Origin of "coffin" shape

[Jim Belair]

So when I was first getting into hand tools a number of years ago, I read an article comparing good quality smoothing planes. One was described as a "coffin smoother". Wow, now that's a specialized plane I thought! Wiser (and yes older) now....

I'm wondering about how the coffin shape was arrived at. Good grip?- perhaps but many toted coffin planes are also around. Less friction?- marginally I would think. Style?- maybe worth the small added effort in a wooden plane but considerably more work to make a metal coffin shape.

What think you all?

Jim B

[john brenton]

Here's a blog that already says what it would take me a long time and a lot of typing to say myself...only to have someone tell me I was wrong!!: http://www.fullchisel.com/blog/?p=256


So when I was first getting into hand tools a number of years ago, I read an article comparing good quality smoothing planes. One was described as a "coffin smoother". Wow, now that's a specialized plane I thought! Wiser (and yes older) now....

I'm wondering about how the coffin shape was arrived at. Good grip?- perhaps but many toted coffin planes are also around. Less friction?- marginally I would think. Style?- maybe worth the small added effort in a wooden plane but considerably more work to make a metal coffin shape.

What think you all?

Jim B

[Prashun Patel]

And here I thought all this time it was spelled "coughin'" plane, because it saves you from coughin' up all that dust when you switch to using one from sandpaper.... ;)

[Andrew Gibson]

And here I thought all this time it was spelled "coughin'" plane, because it saves you from coughin' up all that dust when you switch to using one from sandpaper.... ;)

Funny and true :)

[Frank Drew]

I don't find this rationale very convincing:

"I also think that the shape allows for its use in conjunction with ... shooting boards. The shape also allows the plane to be held at a skew angle to make a smoother cut with a side rest or shooting board."

To the extent I've thought about it (not very much), I've always assumed that the coffin shape was intended to reduce friction by lessening the amount of plane sole contacting the wood.

[george wilson]

The coffin shape is to make the rear end of the plane narrower to fit more comfortably into the palm of the hand. Reducing the width of the front also makes it easier for the hand to grasp it there.



Reducing the size of the footprint of the plane to reduce friction has nothing to do with it. Making a smaller footprint might actually increase the friction when pushing the plane when it is being pushed. You are able to put more pressure on a smaller area with a smaller footprint.

Consider starting a fire with rubbing the pointed end of a stick against other wood,either by rapid rubbing,or the use of a bow to rotate it. Do you think you could start a fire by using a WIDE ended stick against another?
No,the greater area makes for less friction. The load upon the stick is more spread out. Plain bronze bearings are not made very narrow. They are wide to increase running surface and reduce friction.

There are many errors in the smooth plane shown in the blog mentioned,it shows only a vague knowledge of the coffin smoother: Undeveloped,unrefined shape, undefined bevel around the top edge of the plane,nearly no eyes in the escapement,iron entirely too short,poor orientation of wood grain,wedge not properly detailed,poor shape of area for the palm rest,it is too squared on the corners,and should be more rounded to avoid blisters in sustained use. I would not be writing blogs at this stage of development of understanding. Doing so only serves to confuse and misdirect others.

[Jim Rimmer]

There's an old story about a mother teaching her daughter to cook a roast. The mother cut about 2 inches off the end of the roast and put it on top of the rest before placing it in the oven. When the daughter asked why she explained that that was the way her mother taught her to do it. They asked the grandmother why and she replied that that was the way her mother taught her. They quizzed great grandma and she explained that the pan she had was too short to hold a full size roast so she always cut the end off to get it all in the pan.

Maybe the first guy to make on of these had a piece of wood of that shape. :D

[john brenton]

Pfew! I am glad I didn't write any of that myself. I'd hate to be the one being excoriated...but I'm guilty of posting it so I guess I'm guilty too. I did however read this: "The contention is that the reduced wood on both front and back will adjust better compared to the thin side walls of the escapement, which would exchange moisture more readily." and am pretty sure that I have read this in a professional planemaker's blog or book or something; that doesn't make it gospel, but we're talking theories.





The coffin shape is to make the rear end of the plane narrower to fit more comfortably into the palm of the hand. Reducing the width of the front also makes it easier for the hand to grasp it there.



Reducing the size of the footprint of the plane to reduce friction has nothing to do with it. Making a smaller footprint might actually increase the friction when pushing the plane when it is being pushed. You are able to put more pressure on a smaller area with a smaller footprint.

Consider starting a fire with rubbing the pointed end of a stick against other wood,either by rapid rubbing,or the use of a bow to rotate it. Do you think you could start a fire by using a WIDE ended stick against another?
No,the greater area makes for less friction. The load upon the stick is more spread out. Plain bronze bearings are not made very narrow. They are wide to increase running surface and reduce friction.

There are many errors in the smooth plane shown in the blog mentioned,it shows only a vague knowledge of the coffin smoother: Undeveloped,unrefined shape, undefined bevel around the top edge of the plane,nearly no eyes in the escapement,iron entirely too short,poor orientation of wood grain,wedge not properly detailed,poor shape of area for the palm rest,it is too squared on the corners,and should be more rounded to avoid blisters in sustained use. I would not be writing blogs at this stage of development of understanding. Doing so only serves to confuse and misdirect others.

[george wilson]

You aren't guilty of anything but being mislead,John.

This might not be sugar coated,but it is the truth. There are some of these self appointed "gurus" that have very little knowledge,but have such enormous egos they think they know many times more than they really do. One who USED to post here spent endless words about the superiority of using bronze for saw screws when he can't even design a decent saw handle. It foes on forever. The internet is full of their blogs,web pages,etc..

I just get enough of it sometimes.

[john brenton]

To be honest I just googled "reason for coffin smoother shape" and posted the first result that kind of had all the different theories. I don't know the blogger, and have never read anything of his in the past. I don't think he was really posturing himself as a guru though...take it easy George!:)

I don't pay attention to woodworking blogs or magazines much for that reason. If I really want to know something I'll either ask someone I really esteem or try it myself. Are you talking about the saw maker that charges $500 for a sawplate with a hideous handle attached? If so...kudos to him for being an entrepreneur and everything, and I hate to offend, and I'm not implying I can do better...but ...wow.

Do you entirely disagree with the stability/moisture theory?


You aren't guilty of anything but being mislead,John.

This might not be sugar coated,but it is the truth. There are some of these self appointed "gurus" that have very little knowledge,but have such enormous egos they think they know many times more than they really do. One who USED to post here spent endless words about the superiority of using bronze for saw screws when he can't even design a decent saw handle. It foes on forever. The internet is full of their blogs,web pages,etc..

I just get enough of it sometimes.

[george wilson]

John,I know the blogger,and he is trying to be a guru. No,I'm not talking about the $500.00 saw maker. He hasn't been here in a while. I think he and the other person in question are trying to start their own forum. Not sure.

