Jointer plane - skills?

[Dan Karachio]

Hello All,

I have been frustrated a little lately. I was trying to joint some cedar boards at about 40" long. First I tried my Lee Valley low angle jack (#5 I guess) and I could not get the edges straight (little bowed). Next, I tried a flush trim bit and the old trick of a slight offset of the router fence and that didn't work either. I really don't want to buy a cheap power jointer or have room for a nice heavy one (6"). Plus, you know what? I am getting more and more sick of the noise of power tools.

So, if I bought a jointer like the Lee Valley low angle jointer or the Lie Nielsen #7 or #8, how much skill do I need to joint boards?

[Sean Hughto]

It is not a particularly steep learning curve. Matchplaning is particularly easy as it is so forgiving. Squaring one edge at a time is a bit more difficult and requires frequent checks (square / straightedge / mating board) of progress, especially when you are starting out.

[Robert Rozaieski]

Not hard to do at all.

http://logancabinetshoppe.weebly.com/1/post/2008/09/edge-jointingthe-match-planing-method.html

[Mark Roderick]

I think that demonstration is a little misleading. It works okay if your boards are not much longer than your plane, but that's not normally the case. If you're trying to join two boards that are eight feet long, that setup will NOT, by itself, assure and accurate fit. It's easy to end up with a hollw in the middle, which of course will then be exaggerated when the boards are joined together.

You can do it two ways. One, you can have a perfectly straight edge to use as a reference, and such edges are not that hard to make by hand, as long as you make two at the same time.

Two, you can use the two boards themselves to make one another perfectly straight, by getting them to mate well edge-to-edge, then turning one of them around and seeing if they still mate well. If so, they're both straight. If not, you can easily figure out what's too high and what's too low and correct it, then try again.

I hope that makes sense. But the bottom-line answer to the original question is that it doesn't take a huge amount of skill to joint a straight edge, and you can most definitely do without a power jointer for this task.

[Luke Townsley]

You should be able to get decent results from your jackplane for those boards. I'm not saying it would be my first choice, but it should work pretty well.

Just remember to shave off the high spots first and then flatten. If you have a bump, you can plane a long, long time and still have a bump. If you have make a slight concave with a pass or two it will come out flat.

Skill and the right plane for the job will make you a lot faster and a bit better, but it isn't hard to learn.

Having a flat workbench is a tremendous aid. If the board bows under the planes pressure on a deficient work surface, you won't be successful.

If you have a solid suface with a low spot, a carefully placed shim or shaving under your board might get you through.

[Tristan Raymond]

You might try the David Charlesworth DVDs from Lie-Nielsen as well. If you buy a high quality plane I'm not sure if the first one would be useful (I haven't seen it), but I thought that the second DVD was quite good.

[Robert Rozaieski]

I think that demonstration is a little misleading. It works okay if your boards are not much longer than your plane, but that's not normally the case. If you're trying to join two boards that are eight feet long, that setup will NOT, by itself, assure and accurate fit. It's easy to end up with a hollw in the middle, which of course will then be exaggerated when the boards are joined together.


I agree Mark, but jointing an 8' edge joint is a very rare need in furniture making. I've done 4' joints this way and it works very well (and even joints this long are relatively rare unless you build a lot of secretaries or highboys). The boards in the link I posted above were almost 3' long which is a common length. For reference, the jointer plane in the sixth picture is 30" long. This is a benefit of a long plane and why I recommend anyone wanting to joint boards by hand get the longest jointer they can find. You can't have a jointer that's too long.

The case sides pictured below were also done this way and the joint had zero gap. In my experience, it's much easier to plane out a hollow than it is to plane out a hump.
http://logancabinetshoppe.weebly.com/uploads/9/4/7/5/947508/5281601_orig.jpg?91x121

[Frederick Rowe]

I'm glad to see this post as the concept of edge jointing, which seemed pretty simple, escaped me in practice. Despite my most careful efforts, resulted in a hump in the middle of the board. I use a variation of the below technique and can repeatably joint even 6'-8' edges.

It should be noted that jointed to boards clamped together only works to solve any out of square iron across the width, as the two boards will be out of square in a complimentary fashion; i.e., 88 degrees/92 degrees.

Recently I saw this in Chris Schwarz's Blog:


How to Joint Edges With a Fence
Just like with using a power jointer, there is some technique involved in using a jointer plane fence.

Things to watch: The cutter has to be sticking out of the tool dead square. This is why I learned to use a curved iron in my jointer plane – it's actually a more forgiving setup than using a straight iron.http://blog.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/content/binary/jointer_fence_hands_IMG_398.jpg
Second: Use your dominant hand to push the plane forward and your off-hand to control the fence. With your off-hand, use your thumb to push the toe down against the edge and use your fingers to push the fence against the face of your board.

Third: What you have to understand about handplanes is that the tool's cutter sticks out below the sole of the tool. As a result, the tool takes a slightly heavier cut at the beginning of the pass when only part of the plane is on the edge.

Last week I tried to measure this by edge jointing a 30"-long board and then measuring the shaving's thickness at five points along its length. At the beginning of the cut (toe engaged only) my cuts were consistently .0055" thick. In the middle and end of the cut the shaving was .005" thick.

That is not much difference. But it can add up. After several strokes the edge develops a gentle curve to it. And that's no good for gluing.

So here's what I do: First remove some of the middle section of the edge. I start the cut a few inches in from the end of the board, and I end the cut a few inches from the end. I'll usually take two passes like this. (This is similar to what David Charlesworth does, though I believe he continues to make passes until the plane stops cutting.)
http://blog.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/content/binary/jointer_fence_stop_IMG_3984.jpg
Then I take a pass all the way through the edge. If I get one perfect unbroken shaving, I'll test the edge with a straightedge or the board's mating edge. If the edge is perfect or is a little hollow in the middle, I'll get the glue and the clamps. If the edge still bulges, I'll remove another shaving in the middle.

