Musings on historical plane lenghts.

[Dan Kraakenes]

I am just wondering here, late at night about the different countries plane lengths, and how they changed.
Please correct me if wrong

I seem to remember a French member here stating that ’’the shop’’ owned the largest planes, while the workers where allowed to own the Smoothing plane. So they didnt have a Jack plane.

In Germany there dosnt seem to be a larger Fore plane (if one looks at the modern wooden planes they still make (ECE, Ulmia etc)). Jack is just 20mm longer then Smoother, but they have scrubs.

While in UK/US it seems they split the Fore plane into a Jack and Fore in two different lenghts.

Germany:
8-9’’ Smoother
9-10’’ Jack/Scrub
22-24’’ Jointer

France
8-9’’ Smoother
18-22’’ Fore
22-24’’ Jointer

England/US
8-10’’ Smoother
14’’ Jack
18’’ Fore
22-24’’ Jointer


I was wondering why the UK/US seems to have split Fore plane into a Jack/Fore?

Since I have not read much about it, I thought maybe it had something to do with imports of much Harder wood types in 17-1800s? Or because of metal planes beeing heavier so Fore planes needed to be smaller, and morphed into Jacks instead of Fore?

[Warren Mickley]

A 22 inch beech plane is usually called a trying plane. Wooden jointers are around 30 inches long.

Moxon (1678) called the roughing plane a fore plane in the Joinery section of his book, but elsewhere said that the fore plane is the same as what a carpenter calls a jack plane. Most later authors use the term jack plane, don't mention the fore plane, and don't distinguish between the two. At any rate you don't need a 14 inch plane and a 18 inch plane.

[Tony Wilkins]

There was a discussion a while back from a French member about the French planes (Roubo, gulfs, etc). Curious how a 22” plane would work as a fore. Lots of worn out try planes out there with big mouths. My own cheap wooden try has a bigger mouth than it needs for it’s purpose.

[Jim Koepke]

At any rate you don't need a 14 inch plane and a 18 inch plane.

Good arguments can be made for not having more than two or three bench planes; jointer, Jack & smoother. On the other hand, in the Stanley line up the 14" plane has a 2" wide blade and the 18" plane has a 2-3/8" blade.

If only one plane is going to a job site with me, the 14" plane gets the ride. If it is a smaller job, the #5-1/4 at 11-1/2" may be chosen. It can do the scrubbing, jointing, truing and smoothing. It may need a spare blade or two and some sharpening. That is why it is called a Jack plane, Jack of all trades.

When flattening and truing short stock in the shop, my 18" plane tends to be my favorite. Longer pieces call on longer planes.

jtk

[Rafael Herrera]

England/US
8-10’’ Smoother
14’’ Jack
18’’ Fore
22-24’’ Jointer

I was wondering why the UK/US seems to have split Fore plane into a Jack/Fore?

Since I have not read much about it, I thought maybe it had something to do with imports of much Harder wood types in 17-1800s? Or because of metal planes being heavier so Fore planes needed to be smaller, and morphed into Jacks instead of Fore?

The lengths and names you quote seem to be out of Stanley's metal plane catalog (https://archive.org/details/StanleyC...e/n74/mode/1up) It seems whoever supervised this text didn't have a lot of expertise on the use of planes. Note that they describe the jack plane as a tool to true up the edges of boards. The use of the term "fore plane" is also debatable, since it seems it was synonymous to jack plane.

An older text, Mechanic's Companion (1831) may be a better source on correct terminology and uses. (https://archive.org/details/mechanic...e/n10/mode/2up)

The link will land you on an illustration, it shows a jack plane, a trying plane and a smoother. The description of the planes and parts starts on page 158 (as shown on the navigation bar) or page 125 in the text. The bench planes are described starting on page 124 (91 in the text).

17" Jack
22" Trying
26" Long
30" Jointer
7 1/2" Smoother.

The "fore plane" is listed in the text in page 122, but not described in the following pages.