Mr. blogger made the sweeping statement a while back here that the old laminated steel irons were the best ever made,and could never be improved upon(or words to that effect).

Yes,I got a little grumpy when that guy popped up!!!:) He and his saw maker buddy are both woodworking wannabees who think they are gurus.

[Frank Drew]

The coffin shape is to make the rear end of the plane narrower to fit more comfortably into the palm of the hand. Reducing the width of the front also makes it easier for the hand to grasp it there.
Perhaps originally, with wood-bodied planes, but there are many metal-bodied infill coffin-shaped smoothers with both front and rear handles, that is, the narrowed sides can't be explained as just a way to fit the hands. If there wasn't a good reason to continue with that design they certainly wasted a lot a time and money -- making a curved-sided dovetailed plane body is certainly harder to do that a straight-sided one; maybe that's why all those old British planemakers went out of business :cool:.


Reducing the size of the footprint of the plane to reduce friction has nothing to do with it. Making a smaller footprint might actually increase the friction when pushing the plane when it is being pushed. You are able to put more pressure on a smaller area with a smaller footprint. Reducing the sole size on coffin-shaped planes reduces the plane's weight by whatever amount, and that makes them easier to push: As the weight of an object increases, more force is required to move the greater mass (F=ma).

[David Weaver]

I'm inclined to believe also that it's an issue of grip, and it may be an issue of style to go along with it.

The weight of a plane itself can't explain the amount of downward force that exists while you're planing given how much bodyweight a user will lean down into the plane.

I would imagine that the planemakers had plenty of selection that was seasoned for years, especially in the 18th and early 19th centuries. I doubt Larry Williams is wrong about much or anything that he says about planes, though.

I have used square wood smoothers and coffin wood smoothers for long periods of time. I would bet that anyone who worked with one constantly would instantly prefer the coffin design for comfort vs. a square-backed plane.

[Dale Sautter]

I know it wasn't all wood but... sure would have/still would love to have a "Loopy" (http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/cSchwarz/z_art/loopyInfill/loopyInfill-1.asp) :D

[David Weaver]

I wonder what is the ultimate expression of the planemaker's art if it isn't infills.

[george wilson]

Having studied tool evolution for many years,I know that designs were very slow to change,and the changes that were made were only incremental.

In past ages,changes were extremely slow compared to today. Craftsmen,and society were very set in their ways. Today,we are much more free thinking and open to changes than even fairly recently. For example,my grandfather would not answer the door at his house unless he was wearing a suit and tie. Look at the older woodworking books:the gentlemen are wearing neckties while planing wood. I taught shop in the 60's wearing a suit and tie.

You cannot just dismiss out of hand the retention of curved body infill planes. You are leaving out the mindset of the people in those days.

When I would decide to make a flintlock pistol,I would spend about 6 months researching styles,details,etc.. I found that small changes occurred about every 15 years,and even at that,they were only slight changes. Different details in ramrod pipes,slightly different grip angles(earlier grip angles were more in line with the stock. Later ones progressively became more bent downwards until they became bent downwards at 90º in the late 18th.C.. But,over the years,only gradually did these changes take place. Makers were loathe to strike out on anything radical at all,for fear of their work not being accepted and not being purchased,sending them out of business.

Once the coffin shape was established as a standard,it died a very slow death. Norris was making them well into the 20th.C..

Something that the "social historians" in Williamsburg,with their typical tunnel vision, never seemed to realize is that there is always an inseparable bond between societal mores and the objects and tools that people used in their lives. If the social historians had ever stooped to using tools,they would have come to realize that. Instead of that,they dismissed the teaching of history with objects as "pots and pans" history.

[Frank Drew]

You cannot just dismiss out of hand the retention of curved body infill planes. You are leaving out the mindset of the people in those days.


I dont, and I'm not; it's a fair point to propose devotion to tradition as an explanation for a particular practice (Jim's anecdote about the roast in the oven), but at the same time it's getting into speculative territory to suggest that older toolmakers didn't have well-considered reasons for their design decisions. Particularly, in this case, when you consider that those same planemakers also made straight-sided planes at the same time.

Some contemporary diaries or letters or notes would be useful; I've bought and read the book on Stewart Spiers and his life as a planemaker (Through Much Tribulation: Stewart Spiers and the Planemakers of Ayr), but I don't remember that it said anything useful about his thinking on this or other related issues.

[Pam Niedermayer]

...I have used square wood smoothers and coffin wood smoothers for long periods of time. I would bet that anyone who worked with one constantly would instantly prefer the coffin design for comfort vs. a square-backed plane.

My square woodies are almost all Japanese, certainly the smoothers, and I've used several coffin smoothers. I honestly don't prefer one or the other, except when pulling on joinery and/or chuting, in which case I much prefer square. But that could also be due to the much thicker blades.

Pam

[Pam Niedermayer]

I wonder what is the ultimate expression of the planemaker's art if it isn't infills.

It's the ability to take a very thin shaving and produce a smooth surface that gives one pleasure to touch.

Pam

[george wilson]

Educated speculation is not the same thing as just speculation. In the absence of old,written documentation,we sometimes have to resort to it. Perhaps the old maker's reasons were well considered: the coffin shape was an established and accepted practice that some preferred,and makers wanted their products to be accepted and purchased. That is a perfectly well considered reason to continue to make them.

I have 2 coffin shaped Spiers smoothers. One has a tote,and the other has none. They both have the coffin shape though.

As a person who has made coffin shaped metal infills,I certainly agree that they are more trouble to make,though I submit that with a little practice,they aren't a great deal more trouble. If it isn't economics in manufacture,it has to be tradition driven and sustained by the preference of some craftsmen .

Oriental tools are an entirely different area,it seems. Chinese chisels had simple triangular shapes,easily chomped out and forged. Economical of metal,too. European makers seeking to sell them tools made their export tools to the established norms in China.

I think oriental tools were more based just on ease of manufacture than were European tools,at least in the common tools like chisels and planes.

There are dozens of words,common today,whose meaning we do not know the meaning of in the 18th.C.. Like the word PLAID. We don't know what it means,therefore,the textile researchers have to continue by process of elimination,to see what fabric it does apply to. It is a long,slow process,too,full of arguments and disputes all the way.

You wouldn't want a coffin shaped smoother for pulling. It would not be easily gripped for pulling.

[Pam Niedermayer]

...Oriental tools are an entirely different area,it seems. Chinese chisels had simple triangular shapes,easily chomped out and forged. Economical of metal,too. European makers seeking to sell them tools made their export tools to the established norms in China.

I think oriental tools were more based just on ease of manufacture than were European tools,at least in the common tools like chisels and planes.

There are dozens of words,common today,whose meaning we do not know the meaning of in the 18th.C.. Like the word PLAID. We don't know what it means,therefore,the textile researchers have to continue by process of elimination,to see what fabric it does apply to. It is a long,slow process,too,full of arguments and disputes all the way. ...