[Rick Dohm]

This is an interesting thread. As it turns out, I was taught to plane the edges with a slight "belly" in the middle of the two boards starting a couple inches or so in from each end -- just enough so that the joint can be pulled together with clamps. The reason given was that the boards will tend to warp away from the center at the ends over time eventually leaving a gap. By pulling the center together, any warping would be against the stress created by the clamping. Haven't had much experience with either method yet, but it made sense to me. I'd love to hear any contrary argument.

Rick Dohm

[Frederick Rowe]

Rick - I learned the same way. I believe it's called a "spring gap" or "spring joint".

[Robert Rozaieski]

Rick - I learned the same way. I believe it's called a "spring gap" or "spring joint".

Yep, it's called a sprung joint. However, you can't use a rub joint with sprung edges. In order for the rub joint to work well, the two mating edges must be flat.

[Rick Dohm]

OK, now you got me -- what's a rub joint?

Rick Dohm

[tico vogt]

Using a jointer plane and with the two boardboard face surfaces clamped together, their soon-to-be mating edges uppermost, I sight along the length and make sure there is no bump and take a few shaving to create a hollow, and then run a full shaving end to end. At that point check to see how they clamp together. In shorter work, David Charlesworth's approach is to run stop shaving until the plane stops cutting, and then one or two full-lenth shavings, leaving a very slight gap that easily clamps tight under moderate pressure. However, eight feet is too long for that technique because you can create too large a bow.

[Sam Takeuchi]

Rubbed joint is a joint created by rubbing two surfaces together without using clamps. Using glue such as hide glue, brush or spread hide glue onto the gluing surface of the piece (just one side would suffice) and mate the pieces together, and move the piece in wiggling or rubbing motion until the glue grabs (hide glue has monstrous tack when it gels). Just leave it at that. The glue will take care of the rest, pulling the pieces together as it dries. For something like that to work, mating surfaces have to be perfectly flat (or conform to each other), so the surfaces will mate without gaps or create weak joint.

This technique creates very strong joint without clamping force due to hide glue's tendency to pull pieces together. Some people argue that hide glue with gram strength of 192 (good grade with balance for strength and open time) is too 'watery' and not enough pull for rubbed joint, therefore not suitable, and advocate using higher gram strength glue, like 251 and up. Personally I think if gluing surfaces are flat, 192 strength hide glue is plenty adequate for rubbed joint.

[Matt Hankins]

Just an idea that has worked for me:
When planing the edge of a long board, I will tack a string to the leading end( into the end grain.) I can then pull the string back the length of the board and check for flattness. This works very well if you have a belly in the edge. If you have a crown, it becomes more difficult as the string will contact the leading edge and lay along the whole length of the board. You have to slowly lay the string down and plane out the high spots as you contact them.
By the way, don't give up on the jointer planes. Not only are they quieter and, therefore, more pleasant to use, they allow for more flexibility in a small shop with smaller machines and, once you get the hang of it, you will find yourself reaching for a sharp jointer plane before you lug a heavy long board over to the mechanical jointer.

[Robert Rozaieski]

Just an idea that has worked for me:
When planing the edge of a long board, I will tack a string to the leading end( into the end grain.) I can then pull the string back the length of the board and check for flattness. This works very well if you have a belly in the edge. If you have a crown, it becomes more difficult as the string will contact the leading edge and lay along the whole length of the board. You have to slowly lay the string down and plane out the high spots as you contact them.
By the way, don't give up on the jointer planes. Not only are they quieter and, therefore, more pleasant to use, they allow for more flexibility in a small shop with smaller machines and, once you get the hang of it, you will find yourself reaching for a sharp jointer plane before you lug a heavy long board over to the mechanical jointer.

The string works well for marking long straight rips as well as checking them. Think of the carpenter's/roofer's chalk line. Add a little black charcoal dust or some chalk to your string and you have a chalk role, a very common tool in period tool inventories. Snap a line and rip/plane away. No need for long stable straightedges.

[Larry Williams]

It is not a particularly steep learning curve. Matchplaning is particularly easy as it is so forgiving. Squaring one edge at a time is a bit more difficult and requires frequent checks (square / straightedge / mating board) of progress, especially when you are starting out.

Match planing will actually double the error Dan is struggling with. While match planing supposedly helps with not having to plane an edge square to the face, the more difficult part of edge jointing is getting good straight edges. Any out of straight condition is doubled when match planing and it's a lot easier to plane one edge straight and then plane the second edge to mate it. There's a lot less in-and-out of the clamps/vise when you use the traditional technique of planing one edge at a time.

[John Coloccia]

Maybe I don't do it the right way, but here's what works for me.

First I get the board pretty straight, making sure I have a decent amount of pressure on the back side of the jointer plane after the cut's started, all the way to the end of the cut. This give me a mostly flat board, with the starting end of the board having a bit of a curve to it (because the plane iron's a bit lower than the sole so it'll cut a little heavy at the beginning.

Then I turn the board around and do a couple more passes. On these passes, I'm sure to put pressure on the front of the plane at the beginning of the cut (so it doesn't curve this end of the board too) and then transition to pressure at the back of the plane as soon as enough of the sole is on the board. This will plane the slight curve out of the other end of the board. Since the board is straight at the starting end of the board, pressure on the front of the sole doesn't muck things up.

Anyhow, I'm not a plane guru, or anything like that, so this is probably the "wrong" way of doing it, but it works OK for me.

With a good sharp plane, I don't worry one bit about the direction of the grain. It just slices through like butter, even on the hard, figured maple that I tend to use.

