The ergonomics of 18th century Try planes are very good. I've used David's version for quite a number of board feet and it's very easy on my wrists to plane with it for hours.
Contributor
The ergonomics of 18th century Try planes are very good. I've used David's version for quite a number of board feet and it's very easy on my wrists to plane with it for hours.
Bumbling forward into the unknown.
[OP]
Member
It is amazing what several centuries of development will do.Originally Posted by Brian Holcombe
It doesn't tale long for either the LN or Stanley #8 to kick my butt. While I haven't put Steve's to the test yet I expect it will be as nice to work with or better than my other wood Try planes.
BTW, I went with a 45 degree bed instead of 47 degrees. I'm betting those two silly little degrees will make a difference.
ken
Member
Nice looking plane Ken. Steve was at a LN event last year and all his planes caught my eye. Problem was, I had already planned a major LV purchase and was starting to push my budget limits.
That and the wife was choosing some LN bronze bling. Unfortunately, that LN is staying in the box and I have to wash my hands before she'll even let me look at it.
Member
Those are some very nice planes (both yours and the Voight).John,
What Prashun said.
I've made and used Krenov style planes, both the "organic" looking ones and just a plain block of wood ones. In day to day use the plain block of wood plane fits better in the hand than the shaped plane.
Here is a photo of some of my shop made planes, ones I use often. That said, the planes from Steve are an order of magnitude better to use. The guys back in the 18th and 19th C. knew what they were doing.
If you have not used a woodie, seek out one or make one to try. Making one is a nice little afternoon project and very easy to do (Krenov style, classic style not so much) at not much cost. Either way you may find the feel of a wood stock plane on wood to be one of woodworking's great pleasures.
I have a (probably stupid) question about yours: It looks like you've positioned the mouths at about the midpoint of each plane. Is that right? If so, how would you compare the performance/feel to the 1/3-back (or less) position that's more common in metal planes?
Member
Member
Completely unrelated, but now that I know Ken has a marking gauge dilemma....I see marking gauges everywhere in his photos! Too funny.
[OP]
Member
Patrick,
Good eye. Truth is I hadn't thought much about it. I make the planes somewhat longer than intended final length and once finished I cut them down till they are comfortable in hand while working both pull and push. Looking at some of my stored blanks the tail is slightly longer than the nose but I would expect if I were to finish them they would end up much like these.
Of course your question demanded I do some test shaving (any excuse to put plane on wood) using my shop made woodies vs. more tradition woodies vs. a metal smoother. On the push stroke there is not enough difference between the woodies to tell them apart, much the same with the metal plane other than it is metal and has a tote and knob. Of the three on the pull stroke mine works better but not by much vs. a traditional coffin smoother vs. the metal I would say working one on the pull stroke is a learned skill. I do it when needed but the little shop made plane is easier.
ken
[OP]
Member
Stewie,
Your photo said it much better than my words. All I can say is wow, beautiful shavings.
ken
Member
Waiting for me on my doorstep. You really have to try one to know how well they work.
One more of the first shavings, this time a glamor shot. The plane is straight out of the box. All I did was put the iron in and sight down the sole to check projection. It blows me away.
ken
I got to use one at the Lie Nielson tool event in Kentucky, they work very well.
Contributor
Kevin, if I had to give away all of my planes and keep one, it would be my wooden try plane.
Bumbling forward into the unknown.
Contributor
Hah, indeed. My 7 plane has been relegated to 4/4 edge jointing and shooting. But it may not be long for shooting as I hope to replace it's function in that regard with a nagadai kanna.It is amazing what several centuries of development will do.
It doesn't tale long for either the LN or Stanley #8 to kick my butt. While I haven't put Steve's to the test yet I expect it will be as nice to work with or better than my other wood Try planes.
BTW, I went with a 45 degree bed instead of 47 degrees. I'm betting those two silly little degrees will make a difference.
ken
Bumbling forward into the unknown.
Member
Brian, I have a large Civil War era try plane that I've never put into use. It's huge, heavy and except for some tiny checks on the end grain, in amazingly good condition. I planned on getting a LN#8 this month but I missed the most recent event.
Maybe I'll pull the wooden try for the Moravian build but I'd probably prefer one like Steve's if I was going for a serious user.
image.jpg
Member
Very, very nice plane Steve! Can you post a close up of the wedge and blade?
If the thunder don't get you, the lightning will.
Member
Tony,
Thank you. I don't have the plane any more, but maybe Ken will snap a pic of wedge/blade; he takes better photos than I do anyway.
"For me, chairs and chairmaking are a means to an end. My real goal is to spend my days in a quiet, dustless shop doing hand work on an object that is beautiful, useful and fun to make." --Peter Galbert
Member
That looks like a very nice plane, but it isn't it a bit long to be a try plane? It seems more like a jointer. They weren't quite the same back then, allthough pretty similar. A tryplane would be 22 to 24" long. A jointer would be longer (sometimes much longer). The jointer was primarily set up to joint edges, the tryplane would be used for flattening surfaces.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