Maybe the Chinese planes were built for simplicity, the one Chinese rebate ( 30" long, made from a pecan tree branch) I own certainly was, and the Viet Namese tools seem to be simple; but the Japanese planes are on a whole different level. They look simple to make at first glance; but they are not simple to make until you know the secrets. Same with the blades, and I would probably argue if I did blacksmithing, same with the chisels. These Japanese woodworking tools are very sophisticated.

I just looked up "plaid" in the OED, which seems to have a definition for just about every use, and includes about 30 alternative spellings. A plethora of definition, but I suppose there could be some bit of knowledge lacking there. Just saying.

Pam

[Ray Gardiner]

Not all chinese tools (planes at least) are made for simplicity, here is one (from Peter McBride's website)
http://www.petermcbride.com/temp/htpaa_tool_sale/chinese_1.jpg


http://www.petermcbride.com/temp/htpaa_tool_sale/chinese_1.jpg

The thing I like about this one, it reminds me of the lines of a chinese junk.

It's style is instantly recognizable as chinese origin.

Regards
Ray

[george wilson]

Anything is possible in a special user made case. That one has a late,20th.C. type Western iron and Western escapement. It could even have been made by a Westerner who wanted Chinese style. Who knows?

I mentioned specifically Chinese tools for a reason. Obviously Japanese chisels are a different animal. Their planes are still pretty simple,though.


This is getting off the track of coffin smoothers,anyway.

[Pam Niedermayer]

Anything is possible in a special user made case. That one has a late,20th.C. type Western iron and Western escapement. It could even have been made by a Westerner who wanted Chinese style. Who knows?

I mentioned specifically Chinese tools for a reason. Obviously Japanese chisels are a different animal. Their planes are still pretty simple,though.


This is getting off the track of coffin smoothers,anyway.

Japanese planes are NOT simple, they just look that way. They're certainly not as simple as almost all western planes.

Pam

[Chris Vandiver]

Pam-

Just curious as to what it is that makes Japanese planes more complex than western planes? Would you care to elaborate?

[george wilson]

I'd like an elaboration too. They don't even have wedges,do they? Just rely upon the blade itself wedging itself into place from the sides?

[Michael Gaynes]

I'd like an elaboration too. They don't even have wedges,do they? Just rely upon the blade itself wedging itself into place from the sides?

Wilbur Pan (http://giantcypress.net/) did a nice three-part write up on preparing a Japanese plane that I found most interesting - first, that the sole is not flat...

http://giantcypress.net/post/1422532807/japanese-plane-set-up-ii-sole-conditioning

[Chris Vandiver]

Oh-oh, here we go!

[Pedro Reyes]

Japanese planes are NOT simple, they just look that way. They're certainly not as simple as almost all western planes.

Pam

What is more complicated? Making them?

If my car had 1 piece rim+tire wheels, I would say it is simpler, yet it is probably harder to make those wheels than it is to make a separate rim and a separate tire.

Just like it may be simpler to tune and fit a wedge, instead of the sides of the plane to hold an iron. So in this case it may be more practical to add parts (complexity) than to not have them (simplicity). But I would say the Japanese plane (in this regard) is more difficult to make, but not a more complicated plane, it is actually simpler.

Is that what you meant?

/p

[Sam Takeuchi]

Some are with wedge, a piece of iron with bent corners called uragane, some are without. When uragane is used, it acts like cap iron of a Western plane blade as well and often times suggested to align its leading edge close to the cutting edge. I think the rational is the same.

One thing that makes Japanese planes unique is that each plane is unique (I don't include cheap mass produced ones). After blade is made, dai, the body of the plane is mortised to fit the curvature of the blade's curvature. Each blade has concaved surface along its length on the bedding side (the part that actually beds onto the body) which is supposed to center and square the blade. However, each blade being hand forged and not milled, each blade has different curvature and shape. So when the blades are made, they are sent to the dai maker, either in-house or outside, who takes each blade and cut mortise just for that blade.

So it is quite common among the Japanese woodworkers of all sorts to go a few generations of dai during the blade's life. It involves having dai custom made for your blade, because it most likely won't fit well into another dai made for another blade. As far as I know, it's not customary to laminate wood to the worn sole to extend dai's life. The closest I have seen is steel plate laminated sole. I don't know how popular this type of plane is. Some plane makers sell ready made steel soled planes.

Lastly this mortise is quite important in a sense, especially with single blade construction, that it decides how well blade fits and how responsive it is to taps from a hammer (ease of adjustment). While I wouldn't say Japanese planes are more sophisticated than any other types planes, it's not as simple as a lot of people seem to believe.

[Sam Takeuchi]

Like Pedro says, I think "complicated to make" is a good way to put it.

[george wilson]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[David Weaver]

Wilbur Pan (http://giantcypress.net/) did a nice three-part write up on preparing a Japanese plane that I found most interesting - first, that the sole is not flat...

http://giantcypress.net/post/1422532807/japanese-plane-set-up-ii-sole-conditioning

They are still uncomplicated compared to a double iron infill plane with an adjuster.

They also work fine if you forego the traditional setup and just whiz the dai across a granite plate with sandpaper (whole bottom flat in one plane).

I don't have any left like that (all of mine are traditional setup), but I did try it a couple of times after fitting the iron to the dai and before conditioning the sole and it worked fine.

None of this is relevant with coffin planes, though, pulling a square dai doesn't have any relation to pushing a square plane, just like you wouldn't pull a coffin-shaped dai because it would compromise your grip.

When you find out that a square wooden push smoother is uncomfortable to use is when you make your own planes and learn the hard way why they are not shaped square like a tall dai with the iron farther forward, just as you learn why you cannot have a long iron on a toteless plane that's not overstuffed if the back isn't long.

Any well setup plane at a common or shallower angle is capable of a very fine shaving and a very good polish. The determinant is flatness in the right place and sharpness of the iron. It just isn't practical as an operation for smoothing to do that much if you're actually smoothing wood that's just been jointed by hand, etc.

[george wilson]

I prefer to just have a flat sole,too. It accomplishes the same goal,and the sole, having a great deal more surface area in contact with the wood,doesn't get worn away nearly so quickly. I do not agree with the premise that reducing the area of sole in contact with the wood decreases the friction. It increases it as per starting a fire by rubbing a sharpened stick.

[Jim Koepke]

As the weight of an object increases, more force is required to move the greater mass (F=ma).

Given the same weight on a smaller area, the pressure per square inch increases.

If you have ever moved furniture you may have discovered it is easier to slide a piece that is on top of a few layers of cardboard than on the small contact area provided by four, six or eight small feet. Of course, there are limitations that reach the area of diminishing returns. Of course, the friction effect of a plane sole can be altered with the addition of tallow or wax. The properties of the wood can also cause more effort to be required.