[Danny Thompson]

I also have the LV LAJ and recently picked up the matching Bevel-up Jointer and optional fence. My first time out without the fence installed, the angle had a bit of wobble to it--the edge was not consistently 90º to the face. But when I installed the fence and adjusted it properly (a set screw allows micro adjustment of the 90º angle), I found I could make long, straight, crisp, square edges with no trouble at all.

Some people are talented enough to achieve this sort of edge freehend, but first time out you, also, may benefit from using the fence.

[Sean Hughto]

No doubt if you can't plane an edge straight, you'll have a problem no matter what method you use.

Match planing is not my usual method, but the times I've done it it worked fine. One advantage is that it provides a wider bearing surface, which can be useful when jointing thin stock. Also, of course, is the complementary angle aspect.

In woodworking, I've found that sometimes methods that work a treat for some, aren't the best fit for someone else. As such, when you are starting out, you may as well try things to see what suits you.

[Sean Hughto]

If your problem with the jack was that it left the board's edge humped - higher in the middle, the longer 7 or 8 will help some, but you will need to improve your technique as well as far as starting with pressure on the knob/front and finishing with pressure on the tote (i.e. when only half the plane is on the board, that part has to have the pressure to keep the plane level). Also, once a hump starts, your plane will have a tendency to ride it and thereby further accentuate the hump. So if a hump starts, take some strokes only in the middle to knock the hump down and then finish with a few full length passes to get the edge to a straight line.

Use a straight edge or marking gauge to make some reference lines - then plane to that line as practice. Once you've done that a few times, the details of the procedure and useful techniques start to come clear.

[Adam Cherubini]

Match planing will actually double the error Dan is struggling with. While match planing supposedly helps with not having to plane an edge square to the face, the more difficult part of edge jointing is getting good straight edges. Any out of straight condition is doubled when match planing and it's a lot easier to plane one edge straight and then plane the second edge to mate it. There's a lot less in-and-out of the clamps/vise when you use the traditional technique of planing one edge at a time.

I disagree. I'd like to hear more about this Larry, since it doesn't even make logical sense. If you can't plane an edge straight when match planing, you sure aren't going to be able to plane each board straight individually. Rewording this as a question; What's the difference between straightening one board or two at the same time?

From my perspective, the act of straightening, and the act of squaring an edge, are two distinct things (not necessarily seperate actions mind you). Match planing just gets you out of worrying about square. Straightening an edge or two edges at once is the same technique in my shop. I don't do anything differently planing one board than I would planing two at once.

I do agree that matching planing boards of different widths and lengths can be tricky for exactly the reason you state. You work the edges, and if you find a problem in dry fit, it can be a redo. Aligning the boards to their previous positions is difficult. But again, I'm not sure how this is any different doing the boards individually. Do you check one to it's mate or both to a straight edge? And in either case, how is the check and redo process any different from match planing? You still have the alignment issues, right?

Adam

[David Keller NC]

Adam - I suspect I know what Larry's referring to. If you match-plane two boards with a hump or a hollow in the middle, then offer up the two just-planed edges to each other, then the gap between the boards either at the end or the middle is doubled from the deviation of each board from a straight edge.

And I think what's he's referring to as to matching up the two edges rather than planing both boards arrow-straight is that if you've got one board with a hump in the middle, and you want to match another board to it, you can plane a hollow in the edge of that board and offer it up to check the fit. Theoretically, doing so means less shavings need to be taken off than planing both board's edges into a straight line.

So if you're match-planing, it's critical to get the edges straight along their length, or slightly hollow to "spring" the joint, and you can pretty much ignore whether the edges are square to the faces if the iron in your plane is ground off straight.

If you're planing one at a time, it's critical to get the edges square to the faces, and the boards matched to each other, but not necessarily exactly straight along their lengths.

[Adam Cherubini]

I'm not sure if that's what he's saying so I'm hoping he'll respond.

So my question here is, if you can't plane a board straight, what makes you think you can plane a hollow that matches another board that you couldn't plane straight? I'm not trying to be tricky or argumentative.

Match planing is a simple trick for getting boards to fit flat. To straighten an edge I almost always plane a hollow then plane the hollow out.

Adam

[Larry Williams]

Adam,

David has it right. If Dan had match planed, when he placed the two edges together the out-of-straight error would be doubled. That's what he's having problems with.

There are a couple techniques to plane a square edge. One is using a slightly cambered iron and using the area of the heaviest cut to remove the high areas. The other is with a straight iron and using your natural sense of plumb and level to hold the plane plumb.

Both of these, though, require a try square that reads on the inside. In your article on making a try square, you said you never worry about getting the inside square. I can see where planing a square edge would be difficult without a square for a reference.

Also, if Dan had been match planing, each time he wanted to check his progress he would have to remove both boards from his vise and remove any clamps he had on them keeping them registered together. Just this tinkering with registration takes a lot of unnecessary time. It's easier to plane one edge straight and square, checking it with a straight edge (if necessary, like when using Dan's jack plane) and with a try square. One the first edge is done it becomes the straight reference for the second board's edge. It's easy and quick to get a good joint this way.

You know, the early planes had relatively narrow irons. Wider irons came into use the same time as double irons. It'd be difficult to match plane with those early narrow irons. I don't think match planing was trade practice. In fact, I haven't seen any 18th or 19th Century reference to planing two pieces at once other than when working veneers or very thin stock on a shooting board.

[Adam Cherubini]

What you say is true. The error is doubled. It's also true that removing the boards, dry fitting, then realigning them is somewhat of a pain. If you don't align them well, you have to redo a certain amount of your work.

