were made so sloppily,they look like a drunk made them(and probably did!) And,this in rich people's houses that still exist in Williamsburg.

As I mentioned in another thread,I put a very slight camber on my own planes,so as to take off very light finishing shavings with no trace of the corners of the irons. At the very least,if I wanted a flat cut surface,I gently round the corners of my irons.

I had an argument with Peter Ross many,many years ago because he was making NEW irons with their backs hammered and ground into this rounded configuration. He was stubborn,refusing to believe what anyone else told him about anything. After many years of making these worn out looking blades,I guess he saw some 18th. C. unused irons(possibly in the Seaton Chest,and stopped making the irons rounded and blunted.

He also did not believe me when I told him that the popping noise that you get when tapping metal is caused by the peaks of the tap's teeth pressure welding to the metal you are tapping. This is a commonly known fact on machinist's fora that years later I began to visit. I wonder if he ever figured out that fact for himself? NASA was recently experimenting with a new form of welding aluminum by forcefully spinning a hardened carbide (or HSS?) steel cylinder between 2 sheets of the metal that are in close contact. It gets so hot from the friction,the metal sheets' edges are melted and stirred together. A friend of mine runs a machine shop there(or used to. They have taken to farming out contractors to use in the NASA shops). Sometimes,my friend says,he will spend many hours programming a CNC machine,then turning out the part in 20 minutes!

[Warren Mickley]

I have wooden coffin planes from the 1800's and the backs of the irons were not flat (irons are laminated cast steel). I've never seen an iron from an antique plane - no matter when it was used - with a flat back. The only exception was one plane I received from another woodworker, who had flattened the back.

Mike

I think you are talking about stuff from the dark ages here, Mike. Hand work on furniture was declining already in 1825. I remember some years ago trying to convince David Weaver that the antique plane he just bought might have been used by a carpenter, a farmer and a handyman in the time since it was used by a fine craftsman, if ever. It would be helpful to find tools fresh from an 18th century cabinetmaker from London or Philadelphia, but the very few that are around have usually been used by others in the last 216 years.

The evidence from the 18th century is that they did nice work, and I can't see doing that with less than well kept tools. They also had fine oil stones. So I would suggest backs flattened enough to lay on a fine stone.

One thing about "flattening backs" the average joiner or cabinetmaker had four or five bench planes, and he did an awful lot of planing and sharpening before wearing a plane iron down to nothing. So although flattening was probably a chore, it was rather different from today when a guy could find himself flattening a plane iron every other month., what with "replacement blades" and multiple smoothing planes etc.

When I was young I did some experiments with the jack plane to see if it really needed to as well sharpened as say a trying plane. I tried using a coarse stone only, using a coarse and medium stone only, using a coarse and lightly refining with the fine stone , etc. What I found was that using the same routine as I used for the finer planes contributed enough to edge longevity to justify the few extra seconds. The ease of using a sharper tool was a bonus.

[Stanley Covington]

Stan,

If a proper planning robe is impractical due to the nature of the work at hand, then I default to a coat and tie.

It's always best to have an experienced dresser on hand to assure the practice is followed with expertise.

I will document this practice in the coming weeks.

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

[Stanley Covington]

Commenting obliquely on George's excellent post above, there was a common misunderstanding among sword collectors and experts in Japan for literally centuries. They believed that swords forged in the "Old Swords" period of 700 years or so ago were the ideal form for use and beauty with their blades tapering to the point. Later swordsmiths aggressively imitated this taper. But research of scabbards from the time, and a few examples of actual swords that had never been used, showed that this taper was the result of repeated sharpening, and not the original shape. In other words, "experts" including swordsmiths, saw the worn out profiles and assumed (you and me are asses) they were that way from day one. As a result of this research, modern swordsmiths in Japan making swords in the Old Sword Period style now make them full and robust. They look like something you could take into battle and trust your life to instead of a thin wand.

I suggest we are making the same mistake in assuming the shapes of the used, abused, and worn out old plane blades that remain in our hands today were seen as ideal when new.

Stan

[Mike Henderson]

I think you are talking about stuff from the dark ages here, Mike. Hand work on furniture was declining already in 1825. I remember some years ago trying to convince David Weaver that the antique plane he just bought might have been used by a carpenter, a farmer and a handyman in the time since it was used by a fine craftsman, if ever. It would be helpful to find tools fresh from an 18th century cabinetmaker from London or Philadelphia, but the very few that are around have usually been used by others in the last 216 years.