I have mentioned this before, and it is worth saying again. My knowledge of planes is from reading, using and experimenting. I consider myself a novice to apprentice. I may know a lot about Stanley/Bailey planes, but I have a lot more to learn, especially about anything that is not a Stanley/Bailey plane.

jtk

[David Weaver]

Raney, not too much should be made of any of them, though. Especially if any of the basic planes are compared to something like a holtey infill with an adjuster, which is both complex in design and hard to execute, especially with that level of precision.

Perfect execution of the details whatever they may be is different from the number of details. A japanese plane is still fairly simple, even if it is difficult - very difficult for an amateur woodworker to duplicate making a nice dai.

It is not a simple block of wood with an iron shoved in a slot, but there aren't mystical secrets that can't be understood by anyone who has a desire to understand them. It's the details of the fitting that are important, but they are still, to me at least, simple details.

What is extremely impressive is to watch an video of inomoto making a dai, how fast he executes the process, etc. There is plenty going on that you wouldn't infer from just looking until you've fit an iron to a plane and conditioned the sole.

It's my guess (and opinion, and no more than either of these) that the conditioning of the sole method with japanese planes came about because

* the dai were made by hand, after maybe being roughed to billets by machines (and were not perfectly flat as a billet themselves, and they still move a little with the seasons and age, anyway)
* There were not reference surfaces available with the accuracy that we have now, at least not at a cost a craftsman could afford. However, a craftsman could easily take two winding sticks and a scraping plane and remove all of the other material from the sole to take it out the equation, leaving only what's needed.

I have one more plane that has not been conditioned yet. I'm curious about how much of an effect there is if the rear of the plane isn't relieved, in terms of the quality of the result. I'll test it on radiata pine. I've never checked a before and after.

I do like to use japanese planes on softwoods, a lot. Even the budget planes, as long as the dai was executed properly (i have one that was not) have very good quality irons in them and perform at a very high level. I'll admit that my favorite plane is also my most expensive one, mostly due to the fact that it takes a very fine edge, holds it well, but has a nice finely executed thin lamination that makes it very easy to sharpen. Details like that are, to me, what make the plane very fine. They are simple details, but probably difficult to execute.

Still, I don't think anything about why a western plane is coffin shaped can be inferred from the dai and iron in a japanese plane, because the grip is not remotely similar. What can be inferred, though, is that the wooden body of a plane doesn't have to have a coffin shape to be stable or dry properly.

[Raney Nelson]

oops - in editing, I deleted the post accidentally.

Here's the original:

Just a quick offering on the 'japanese/western planes are more complex'; I have made at least dozen or so japanese dai, and several dozen western planes of almost every distinction -- and the truth is, both traditions appear to be rather simple to those not intimately familiar with them - but are actually incredibly detailed.

I'd offer up Larry Williams' side escapement plane DVD as a primer for anyone who thinks western planes are simple. And there are several videos out there of Inomoto-san making dai to dispel any idea that japanese planes are the 'simple blocks of wood' they appear to be at first glance.

Both styles require really significant investment of time and skill to execute properly. To say one is simpler or more complex than the other strikes me as a result of familiarity and nothing more. Subtlety is invisible at first glance, but comes more and more sharply into view as one becomes more familiar.

Finally, I agree completely that the continually repeated notion that less surface area = less friction doesn't hold any water at all. But there is a lot more going on with a relieved japanese sole than just a change in friction, or easier maintenance. Consider, among other things, the difference between a surface that is completely untouched after the plane blade cleanly shears the fibers (kanna) and a surface that is burnished with a large, smooth, heavy piece of metal or wood (western plane). There is also the fact that the compression of wood fibers just ahead of the cutting edge is quite different for a japanese plane and a western one. These differences are most notable in very fine soft woods, which is a material the japanese tend to appreciate more than the west does (though Wilbur is correct that the japanese used plenty of hard woods as well).

To suggest that the height of toolmaking in either tradition is 'simpler' is to misunderstand the subtleties.


David - I think your reasoning behind the development of dai sole is probably part of the picture, but to think that the effect of burnishing never occurred to anyone is a bit naive, I think. WHen I consider historical woodworking practices, there is one overriding fact I always keep in mind: for at least several thousand years, the best minds in humanity were largely involved in developing these techniques and tools. Woodworking was the height of human endeavor in that period, responsible for the overwhelming majority of our tools, our shelters, our devotion to God or gods. Today's Nasa engineers would almost certainly have been involved in woodworking a few hundred years ago. And after generations and generations of those people thinking about and using tools to degrees NO ONE does today, I submit that they knew exactly what they were doing in every detail and every aspect. To think otherwise is, to me, rather shortsighted.

As for your experiment, I'm not sure Radiata would be my choice for seeing subtlety in a finished surface, but you can see it. You can see it in cherry. It's readily apparent in Mahogany, and all the 'clean' cedars as well.

As for the coffin shape - I agree that it's got little or nothing to do with dai. I tend to agree with others that it was probably mostly comfort. It certainly does improve stability somewhat, but it also does so at the expense of structural integrity, and as you note it's not like you couldn't get 'stable enough' from straight sides.

This is an interesting discussion, but I think there is an overwhelming tendency (particularly in eastern vs western tools) to think the system one is most familiar with is the superior one. Having spent a good bit of time learning aspects of both, I think they're radically different approaches, and comparing their complexity is like comparing the complexity of apples and oranges. Both are suitably complex, and certainly much more so than they appear to an 'outsider' to their construction and use.

Coffin smoothers, by the way, are the business. Superior in every way to straight-sided smoothers. Obviously. ;)

[Pam Niedermayer]

David, I mentioned Japanese planes because of your statement about the coffin shape being preferable to use than any other shape. That's all. Then someone called them simple.

Raney, I agree with everything you said except the last line, which I know was supposed to be funny. It seems to me that the non-level sole is done to burnish with the blade rather than wood or metal. They certainly do a great job of that.

To all, not all Japanese planes have shaped soles, mostly just the smoothers. I've got several (jointer types) that have absolutely flat soles.

Pam

PS Inomoto-san taught me how to make Japanese dai. I deeply admire him and his skills and have much appreciation.

[Gaz Palmer]

Back on topic.

I'd always been taught the following;

The coffin smoothing plane shape originated in part - aside from ergonomics - as a means of conserving space within and the weight of a journeyman's tool box or chest. These above were selling points for the design, but it's contour also has other benefits during production;

Plot coffin patterns out on a large billet of stock and you can potentially produce more almond/coffin shaped planes - using a bow or band saw to run serpentine cuts down the billet length - than rectangular ones from the same piece of timber. You then simply cut the link between each plane blank's end and trim square. More product and less waste, plus a lighter ergonomic design that's economical to produce. :)

Place a set of three coffin planes nose to nose, then align a second row alongside with tails meeting at the mid-point of their neighbours and you'll see the cutting pattern emerging.