About my square, I know this is something that you like to tease me about. First, the inner edge isn't out THAT much. Might be a few thou over it's length. As I hope you know, that article was intending to show guys how to work around the inaccuracy of their tools by adopting datum refering technique (that machinists use). I thought it was a helpful article. In was in response to a video I saw where a guy used multiple reference faces to mark around his board.

In terms of match planing, yeah, it doesn't really matter if the edge is out of square a little. There are only a few times when I need an accurate inside square otherwise. The amount that square is out, we're only talking about joinery. Moldings or anything else will be good enough. And there's a good lesson in that as well.

I think you are right again that old planes are narrow. But I don't see many edge to edge joints in thick material. They used wide boards for "country" table tops, sometimes joining them with splines or other such. The seamless joints that we would consider using a match joint for were probably mostly furniture related. So we're talking about 4/4 stock, so a 2" plane or a 2-1/2" plane (iron) would work. I recommend wider tho. Mine is 2-7/8". I think I match plane stuff they didn't/couldn't.

I think instead of arguing, you should make a special "Cherubini jointer". 30-36" long with a 3" wide blade. I'll make you a dvd for free you can include with each plane! :)

That said, Nicholson talked about match planing and plane widths. It's available on Google Books. The version I have has 431 pages in the .pdf. See page 179, S 72, "To make a Straight edge" for the description of match planing. Pretty sure he mentioned jointer planes over 3" wide. I think that's the body, not the iron.

So to be clear- I think you are right that 18th c planes were probably narrower than Nicholson's. I haven't seen 18th c documentary evidence of match planing, tho I think Don is of the belief that Nicholson began writing in the late 18th c, or early 19th and that his text is reflective of 18th c trade practice. My view is that 18th c practice and 19th c practice are like the iron age and the stone age. They aren't indicative of a specific time period. I think the Seaton chest, for example, built in the 18th c, is a 19th c style chest. (if you follow me- if you don't, nevermind).

Having nothing to go on but my gut, I'd be willing to bet that they did indeed match plane throughout that 18th c and that is was a standard practice. I think I could probably find that the edge to edge joints on fine furniture are not 90. That would indicate to me a match planing operation.

All good stuff.

Adam

[Sam Takeuchi]

Japanese carpenters still use this very tool for drawing straight line. It's called sumitsubo (literally 'ink pot'). They got simple ones (http://www5e.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Ettoishi/sumikuwas.jpg) to Quite elaborate ones (http://www5e.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Ettoishi/ryuusumis.jpg). I think it's still a useful tool in woodworking especially when working on a piece longer or larger than available straightedge. I'm actually amazed that a simple but greatly useful tool such as these are a thing of the past.

[Don C Peterson]

I had a project that required me to joint 7' boards which were giving me fits. Both boards had a very gradual bow. Finally, Jr. Strasil came to the rescue when he suggested that I could build a shooting board by simply laying a known straight edge (the edge of a piece of tempered hardboard in my case) down on the bench then laying the board on top and clamping them down using holdfasts. Then you lay the plane on its side just like a regular shooting board just using the bench surface as the plane slide. Since my bench isn't 7' long I had to be smart about where I positioned the stock, but it worked great. I've used this method several times since with great success.

[Dan Karachio]

Glad there is so much thought on this. Couple questions please?

1. I am trying to joint boards about 40" long. Should I not even try with the Jack Plane?
2. I have a hump, not a dip. Any specific tips to get that out (for future reference).

Overall, I am excited about this. I'd like to learn to do this with a jointer and I am just itching to buy the mate to my LV Jack, the LV jointer. Speak now or forever hold your peace, but I think this is a fine plane right?

[Tri Hoang]

I am a newbie..so take it for what it's worth. The jack is OK but it must be properly tuned (sharp blade, flat sole, blade square). Make sure you have a pencil and a straight edge when doing it.

Typically, the hum is caused by deep cuts at both ends due to how one balance the plane when only part of it is on the surface. To avoid it...I
start in the middle...take a few light passes and lengthen the strokes from 15" to 30" and finally full length. Stop once or twice to check my progress with the straight edge..mark the high spots and only plane those spots off. Once I got full width/length shaving, I'd go back and add a stop shaving between 4-5" of the ends.

[Joel Goodman]

As has been mentioned it is helpful to create a slight hollow (concavity) by planing only the "center 2/3's" of the board -- that is start partway in the board and then lift the plane up before you get to the end for several strokes. Then plane full length only until you get a full length shaving.

[Dan Karachio]

Thanks Sean and Danny and everyone. I looked at my boards again and I have a mix of humps and dips. I think I have done nothing more than just work down what was there, but these tips are great.

Funny thing is you guys are getting to me. I can use my neighbors jointer, but the idea of all that noise and dust just isn't appealing - not at all - and it used to be. I don't do this for a living so I can afford the time, but I also want to have actual skills. There are so many tools that you can buy that just do things for you, but having tools that work well, but also require technique reminds me of playing an instrument, something I do and have worked at for many years. Is this part of the slippery slope?

[Don McConnell]

Adam et al,

It is true that Peter Nicholson, in the section entitled "To make a straight edge" (page 134, _Mechanic's Companion_, 1832 edition) describes placing two boards together in the vise and planing both edges together. So the concept of "match planing" was known, and apparently practiced in the late-18th/early-19th centuries. And this section, alone, could even be interpreted as suggesting that match planing was the standard trade practice.

But, he clearly qualifies the circumstances under which "match planing" was practiced just three pages later. He begins a short section, entitled "To join two Boards together" (page 137) with: "Shoot the edge of each board first, or if they are very thin, they may be shot together ... ." Then, in the next section, entitled "To join any number of Boards, edge to edge, with glue, so as to form one Board," the method clearly is premised on shooting one edge at a time.