The evidence from the 18th century is that they did nice work, and I can't see doing that with less than well kept tools. They also had fine oil stones. So I would suggest backs flattened enough to lay on a fine stone.

One thing about "flattening backs" the average joiner or cabinetmaker had four or five bench planes, and he did an awful lot of planing and sharpening before wearing a plane iron down to nothing. So although flattening was probably a chore, it was rather different from today when a guy could find himself flattening a plane iron every other month., what with "replacement blades" and multiple smoothing planes etc.

When I was young I did some experiments with the jack plane to see if it really needed to as well sharpened as say a trying plane. I tried using a coarse stone only, using a coarse and medium stone only, using a coarse and lightly refining with the fine stone , etc. What I found was that using the same routine as I used for the finer planes contributed enough to edge longevity to justify the few extra seconds. The ease of using a sharper tool was a bonus.

We have two hypotheses here:

1. Old time woodworkers did not flatten the backs of their plane irons.

2. Some old time woodworkers did flatten the backs of their plane irons.

We have lots of examples of old plane irons that were not flattened, which supports hypothesis number 1.

I have not heard of any examples of old plane irons that have had the black flattened.

Now, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but until we find some examples to support hypothesis number 2 we have to question whether it's true or not.

Mike

[Paul Sidener]

I will say two things.

A lot of what I know about woodworking, I learned from my Grandfather. He passed away about 35 years ago at the age of 80. When he was showing me how to sharpen plane irons, he would flatten the backs of irons a little. It was something he learned as a boy in England. He used oil stones. My grandfather claimed it helped keep the stones flat. He wasn't anal about getting a mirror finish on the iron maybe 10 or 12 strokes on each stone, and he only used two stones. A course and a fine, then it was back to work.

Fast forward to this past summer, I went to Hand Works. I was in the Lie Nielsen booth watching Deneb Puchalski sharpen a couple plane irons. I had the opportunity to talk to him for a few minutes after his song and dance on sharpening. Without me bringing it up , he said about the same thing my Grandfather had said. I had forgotten my grandfather had said it, until Deneb said it. I wish I could remember more of what my Grandfather showed me, but 10 year olds don't have much of an attention span.

The other thing I wanted to say, is about buying "vintage tools". I have yet to see a pristine vintage tool in an antique store. They are usually covered with rust, because they haven't been used in years. The back of the iron is usually very rusted and pitted, where it contacted the chip breaker. There is no way to tell when the last time it was used, much less sharpened.

The one thing I do know is "old timers" used to take very good care of their tools, especially if they made a living with them. I don't think everyone flattened the back of their irons. I do think that some did, depending on the tool and what it was used for. There are a lot of little tricks, that have sadly been forgotten. People used to get by with a lot less.

For myself, I flatten about an inch of the back of my plane irons. I don't care for the ruler trick, that is just me and a topic for another thread.

[Steve Voigt]

In other words, "experts" including swordsmiths, saw the worn out profiles and assumed (you and me are asses) they were that way from day one.
…

I suggest we are making the same mistake in assuming the shapes of the used, abused, and worn out old plane blades that remain in our hands today were seen as ideal when new.
Stan

Exactly my point, but with excellent historical context. Thanks Stan.

[Lenore Epstein]

I'm a newbie to tool sharpening, but in my uneducated opinion, the best justification I've heard for flattening iron & chisel backs is that any milling/machining marks that meet the edge that aren't smoothed out leave an edge that is at least somewhat jagged, and thus more prone to chipping and wear than one that approaches that ideal meeting of two flat surfaces (these sources also stressed that you only need to smooth a narrow strip at the cutting edge). That makes me wonder whether old-timey cutting tools came from the maker with the striated surfaces found on the few irons and chisels from the last century or so that I've seen.

But that may be yet another post-facto theory manufactured to justify the current obsession with flatness.

That makes me wonder about something that probably reveals my difficulty visualizing shapes: if you keep honing your bevel, won't its entire edge eventually meet the edge of an out-of-flat back? And if it did, wouldn't the resulting edge be sharp, but just not perfectly straight?

Okay, I'm off to find a large rock to hide behind...

[Mel Fulks]

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?.