It's perhaps not as complex as many of the concepts offered, but is the reasoning and method we were taught when apprenticed and producing our first set of coffin shaped smoothing and block planes to fit our tool chests.

[Mark Baldwin III]

I've been following this thread and find it really interesting. As I am learning how to make my planes I like to read a lot (since I don't know anyone other than myself that owns any). Anyway, I was just reading on the Clark and Williams site about plane design. They offered the idea that another reason for the coffin shape is that some of the end grain on the sides gets exposed, instead of only at the toe, heel, and bed. This, they say, allows better acclimation of the wood during humidity changes. It makes sense to me. Would this have been a design consideration way back when? Or more of just a fringe benefit.

[george wilson]

Interesting points,Gaz,yet,the coffin smoother was in use hundreds of years before your teachers were born. How do they have intimate knowledge of their shape's purpose? It isn't written anywhere we know of. I still think it is mostly a case of improved ergonomics.

Pam,since Japanese planes are not pushed,how would their shape fit into this discussion?

I will mention that the blades for 18th. C. planes were made so thin,that after our blacksmiths reproduced them,it was found necessary to carefully bed each blade to its plane body to keep the irons from chattering. In that sense,they are similar to Japanese planes. Metal was hand processed back then,and they were very stingy with it,especially high carbon steel.

[Frank Drew]

Gaz,

Just thinking about the process, even if wooden planemaking involved the multiples from one piece of timber you propose, I'd think that any hoped-for but certainly minor savings in material would be more than offset by an unquestionable increase in time and complexity in making curved-sided vs. straight-sided planes, starting with that serpentine rip cut.

[Larry Williams]

Interesting points,Gaz,yet,the coffin smoother was in use hundreds of years before your teachers were born. How do they have intimate knowledge of their shape's purpose? It isn't written anywhere we know of. I still think it is mostly a case of improved ergonomics...


It's been quite a few years since I wrote the information on our web site and I had to go back and reread it. I didn't say that the coffin shape originated to promote shape stability and I never have believed that. I've always thought the shape originated for ergonomic reasons.

If, however, one lives with and uses traditional wooden planes everyday, as I have, they'll quickly become aware the coffin body is more shape stable than straight sided bench planes. They just require less to keep them tuned. I'm sure this was evident to early users and plane makers as well. I'm sure this shape stability is the reason the coffin body style smooth plane became an early standard in Anglo/American woodworking.

Even Joseph Moxon in the late 1600's appears to have recognized the importance of the coffin body style of smooth planes. It's widely accepted he had engraver copy plane illustrations from Andre Felibien's French book. The one plane Moxon changed was the smooth plane, instead of Felibien's straight sided French smooth plane a coffin bodied smooth plane is shown. Why just this one plane? Did British woodworkers consider the coffin body that important?

Even as it was, the 18th Century coffin bodied smooth plane wasn't all that comfortable to use. One needs well placed callouses to comfortably use one of the early smooth planes. If the shape was all about comfort would plane makers have stopped with just the coffin shape? In the early 19th Century the heel design very quickly changed for comfort. I've attached a photo where the two styles are shown next to each other.

Some changes were very slow but some became almost instantly widely adopted like the more ergonomic design of the heel of the 19th Century style coffin body smooth plane.

While on the topic, it was suggested the plane illustrated in Albrecht Durer's 1514 "Melencolia" is primitive. Really? What is it missing? To me it looks pretty highly evolved and much like Dutch planes of a few hundred years later. I don't see anything that would keep it from working as well as anything produced later. I've attached a portion of the highest resolution copy of the engraving I could find. I wish they hadn't cut part of it off when they cropped the image.

[Mark Baldwin III]

It's been quite a few years since I wrote the information on our web site and I had to go back and reread it. I didn't say that the coffin shape originated to promote shape stability and I never have believed that. I've always thought the shape originated for ergonomic reasons.

If, however, one lives with and uses traditional wooden planes everyday, as I have, they'll quickly become aware the coffin body is more shape stable than straight sided bench planes. They just require less to keep them tuned. I'm sure this was evident to early users and plane makers as well. I'm sure this shape stability is the reason the coffin body style smooth plane became an early standard in Anglo/American woodworking.


Ok...so it is more of a side benefit then. That's why I asked the question. I was unclear on whether it was meant for ergonomics, or if they knew it would make the plane stable. Perhaps I will go back and read it again. I really enjoy learning this stuff. It's a lot to take in, but I'm working on it! Thanks!

[george wilson]

I wasn't the person who said the Durer plane was primitive, I referred to the plane at the top of the blog. But the Durer does have some sharp corners on the rear which might cause blisters. The eyes could be cut out better to allow better access to cleaning out the escapement,though that is probably offset by the round cutaway at the front of it,anyway. The horn is also pretty angular for gripping all day,again,from a comfort aspect.

[Gaz Palmer]

Gaz,

Just thinking about the process, even if wooden planemaking involved the multiples from one piece of timber you propose, I'd think that any hoped-for but certainly minor savings in material would be more than offset by an unquestionable increase in time and complexity in making curved-sided vs. straight-sided planes, starting with that serpentine rip cut.

It's not a proposition when known as a working practice. Serpentine is no harder than a straight to cut in timber using a bow saw. Why cut straight if you're then going to radius sides afterwards? Best practice is to minimise work load and waste, so curves were sawn during preparation and off-cuts from the same were used to make smaller block and finger planes.

The bow saw was the carpenter's saw of choice during the perod in which coffin shaped planes apparently originated. Circa C16th.

Try laying out a set of coffin planes and you'll see the practicality behind the method used to prepare their contours. I have a dozen here, but lack a camera.

------------

George,

Insofar as background knowledge is concerned, crafting practices are passed down the generations in just the same way in England as they are in Japan, China and any other civilisation. Being unable to source text or engravings concerning the crafts does not dictate that given practices or techniques did not exist. Regardless of whether involved in historical re-enactment facilities or an element from a long standing line of craftsmen, the fact is that historians and writers don't always get their facts straight. Evidence of this was seen earlier and the writer's offerings refuted. Harken to the writings of so-called historians and quite a number have also had their writings refuted in much the same way.

Examples of coffin shaped (Iron/steel shod) planes date back to the times of the Romans and yet historians and archaeologist persist in making assumptions concerning crafts and practices, without refering to craftsmen.

Plenty has been said of producing one plane at a time, but which approach would you take if producing a batch/set of wooden coffin planes? We apprentices were taught the traditional method I described earlier.

Squared stock, then rounded off, or begin with curved stock, refine it and minimise the number of steps taken from producing a blank to the finished piece?

Lack of written or drawn evidence does not eliminate good working practice from existence. It simply proves the case that nobody thought to write about it at the time, whilst disproving nothing. Experimental archaeology tends to prove this as being the case all too often.