My take on this is that Nicholson saw match planing as useful when the boards being joined were "very thin." Meaning, I think, when they were so thin that it becomes difficult to predictably register the plane on a single edge. (A situation where I still prefer the use of a shooting board.) Otherwise, when describing edge gluing, Nicholson specifically discusses shooting one edge at a time.

When I first heard/read about match planing, probably 25+ years ago, it seemed like a neat dodge so I decided to give it a try. Very quickly, though, in fiddling around to get the boards lined up in the vise, dealing with doubling of lengthwise deviations, etc., I abandoned it as too finicky and time consuming. The problem was that I had come to it with a bias. By the time I tried match planing, I had already been successfully and regularly shooting edges for edge joining, for several years - one edge at a time. Yes, it had taken some concentrated effort in the beginning, but the process had quickly become relatively routine. In light of that, I quickly came to feel that match planing held no advantage for me.

In light of that experience, I often wondered about the seeming popularity of the method. I could see how people might be drawn to it, initially, but was truly puzzled as to why so many came to a different conclusion. And, it was only during discussions such as this, on the internet, that I began to be aware of one underlying explanation. As part of my "apprenticeship" in cabinetmaking, the ability to shoot individual edges straight, AND square to a reference face, was treated as one of the very basic trade skills. And, through the afore-mentioned early concentrated effort and repeated experience, that acquired skill had become second nature, and I had been taking it as a matter of course that others could/had learned it as well. It finally dawned on me that the continuing appeal of match planing may be that it side-steps having to learn this basic skill and appears to hold out the promise of never having to do so.

Let me be clear. I understand that match planing does work. And, obviously, each person should feel free to use the method if that is what works best for them. But, I'm concerned about the message sent and received if its advocacy and adoption is on the basis of the fear of learning a simple basic skill.

It might be argued that it's not a necessary skill to learn. And, in the context of edge jointing, that may even have some merit. But what does one do when faced with getting out cabinet door parts? An out of straight and/or square stile, especially, can throw the whole door into wind (twist). Or when the shot edge is going to be a reference edge for constructing a carcass containing drawers? In these instances, any initial deviation from a true edge can have cascading consequences which pretty much guarantee a lot of frustration and wasted effort/time down the road. So I firmly believe there is a great deal to be gained from learning this skill. (In fact, when one online "expert" woodworker characterized this basic technique as undertaking "a fool's errand," I took it as evidence that he lacked proficiency in the most basic of hand woodworking skills.)

A jointing fence might help with keeping the edges square, but it locks you into planing in only one direction unless you're going to go to the bother of seeing that both faces of a board are true and parallel. Again, learning to shoot edges straight and square is not rocket science, and that skill allows you much more freedom in how you work any given piece of material. And, in support of that, I believe that the basic trade methods for this were developed so that anyone with even average motor skills can acquire it. It's not rocket science.

As to whether Peter Nicholson represents 18th century trade techniques, yes I do believe that to be the case, at least in general. As far as I've been able to ascertain, he was born in 1765, served a four year apprenticeship in cabinetmaking (furniture-making) beginning in the late 1770's, then worked for a time, as a journeyman cabinetmaker, in Edinburgh and London. It seems his active period in the trade likely ended in the early 1790's. I think it highly likely that his "time in the trade," during the fourth quarter of the 18th century, greatly informed most of what he later wrote concerning specific woodworking techniques, &c.

Regarding the Seaton chest essentially representing a 19th century kit of tools, I think such a statement is unnecessarily confusing and misleading. For starters, as is widely known, the tools were acquired from Gabriel in the 1790's, so were clearly manufactured in the 18th century. Now, it is true that the form of many/most of the tools underwent changes during the 18th (and 19th) century (and not always for the better), and late 18th century tools more closely resembled early 19th century tools than early 18th century examples. But that doesn't mean that late 18th century tools were essentially 19th century tools. If anything, it might make more sense to characterize early 19th century tools as essentially representative of (late) 18th century tools.

As I've already indicated, it's unnecessary to get into this quagmire of semantics. If one is collecting tools of a given (earlier) period and/or representing one in a living history situation, then all that would be necessary would be to say that the Seaton tools aren't representative of those in use in the second quarter of the 18th century (as just one example). Or to simply say that they are representative of late 18th century tools. That seems more straight-forward and accurate to me.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR

[David Keller NC]

Don - Your thoughts are appreciated. Certainly by me, who has the dual goal of doing things by hand by the most efficient means possible in the modern shop, but also is very interested in duplicating so far as is possible what was done to build most of the pieces of furniture that I'm interested in reproducing.

I'm going to suggest a couple of things - since you've done the work of looking this up in Nicholson and writing a lengthy commentary on what you found, I suggest that you preserve what you've written as an "essay" or "historic method editorial" on the C&W website. I'm also going to suggest to Zahid that this thread be included in the Neander FAQ under the "skills" section. I suspect newbies starting out with converting over to hand methods that they formerly performed by machine might be very interested.

[Robert Rozaieski]

Thank you Don for your very well thought out and elegantly written response (as usual :D).

I think the most important thing to take away from this entire thread is that, as in most things, there are multiple ways to "skin a cat" as they say, and often, different methods are more appropriate in different situations.

Since I was the original one to post/suggest the match planing method to the OP, let me clarify my position by saying that, yes, I do use match planing. However, I use it only when it is appropriate to do so, and when it will save ME time in situations where I know that a perfectly square edge is unnecessary.

However, I also shoot boards straight and square when the situation calls for it and I need those references for future steps in the process, such as a face frame, door, drawer, case side, etc. I think both methods have their place in the appropriate circumstances.