Weight, cut width are significantly different between wooden and metal planes. My 17" jack is 5 lb, the iron is 2 1/4" wide. A 16" jack is 3.75 lb, 2 1/4" iron. A metal no. 5 jack is 4.75 lb with a 2" iron. A metal no. 6 is 6.5 lb, 2 3/8" iron.

I've used metal no. 5 and no. 6 planes to plane a large boards flat. The 6 definitely wears you out, it's a heavy plane. I've found the wooden jacks and trying planes less exhausting.

Regardless of their names, their use is clearly described in the book. There's some nuance in how the planes are prepared for the job at hand, in particular the jack. I've never used a 30" jointer, it must be around 10 lb, that's a heavy plane. I used a 26" long plane to shoot edges sometimes, it's manageable.

With the 24" metal plane already at almost 10 lb, anything larger would be too heavy for most people and the possibility of flexing and/or manufacturing it flat becomes more of a challenge.

Rafael

P.S. There is, yet again, in the text, a description of the purpose and use of the chipbreaker, page 125 (92 in the text).

[David Carroll]

It's my opinion that for bench planes you need a short plane to act like a smoother, you need a middle-length plane to act like a scrub/jack and you need a long plane to try/joint with. There doesn't seem to be universal consensus about what lengths these are, or what they should be called.

I have always assumed that different regions, or guilds, may have had their own names for these planes. So there may be several names for very similar planes. The english panel plane, for instance, which seems like a Jack plane size (roughly) but set up like a jointer. Nobody else seems to use that term, but it seems appropriate for a middle length finishing plane as opposed to a roughing plane. So how the plane is set up as well as the intended purpose might have been a factor in what names were adopted. For instance Moxon also mentioned a Strike-block plane, shorter than a jointer but set up for shooting, or maybe working panels.

So it's about more than just length.

I always associate smoothing/fore/trying planes with wooden planes, and smooth/jack/jointer with metal planes.

DC

[Warren Mickley]

I always associate smoothing/fore/trying planes with wooden planes, and smooth/jack/jointer with metal planes.

DC

All of these terms appear in Moxon as wooden planes

The terms Smooth plane and joynter occur in the 1703 edition of Moxon on page 65
The term jack plain occurs on page 150.
Also in earlier editions and other works.

These terms were still in use in the early 19th century, long before iron planes were common. They occur in Nicholson (1812) and others.

A common set of bench planes in the 18th century had four or five planes.

If you are preparing boards by hand, it is awfully nice to have both a trying plane for flattening the face of a board and a jointer for working the edge of a board, as they are set up somewhat differently.

[Rafael Herrera]

I won't pretend to try to settle the issue of which planes you really need. That's up to each of us to decide given what we do or need. The OP wasn't asking what planes are needed anyways.

Tools catalogs are a good source of contemporary information. This Stanley catalog page from 1898 lists quite a large selection of lengths and cutter widths.

Stanley Carpenters Tools_0002.jpg

You remind me of the term "panel plane" (not to be confused with a panel raiser plane) which was apparently used to describe a wooden plane, but I don't have a reference for that. Later, the term was adopted to describe metal infill planes. Those also came in varying lengths, as long as 36" if so desired. I wonder how heavy they were.

Norris1914CataloguePreview.jpg

Rafael

[Tony Wilkins]

All of these terms appear in Moxon as wooden planes

The terms Smooth plane and joynter occur in the 1703 edition of Moxon on page 65
The term jack plain occurs on page 150.
Also in earlier editions and other works.

These terms were still in use in the early 19th century, long before iron planes were common. They occur in Nicholson (1812) and others.

A common set of bench planes in the 18th century had four or five planes.

If you are preparing boards by hand, it is awfully nice to have both a trying plane for flattening the face of a board and a jointer for working the edge of a board, as they are set up somewhat differently.

Warren, what are the differences in how the two plains are set up?

[Rafael Herrera]

Warren, what are the differences in how the two plains are set up?