My direct lineage is to Francis Palmer of London, England. A well respected maker of orphorion, lute and furniture, who's craft has been carried by every generation in my family since his time and will continue. Circa C16th - C21st. A period of time which competes with many Japanese Swordmaking families. They also tend to rely on oral tradition rather than write a book on the subject. :)

[george wilson]

I think I am already aware of those things,Gaz. By the way,I have made ORPHARIONS.

[Zach Dillinger]

For what it's worth, the book Home Building and Woodworking in Colonial America by C. Keith Wilbur makes reference to blade width. The coffin shape allows a wider blade, which can be an advantage in a smoothing plane, while still allowing a narrower and therefore more comfortable grip on the front and rear of the plane. I always thought this theory made sense.

[Pam Niedermayer]

Pam,since Japanese planes are not pushed,how would their shape fit into this discussion?

Any plane can be pushed or pulled, I've often pulled western planes; however, the reason I mentioned them, as I clearly stated on page 3, is that David Weaver made grand claims for coffins being much preferable to use when compared directly to rectilinear.

Pam

[john brenton]

I only have one kanna and I use it side ways. Why is this thread so contetious? Its like everyones whipping "it" out for measurement.
Any plane can be pushed or pulled, I've often pulled western planes; however, the reason I mentioned them, as I clearly stated above on this same page, is that David Weaver made grand claims for coffins being much preferable to use when compared directly to rectilinear.

Pam

[David Weaver]

Any plane can be pushed or pulled, I've often pulled western planes; however, the reason I mentioned them, as I clearly stated above on this same page, is that David Weaver made grand claims for coffins being much preferable to use when compared directly to rectilinear.

Pam

In a plane designed to be pushed, which is the context of this discussion.

I don't think that's a very grand claim, it takes less than fifteen minutes and two planes to make that decision.

This discussion is not about kanna and never was, nor should it be, as they have nothing to do with why a coffin smoother shape is what it is. I don't understand why this tangent even continues, and let's not even try to claim that I was implying anything about kanna with my first comment.

[george wilson]

David made claim rightly so for the coffin shape being more ergonomic for pushing than just a rectangular shape,which is not as comfortable in the palm when it is pushed. This thread is not about pulled planes. It is about the origin of the coffin shape. The title of the thread is about the origin of the coffin shape. I would think a tapered coffin shape might be a little harder to grip for pulling anyway.

I agree with Larry Williams that the coffin smoother reached its apex in the 19th.C.,as did many tools. Zach has it exactly right,too.

[Gaz Palmer]

I think I am already aware of those things,Gaz. By the way,I have made ORPHARIONS.

The pointers I made were directed to Frank and not you, but it's a pleasant surprise you know of my family's background in cabinetry and luthiery. :rolleyes:

Your dismissive stance aside ;) I too have crafted orphorion (It can be spelled using either an o or an a) and was very fortunate to be asked to reproduce several orphorion and lute for a local museum exhibit visited by the Queen during the 1970's. The year of the Queen's Silver Jubilee in 1977 and exhibited within The Hancock Museum to be precise. :)

Thank you for also responding to my questions. The provision of answers wasn't necessary, but would have cast another perspective on the mode of crafting for others to learn by and displayed a hint of professional etiquette between professionals (Retired or not).

You mention the coffin plane reaching it's zenith during the C19th, yet apparently dismiss - via assumption? - the presence and passage of detailed first hand knowledge of traditional crafting technique and underlying reasoning into the C20th? However, many who'd apprenticed during C19th were still practicing well into the C20th. (In England we place the C before the number when referring to centuries in a historical context). The above lends itself to the fact that skill sets can be directly conveyed to later generations of craftsmen with few - if any - breaks in the line of communication and such information can and has been successfully relayed over long periods of time.

Ergonomically, coffin smoothers and their variants are primarily push planes which can be pulled across the work if necessary and crafted to comfortably hold blades between 1" - 3" edge width or the design adapted for use as scraper or toothing planes. They tend no to see use as patternmaker's rounding planes with removable/fixed soles unless adapted to take a rectangular sole.

The rear taper, as so rightly stated by Zach, aids grip when using larger blade widths and was improved upon by the introduction of rear handling in the Razee style, which lowers the centre of force. The lowered grip also helps decrease the rate of wear to the leading edge of the sole ahead of the blade mouth by virtue of improved balance between front and rear grip (Forward and downward pressure). Handling was also a variation/improvement shared with Spiers, Norris and Mathieson infill coffin smoothers (Inherited by present day handplanes).

[george wilson]

You have certainly pulled an obscure spelling of orpharion out of the bag,as it does not appear as such in any of the major dictionaries. And the plural of lute is lutes.

The use of the razee style was intended for use by boys for manual training. The lowering of the handle and lightening of the plane was for ease in handling by smaller users in schools. It was later incorporated by infill makers.

I,too,was asked to help make gifts for the Queen in her visit here a few years ago.

Before you pop in here and begin lording yourself over everyone,I suggest you find out who some of us are. With your 18 posts,I doubt you have much idea of the makeup of this forum.

[Caspar Hauser]

Google gave me at the top of the page,

Musicke of sundrie kindes [electronic resource] : set forth in two bookes. The first whereof are, aries [sic] for 4. voices to the lute, orphorion, or basse. viol, with a dialogue for two voices, and two basse viols in parts, tunde the lute way. The second are pauens, galiards, almaines, toies, igges, thumpes and such like, for two basse-viols, the lierway, so made as the greatest number may serue to play alone, very easie to be performde. Composed by Thomas Ford

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3452664

Not in a dictionary true. My OED gives me several spellings. The above appears to be from 1607.

This was shaping up to be a most interesting discussion.

Shame.

[george wilson]

I thought Gaz was working recently,not in 1607. Please note that spelling back then was not yet a well established art. Every other word in the passage(just about) is spelled in some arcane form which is no longer in use. I am descended from the family of Sir Francis Drake,but certainly do not consider that I am a salty old sea dog,nor did I inherit some of his knowledge of seafaring through osmosis.:)

Talk is CHEAP. I would like to see some of Gaz's work posted here.

[Larry Williams]

...I agree with Larry Williams that the coffin smoother reached its apex in the 19th.C.,as did many tools. Zach has it exactly right,too.

I didn't say that and I don't believe it. The late 18th Century and very early 19th Century was a time of change for plane making. It moved from small-shop production to more of a factory setting.

A lot of compromises end up being made when volume becomes a priority in production. One of the first, most radical and quickly adopted of those compromises was the introduction of the double iron in bench planes.

I know all the textual sources tout this as an improvement but was it? None of those authors seem to realize that the double iron came at the expense of traditional pitches. York pitch, middle pitch and half pitch all went away with double irons and everything was made at common pitch. The British adopted 47.5º as common pitch while American plane makers stayed with 45º. I believe the extra 2 1/2º of the British planes gave rise to the reputation of infills but that's another topic.