I do absolutely agree, however, that learning to shoot straight and square boards is a basic necessary skill and that match planing will in no way enable one to sidestep learning this necessary skill. It is a skill that is absolutely needed for far too many other situations. And as you and Larry so elegantly pointed out, when your stock is too wide for match planing to work, there is no other choice in the matter but to shoot each edge straight and square individually.

[William Fretwell]

Light your way!

Edge joining 7' boards for a bench top the wood was 2 & 1/2 inches thick or a bit more. I put the board on it's edge and using a straightedge look for bumps. I remove the bumps with a smoothing plane as it does a better job. After that I move to a jack plane then the jointer plane. I then work on the next edge the same way. I mate the edges vertically with a flood light behind them. The gaps shine through! I then work on the high spots with the jointer plane two shavings at a time then 1 shaving at a time until virtual blackout along the whole joint. Turn the joint around in front of the light to check. On boards this thick and heavy (black walnut) I don't try for the tiny concave along the length because they don't bend!
It takes a while but you get there. The flood light is double heads 2x1000W halogen set a foot from the joint at the same height not some flashlight. With this method the gap errors scream at you making adjustments more precise. You can literally see what you are doing!

[Prashun Patel]

William, this thread is about 7.5 years old... I'm curious if the OP ever learned.

[Steve Voigt]

this thread is about 7.5 years old...

Yeah, this might be a new record for necro-posting. But I'm happy to see this thread at the top again; it gives me the opportunity to point to Don McConnell's post (#33). If I had a list of the top 10 posts on SMC ever, this would surely be near the top. Not only for the specifics of edge jointing, but also for the larger lesson about the importance of learning foundational techniques rather than relying on methods that might be easier for beginners but ultimately inhibit the development of real skills. It's well worth a read.

[Bill White]

At the risk of sounding like a dumb a$$, is the jointer fence a value? Don't have one, and use the #7 often, but would like to refine my technique. I have seen many diverse opinions. What say you?
Bill

[Jim Koepke]

At the risk of sounding like a dumb a$$, is the jointer fence a value? Don't have one, and use the #7 often, but would like to refine my technique. I have seen many diverse opinions. What say you?
Bill

Surely it must work for some or it would have been another idea resigned to the dustbin of history.

For me it is easy to use a square to check my edge and adjust my planing to compensate anything found out of square.

This has just given me an idea, for the dustbin of history. Why not install a high powered gyroscope on a hand plane with a level for reference. Once the plane is properly oriented the gyroscope could be powered up and voila, a perfectly square edge.

jtk

[paul cottingham]

At the risk of sounding like a dumb a$$, is the jointer fence a value? Don't have one, and use the #7 often, but would like to refine my technique. I have seen many diverse opinions. What say you?
Bill

I find them useful, but as I've mentioned in the past, I have almost no feeling in my right hand. It makes it hard to orient a plane accurately without an aid when trying to get a square edge. I suspect most other folks can do it with practice.

[Patrick Chase]

This has just given me an idea, for the dustbin of history. Why not install a high powered gyroscope on a hand plane with a level for reference. Once the plane is properly oriented the gyroscope could be powered up and voila, a perfectly square edge.
jtk

You mean like this (http://www.pure4c.de/dynasite.cfm?dsmid=103255)?

The only real catch is that they cost thousands of dollars. That, and the ergonomics might be a little challenging.

They're terrific if you're shooting aerial photo/video though.

[Jim Koepke]

They're terrific if you're shooting aerial photo/video though.

Might be good for shooting the edge of a plank.

jtk

[Glen Canaday]

I've always felt that the jointer fence is more for planing an angle or bevel on an edge than for jointing a square edge. It is a whole lot harder to accurately plane a 22.5 degree bevel than a square edge.

Probably someone else will feel differently.

[Jim Koepke]

I've always felt that the jointer fence is more for planing an angle or bevel on an edge than for jointing a square edge. It is a whole lot harder to accurately plane a 22.5 degree bevel than a square edge.

Probably someone else will feel differently.

It isn't that hard to hit an angle if the piece is marked and then care is taken to hit the marks. If one is doing a lot of pieces to make an hexagon, an octagon or some other type of multisided affair then it might be best to rig up a shooting board.

If one is making a french cleat, the two pieces can be clamped together and worked. Then it doesn't matter if the angle is exact as long as they're matched.

jtk

[Curt Putnam]

Wow! I've found this thread to be valuable - and Thank You Don!

Anyway, I'm still at the stage where I'm using a Dewalt 735 planer and a Rigid 6" jointer. I use a Veritas Jointer with it's fence to match plane whatever came our of the jointer. If it takes more than 2 strokes to get full width shavings then I know something is wrong. I also have a #8 from TablesawTom with which I practice with nothing more than a straight edge and a square.When I have the time and the wood, I will try to joint my edges freehand. I can do a square and long board, but it takes a while. There is the honey-do gun to be considered.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Where do you live Dan? Your profile does not say.... If you live near Columbus Ohio, stop in and we can make those boards straight for you, one way or another! :D

[Warren Mickley]

A few notes on edge jointing.

Nicholson used match planing for making straight edges for reference tools.
In this case the match planing enables a slightly more accurate edge than just using another straight edge because with match planing the error is doubled when the pair of straight edges are compared. This method also enables one to make a reference tool from scratch, without a previous reference tool. The cost is extra time. The faces of the two pieces must be previously flattened so they may be clamped together, and the two peices must be fixed in the vise again for every trial.

For joining two boards, I plane separately, which enables one to set one atop the other for testing without removing one from the vise. And for about 35 years I have joined the boards without first flattening the faces. This saves time and thickness of material as well. The face only gets flattened once instead of each half being done individually, and then the whole flattened again after glue up.