I'm not Warren, but the setup of all these planes is described in the referenced book above.

https://archive.org/details/mechanic.../n126/mode/2up

[Tony Wilkins]

I use my 5 1/2 as a panel plane ala Charlesworth and find it very useful for the faces of panels, especially if precision is called for. I can see where the ‘weight is good’ mantra could apply to this use and where the weight of an infill (never tried one but they’re heavy right?) would be a boon. Didn’t Alan Peters use a 7 in pretty much that way. This seems the opposite of the long French Fore I alluded to earlier.

[steven c newman]

Hmmm...
Workshop Tour, Hate Open tils.JPG
I'll leave it at that...

[Jimmy Harris]

It's my opinion that for bench planes you need a short plane to act like a smoother, you need a middle-length plane to act like a scrub/jack and you need a long plane to try/joint with. There doesn't seem to be universal consensus about what lengths these are, or what they should be called.

I have always assumed that different regions, or guilds, may have had their own names for these planes. So there may be several names for very similar planes. The english panel plane, for instance, which seems like a Jack plane size (roughly) but set up like a jointer. Nobody else seems to use that term, but it seems appropriate for a middle length finishing plane as opposed to a roughing plane. So how the plane is set up as well as the intended purpose might have been a factor in what names were adopted. For instance Moxon also mentioned a Strike-block plane, shorter than a jointer but set up for shooting, or maybe working panels.

So it's about more than just length.

I always associate smoothing/fore/trying planes with wooden planes, and smooth/jack/jointer with metal planes.

DC

That's my impression as well. Back in the old days, information didn't travel so quickly. So each area developed semi-independently. Just look at early American furniture. The stuff they made in Philidelphia is different from the stuff being made in New York, even though they are only 95 miles apart and shared a language and culture.

I'm guessing a lot of these planes didn't have these same names we use today to the people using them at that time. They were most likely "that one" or "the long one" or "the old one". And the specific function of each plane probably shifted both over the course of the plane's lifetime and throughout the day depending on various other factors. I know I've jointed with a smoother and smoothed with a jointer many, many times in my life.

Remember, a lot of these old authors wanted to sound like THE authority on their subject. So they tended to write as if everything was settled law and universally accepted. Travel was time consuming and expensive and literature in general was scarce, so they probably didn't do as much research as we'd expect a similar type author to do today. In other words, it would be smart to take a lot of this stuff with a fairly large grain of salt. Just because it is the best information we have, doesn't mean it is necessarily good or accurate information.

[Rafael Herrera]

Who knows how authoritative these authors were, but to dismiss the information and then resort to guessing as our best next tool to discuss this topic is pretty absurd. If I don't know, I don't know, I wouldn't try to imagine what was going on then.

[Warren Mickley]

That's my impression as well. Back in the old days, information didn't travel so quickly. So each area developed semi-independently. Just look at early American furniture. The stuff they made in Philidelphia is different from the stuff being made in New York, even though they are only 95 miles apart and shared a language and culture.

I'm guessing a lot of these planes didn't have these same names we use today to the people using them at that time. They were most likely "that one" or "the long one" or "the old one". And the specific function of each plane probably shifted both over the course of the plane's lifetime and throughout the day depending on various other factors. I know I've jointed with a smoother and smoothed with a jointer many, many times in my life.

Remember, a lot of these old authors wanted to sound like THE authority on their subject. So they tended to write as if everything was settled law and universally accepted. Travel was time consuming and expensive and literature in general was scarce, so they probably didn't do as much research as we'd expect a similar type author to do today. In other words, it would be smart to take a lot of this stuff with a fairly large grain of salt. Just because it is the best information we have, doesn't mean it is necessarily good or accurate information.

It doesn't sound like you have done any research at all.

Peter Nicholson worked as a cabinetmaker in Edinburgh and London roughly 1775-1795. He was much more knowledgeable than today's bloggers, be they ever so connected to the internet.

You can guess that planes did not have the same names if you want but, but Nicholson used the same names for bench planes as planemaker Carruthers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and cabinetmaker John Shaw in Annapolis, Maryland.