In today's woodworking world, where every plane is a smooth plane and wispy shavings from what ever impossible-to-plane googaboola wood is handy appears the goal, woodworkers and contemporary plane makers are rediscovering the value of traditional geometries. Unfortunately it all seems aimed at smooth planes.

Traditional planes in their traditional roles evolved as incredibly efficient tools and it's a little maddening for me to see everything being about smooth planes. I think those focused this way are missing about 99% of the capability of hand planes in a one-off situation. Even so, I'm proud that the reintroduction of traditional pitches started with things we were working on and writing about in our shop, on our benches.

[george wilson]

I was referring strictly to the shape of the coffin smoother,Larry. You said that in the early 19th.C. the shape of the coffin smoother became more comfortable. I agreed with that. THE SHAPE of the coffin smoother is the subject of this thread. Why does that keep getting lost? The double or single iron has nothing to do with the discussion,does it? Perhaps I mis understood what you wrote,but did you think I was writing about the Durer plane as being under developed? I was referring to the plane at the top of the blog.

[Raney Nelson]

For what it's worth, I suspect that all of the rationales given are a substantial part of the picture -- I think it's safe to assume all the advantages of the coffin shape would have become readily apparent within a decade or so of their appearance. As to what was the origination of the form, that's always going to be quite murky; Gaz' observations are new to me, but seem quite sensible as well.

If I were to guess, I'd still side with ergonomics being the primary driver of the form's ultimate 'adoption'. Comfort over long usage is the ultimate advantage, and all the other advantages are contributors to its being such a persistent format. Whether ergonomics was the primary concern for the earliest (mainstream) makers of these planes, or whether it was process methodology such as Gaz points out, is probably never going to be ultimately determined. Even with the earliest appearance, the makers often put forth 'marketing' rationales that are only vaguely related to the actual origins, so even catalog materials are somewhat suspect.

Not to dismiss the importance of historical inquiry - but just to point out that there is never going to be a demonstrably 'right' answer.

[Raney Nelson]

I believe the extra 2 1/2º of the British planes gave rise to the reputation of infills but that's another topic.

In today's woodworking world, where every plane is a smooth plane and wispy shavings from what ever impossible-to-plane googaboola wood is handy appears the goal, woodworkers and contemporary plane makers are rediscovering the value of traditional geometries. Unfortunately it all seems aimed at smooth planes.

Traditional planes in their traditional roles evolved as incredibly efficient tools and it's a little maddening for me to see everything being about smooth planes. I think those focused this way are missing about 99% of the capability of hand planes in a one-off situation. Even so, I'm proud that the reintroduction of traditional pitches started with things we were working on and writing about in our shop, on our benches.

Your point about smoothers is a good one Larry, but there is another factor as well -- in this era where handtool work is mostly seen as an alternative to machinery, the smoothing plane is most often the first step people take toward handplane usage in general. So those ever-so wispy shavings inevitably lead people to recognize the more important surface left behind, and that realization starts people looking deeper and deeper into handwork.

So for many people, the smoothing plane is the 'hook' that eventually ends up in them learning the value of the fore and trying planes, and perhaps even the possibilities contained in joinery and molding planes. I'd imagine there are any number of customers who've started with one of your smoothers, and over time have returned to acquire a more complete set of tools for substantial handwork.

From that standpoint I think those wispy little spiderweb shavings (which should be rightly called 'waste material') serve a very important purpose.

[David Weaver]

Raney, I never even thought about it that way, but the progression you mentioned is exactly how I headed toward handplanes.

I thought woodworking was a so-so hobby, unenjoyable tedium and dealing with the constraints of machines that were accurate to templates and jigs, etc..

.. until I saw a plane used for the first time. Got my wife to get me an LN #6 for christmas several months later and things went out of control from there.

(not many wispy shavings in the shop these days, unless refurbishing a plane and making sure it takes a full range of cuts)

[Gaz Palmer]

You have certainly pulled an obscure spelling of orpharion out of the bag,as it does not appear as such in any of the major dictionaries. And the plural of lute is lutes.

The use of the razee style was intended for use by boys for manual training. The lowering of the handle and lightening of the plane was for ease in handling by smaller users in schools. It was later incorporated by infill makers.

I,too,was asked to help make gifts for the Queen in her visit here a few years ago.

Before you pop in here and begin lording yourself over everyone,I suggest you find out who some of us are. With your 18 posts,I doubt you have much idea of the makeup of this forum.

Your attitude is offensive in spite of my genuine attempts to add to the discussion.

It appears you've taken offence (Offense U.S.) to something I've written and where none was intended , but congratulations on being asked to help make gifts for the Queen's visit. We, however, were simply asked to produce musical instruments for special exhibit in a museum for the Queen's Jubilee visit to Newcastle upon Tyne. Ours was less of an honour than the one bestowed upon you, but we still enjoyed having our wares displayed for her perusal if she had time to view them. Most of her gifts are given away after all is said and done.

I'm a straight forward retired craftsman and never convey myself as anything else. I mastered my craft, but never declare myself a master. That is for the pupil to decide. Obscure spelling or not, it's the way we'd always spelt orphorion in our regional workshop, whilst the plural of lute remained lute. Both the spelling and plural use of the "s" are optional and it's a case of either, or and not do as I do, or else. Neither is not worthy of argument or over zealous attention.

If one is expected to display wares in order to earn some form of respect I'm afraid I'll not prepared to do so. I past the point of needing approval by my peers many years ago and simply thought this was a chat forum and not a "look at me and see what I've done" forum. My source of information has been explained as reasonably as possible and yet treat with derision and condescension by you. I'm, honestly unwilling to play such games. Having retired over six years ago, pickings in my possession are a tad thin on the ground unless I approach former customers or pick through drawings. My last batch of guitars was completed last summer, but I'd never thought to have them pose for a photoshoot.

Your attitude is downright insulting, aggressive and unexpected. Especially concerning the means by which skills and information have been passed unbroken through my family line since C16th. The information I gave freely was intended as a means of conveying my sources and nothing more. If you thought I'd boasted you were quite incorrect.

Thankyou for the warm welcome George. I may be pushing 50, but I'm not quite senile yet.

-------------

The Razee design was used by both craftsmen and students (Heft differs little between traditional and razee style planes), but balance is improved - regardless of who the design was originally intended for - and this was a positive transitional step between wooden and steel plane design due to enhanced ergonomics. Primarily via handling position and casting the hand slightly further back from the frog. Perhaps the best examples showing this improvement in rear handling position (Apart from infill smoothing planes) are Stanley's transitional planes, but a number of English/British coffin smoothers also adopted the same rear handling position. This was by slightly extending the tail and forming the handle in behind the frog or adding a handle to the tail of the plane with it's base following the same course as the plane's sole.