Nicholson (1812) also planes the boards individually and makes the joint before facing the wide surfaces. A beginner can use this method if someone is standing around coaching; but some may find joining unplaned (unfaced) boards frustrating.

[Brian Holcombe]

For joining two boards, I plane separately, which enables one to set one atop the other for testing without removing one from the vise. And for about 35 years I have joined the boards without first flattening the faces. This saves time and thickness of material as well. The face only gets flattened once instead of each half being done individually, and then the whole flattened again after glue up.


Just wanted to point this out to the crowd, Warren made mention of his approach some time ago and I've taken to using it. I find it very good and have gotten the smallest glue lines using this approach.

I also find it makes flattening a large panel easier, as you can tune the edge to ensure the panel comes up a little flatter than if you just joint and glue without referencing one to the other.

There is another thread going on about knowledge transfer....when Warren, Stan or George post something....read carefully and do as they say...and the knowledge will transfer.

[Bruce Haugen]

Yeah, this might be a new record for necro-posting. But I'm happy to see this thread at the top again; it gives me the opportunity to point to Don McConnell's post (#33). If I had a list of the top 10 posts on SMC ever, this would surely be near the top. Snippage happened here

Right you are, Steve. I've even had the opportunity to meet him and discuss various and sundry things with him (at Handworks a few years back). He's one very smart guy and a fount of information

[Joel Thomas Runyan]

A bit odd to add more fodder to this necrotic of a thread but:

1. Jointer fences are the best thing I've found for squaring and jointing thin pieces. Flip the jointer and fence and clamp it (gingerly) in your vise. Then move the piece, not the tool. Not sure where I learned this, but it was definitely on the internet. It obviously mimics the machine version of the tool.

2. Match planing--which I learned from lutherie manuals--has been most useful for me where conservation of material was critical. Sometimes when jointing the plates for a stringed instrument, you often have very little material to spare, but the joint must be absolutely perfect, lest the soundboard fail. As edges often come very close to right out of the billet, it's easier to take one or two shavings that guarantee straight and not worry about square than it is to fiddle too long with flattening a face and reckoning square.

3. Splitting the difference so you don't have to work the faces first, as mentioned by Warren. If you process by hand, it's annoying to traverse three or more times instead of just estimating what warp if any you'll have to remove and cut joints accordingly.

[David Dalzell]

I am sure the LN or Veritas #8 jointer planes are wonderful. However they are pricey. If you decide on buying a jointer plane you might first look on e-bay for a Stanley #7. I don't know what they are going for these days, but probably significantly less than the LN or Veritas. You can probably pick up a decent Stanley #7 on e-bay for $75-$100 versus $300 - $400 for LN or Veritas. The Stanley #7 is a little shorter than the #8, but also much more available. I use an old Stanley #7 for jointing long edges and have had great success with it. I have replaced the original blade with a Hock Blade. The original Stanley blade cuts as well as the Hock blade. The only noticeable difference is that the Hock blade lasts longer between sharpening.
Good luck with your new exploration. By the way (WARNING) - when you start delving into handtools it becomes a never ending saga.
David

[Kees Heiden]

Just wanted to point this out to the crowd, Warren made mention of his approach some time ago and I've taken to using it. I find it very good and have gotten the smallest glue lines using this approach.

I also find it makes flattening a large panel easier, as you can tune the edge to ensure the panel comes up a little flatter than if you just joint and glue without referencing one to the other.

There is another thread going on about knowledge transfer....when Warren, Stan or George post something....read carefully and do as they say...and the knowledge will transfer.

But what do you do when the boards are twisted? Or deeply cupped, how do you keep the resulting glued up panel as straight as possible?
And I don't understand the time saving. You'll have to get those panels flat anwyway, so it is not going to save any planing effort in the long run.... Somehow it seems to be much easier to get the seperate boards reasonably flat first. Doesn't need to be perfect, jackplane flat is great allready. That gives you something to reference your square when jointing the edge.

[Warren Mickley]

But what do you do when the boards are twisted? Or deeply cupped, how do you keep the resulting glued up panel as straight as possible?
And I don't understand the time saving. You'll have to get those panels flat anwyway, so it is not going to save any planing effort in the long run.... Somehow it seems to be much easier to get the seperate boards reasonably flat first. Doesn't need to be perfect, jackplane flat is great allready. That gives you something to reference your square when jointing the edge.

Kees, I doubt you have given this as much thought as Peter Nicholson had by 1812.

First of all, using flat faces in order to get the two edges flat for gluing is a clumsy method, with too many steps in which to accumulate error in wind. You have the error in each boards original flattening and the error in using the square to get the resulting edges square to the reference surfaces. With respect to wind we are talking about four measurements with the square. And for a one inch board (probably less than an inch once you have faced off a side) the square has a very short surface to look at compared to 18 inch winding sticks. Using the winding sticks to test for wind on the edges is much more accurate because the sticks magnify the error.

When we true the face of a board that is in wind, say high in the near left and in the far right, we have the freedom to take the large portion from the near corner, the far corner, or some combination. However, we prefer to save this freedom until after gluing up. This leaves as much thickness in the board and as much flexibility as possible.

If you want to rough plane the board to get a feel for figure or matching or something, that is reasonable, but to go to the trouble to carefully flatten each board, then to base the truing of the edges on these reference surfaces, and later have to true the resulting entire panel, is just a lot of work. The method I use requires skill and judgement and may not be the best to teach a clumsy beginner with a low tolerance for frustration. This might not be a good method to teach in a one day workshop or a six minute video. A lot of instruction today is aimed at giving quick success rather than long term efficiency. The requirement for skill and judgement relegates many a technique to the dustbin.

After truing two edges, I leave one board in the vise and stack the other on top. Then I can check for gaps due to a hollow or what ever, or rocking due to wind. I also check to see that the resulting panel will not have too much cup. If everything else is in good shape, it is easy to adjust the angle slightly with the jointer. But it does take skill.

[Brian Holcombe]

But what do you do when the boards are twisted? Or deeply cupped, how do you keep the resulting glued up panel as straight as possible?
And I don't understand the time saving. You'll have to get those panels flat anwyway, so it is not going to save any planing effort in the long run.... Somehow it seems to be much easier to get the seperate boards reasonably flat first. Doesn't need to be perfect, jackplane flat is great allready. That gives you something to reference your square when jointing the edge.

If they're deeply cupped or badly twisted I will not use them for a panel glue up as they have already shown me that they will move a lot during seasonal change and that they plenty of internal stress ready to work it's way out.

[Kees Heiden]

Never too old to learn something. I hadn't ever thought about truing up the edge with winding sticks. But it is a completely reasonable idea of course.

[David Eisenhauer]

Thanks Warren. Even though I leave one board in the vise and stack the second on it for a "look see", I have always concentrated on getting a "square-to-square" individual panel board makeup and not paying attention to wind. Such a simple thing that never occurred and (sad to say) probably never would have. I have always reserved wind corrections for the entire panel.

[Steve Voigt]

Warren, Brian, Kees, et al,

I just read through that section in Nicholson. He does say to begin by rough planing a face with the jack plane, or just an area of the board near the edge. But he's clearly not talking about flattening the face enough to use as a reference surface. He makes no mention using a square in the section on edge joining.

Later, in the section "to try up a piece of stuff all around" (what most people today would refer to as four-squaring), he does mention using a square and referencing off the previously-tried face of the board. But it seems important that this comes after the sections "to join two boards together" and "to join any number of boards…so as to form one board." A reasonable conclusion is that for Nicholson, this method (using a square off a reference face) was a lower-precision method, appropriate for the sides of a rail or style, a carcase side, etc., but not for edge-joining. For exactly the reasons Warren describes.

I have to say, this is a revelation for me. I have joined perhaps hundreds of boards by hand, but always in the manner Kees describes. I wonder where I learned it (I assume it was from some 20th century woodworking text). I have to assume it is a prime example of "power tool thinking" (applying the same methods that work well for power tools to hand tool work).

[Charles Guest]

Stock selection is paramount, of course, in panel glue ups. I try to only remove as much material as necessary to figure out which way the preponderance of the grain is running so that the panel will plane more easily. You need to get an idea of color match too of course. The goal is to glue up minimally processed individual boards and then work the panel as if it were the single wide boards available 200 to 300 years ago. My lousy two cents worth.

[William Fretwell]

Yeah, this might be a new record for necro-posting. But I'm happy to see this thread at the top again; it gives me the opportunity to point to Don McConnell's post (#33). If I had a list of the top 10 posts on SMC ever, this would surely be near the top. Not only for the specifics of edge jointing, but also for the larger lesson about the importance of learning foundational techniques rather than relying on methods that might be easier for beginners but ultimately inhibit the development of real skills. It's well worth a read.

Thanks Steve,
The age of this thread is still young compared to the time scale of Dan McConnell's edge planning re-cap!
Often better to continue an old thread than re-invent the wheel. Yes I`ve tried match planning with and without one board reversed. I`ve planned each edge individually then tried to match plane for the last pass as if some magic benefit would be bestowed.

If the pressure is not absolutely even then the `dip` depth created is doubled, if one board is reversed then the depth is not doubled but now you have two of them. The benefit with thin stock of keeping your plane level may outweigh the erratically domed edge that can be created. Many years ago I gave up match planning as an exercise in frustration, the only exception being at the start of edge planning where the high spots on either board are made more apparent and the low spots on the other board protect you from taking too much off the high spots! Once they are roughly flat then shooting each board individually is essential.

[Dan Barr]

I am sure the LN or Veritas #8 jointer planes are wonderful. However they are pricey. If you decide on buying a jointer plane you might first look on e-bay for a Stanley #7. I don't know what they are going for these days, but probably significantly less than the LN or Veritas. You can probably pick up a decent Stanley #7 on e-bay for $75-$100 versus $300 - $400 for LN or Veritas. The Stanley #7 is a little shorter than the #8, but also much more available. I use an old Stanley #7 for jointing long edges and have had great success with it. I have replaced the original blade with a Hock Blade. The original Stanley blade cuts as well as the Hock blade. The only noticeable difference is that the Hock blade lasts longer between sharpening.
Good luck with your new exploration. By the way (WARNING) - when you start delving into handtools it becomes a never ending saga.
David

Have to agree with David. I've got a #7 and #8 Stanley. You can do almost any length if your willing to check your work and develop a good eye/feel for holding the plane square (or by deliberatley fiddling with the iron protruding at different angles). A good jointer plane is invaluable. LNs are nice but, out of my price range. I got my two Stanley jointers for $20 and $40 respectively. Put in some time to flatten the soles/restore. Not a complete restoration, just enough to make it accurate and get to using.

[Curt Putnam]

I suggest to anyone looking for a jointer plane and balking at the Veritas or Lie-Nielson prices that you contact Tom Bussey (TablesawTom). He does some wondrous things with the surface grinder to which he has access. Everything gets ground flat and square within 0.0015". I have a roundside 608 done by Tom and it is wondrous - especially when outfitted with a PM-V11 iron and Veritas chip breaker. It is still not the ductile cast iron the that Veritas and LN use nor is the depth adjuster quite as precise as the LNs. I tend to use my Veritas LA Jointer with fence after tailed jointing so there is no special skill involved there. Anyway if price is an object, work with Tom. If not, goto either Veritas or LN - cry once and be happy for the rest of your life.