I've examples of such planes among the ones I've inherited. Apart from straight - unaltered - coffin planes, I also have some steel soled, copper soled and a few with an adjustable steel sole ahead of the plane mouth. All are nice user planes with blade widths varying between 3/4" and 3".

Given the choice between handled or plain, I - as a craftsman - much prefer handled for the sake of user comfort and feel the origin of the basic form of the coffin plane had a great deal to do with journeyman use and where space in one's tool box or chest was at a premium. Still nice to use, but even better once carved to fill the user's palm more comfortably for the sake of ergonomics. They seldom retained their crisp (Out of the box) lines unless left un-used or owned by gentlemen hobbyist.

[Derby Matthews]

So coffin siding it isn't just a fashion statement? Wow... I've been in the dark for a long time. I refused to buy a coffin sided plane all this time because they wobble when lain on their sides between uses (I got my knuckles rapped a bunch when I was a kid and my father caught me leaving his planes setting on the blade).

Dang! Now I have to look at a whole new arena of plane buying!

Speaking of being in the dark, I rediscovered hand planes and their surprising efficiency (when fettled properly) during the two and a half weeks our power was out in Northern VT in The Ice Storm of 1998. Just never paid coffins a hard look in all this time. Can anyone post pics of their favorites (or favourites, for those across the pond).

BTW It occurs to me that if we as a group wish to keep this thread "on topic" we might simply ignore the occasional comments/ posts that stray from the original question, rather than expounding on them.

[george wilson]

Gaz,I would like to know more about you,but,even with the added name of Gary,I cannot find any internet presence of you at all. Please direct me if I am looking in the wrong places.

I must commend you upon being able to retire at the age of 42. I waited until I was 67. How did you manage that?:) Actually,I liked my job,and would not have wanted to retire,not even at 67. There was a massive layoff of 140 senior employees at Colonial Williamsburg.

There is nothing wrong with posting pictures of your work,and many here have done so. There is a saying either here,or on another forum I frequent:"If there are no pictures,it didn't happen". That's the saying,not an accusation. As poor as I have been about documenting my own work,I have managed to scrape up a number of pictures of things I have made,still possess,or am currently making.

I certainly made pictures of the work I did for the Queen. You can find some pictures posted in the FAQ section at the top of this section,under musical instruments,and tools.

Colonial Williamsburg made the mistake of taking a person from the Isle of Man at his word,and got taken for well over $50,000.00,probably over $75,000.00, since they kept paying him to do restoration work, plus had their collection of keyboard instruments clumsily and irretrievably damaged by him. He even varnished over dust bunnies!! Caution pays. We had the same experience in a different department with a person from Wales. This is not a condemnation of the English( I happen to be of English descent myself),but these things did happen nevertheless. They were believed
SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR ENGLISH ACCENTS(against warnings from me about the piano maker,with whom I had had previous dealings).(He had bilked a local antiques dealer who I had unfortunately referred his services to). The person who brought him over was a rare book dealer who had a collection of antique keyboard instruments. He turned out to be a huge shyster who got sued by several people,and ended up working in a restaurant after he lost his plantation house and collections !!! He was an American. English accents have always had currency with Colonial Williamsburg,though in earlier days value was put upon people who were simply from New York City. How foolish!




This thread had turned very contentious a few days ago,and I will admit I was not in the best mood. However,through mutual consent our posts have been deleted,and moods are better now. However,I have no intention of getting back into a huge argument over something as esoteric as saving perhaps 1/4" of wood from nesting coffin smoothers over wide planks of beechwood,whose changing grain would,in any case,make it impossible to maintain correct grain orientation with their soles. It is just incredible how some topics like the shape of a plane,or the Saw Stop table saw generate ill feelings.

If you have additional means to introduce yourself,I would like to get to know you better.

P.S.,I see you have been here again,but not posted a reply. You can find me in the internet by Googling george Wilson harpsichord,or George wilson guitar maker,or tool maker.

[Rob Lee]

(snip)

Reducing the size of the footprint of the plane to reduce friction has nothing to do with it. Making a smaller footprint might actually increase the friction when pushing the plane when it is being pushed. You are able to put more pressure on a smaller area with a smaller footprint.

Consider starting a fire with rubbing the pointed end of a stick against other wood,either by rapid rubbing,or the use of a bow to rotate it. Do you think you could start a fire by using a WIDE ended stick against another?
No,the greater area makes for less friction. The load upon the stick is more spread out. Plain bronze bearings are not made very narrow. They are wide to increase running surface and reduce friction.

(snip)


Hi George -

A small correction to the way you're presenting friction. Friction varies directly with force, not with area....so increasing surface area does not reduce friction.

Pressure *does* vary directly with both area, and force though.

For something like a plane of a given mass - friction will be the same no matter the area of the sole. Where you can theoretically reduce kinetic friction, is by introducing a fluid (say air) between the sole of the plane, and the surface being planed.... of course, you could also theoretically increase friction, if the pressure of that fluid film is lower than atmospheric pressure...

Cheers -

Rob

[David Weaver]

For the purpose of discussion away from theory, though, Rob - when you push a square plane, like a krenov plane, or you push a coffin smoother of similar size and reasonably close in relative weight, the noticed difference in effort to use the plane..

.. I think that there is not a noticed difference. Especially not like the difference between a plane that puts purple marks in your palm vs. one that does not (i.e., I think a user will notice the comfort difference quickly in one session smoothing something bigger than a door rail, but they will probably never noticed a difference in the friction of coffin shaped vs. non-coffin shaped).

[Gaz Palmer]

Gaz,I would like to know more about you,but,even with the added name of Gary,I cannot find any internet presence of you at all. Please direct me if I am looking in the wrong places.

I must commend you upon being able to retire at the age of 42. I waited until I was 67. How did you manage that?:) Actually,I liked my job,and would not have wanted to retire,not even at 67. There was a massive layoff of 140 senior employees at Colonial Williamsburg.

There is nothing wrong with posting pictures of your work,and many here have done so. There is a saying either here,or on another forum I frequent:"If there are no pictures,it didn't happen". That's the saying,not an accusation. As poor as I have been about documenting my own work,I have managed to scrape up a number of pictures of things I have made,still possess,or am currently making.

I certainly made pictures of the work I did for the Queen. You can find some pictures posted in the FAQ section at the top of this section,under musical instruments,and tools.

Colonial Williamsburg made the mistake of taking a person from the Isle of Man at his word,and got taken for well over $50,000.00,probably over $75,000.00, since they kept paying him to do restoration work, plus had their collection of keyboard instruments clumsily and irretrievably damaged by him. He even varnished over dust bunnies!! Caution pays. We had the same experience in a different department with a person from Wales. This is not a condemnation of the English( I happen to be of English descent myself),but these things did happen nevertheless. They were believed simply because of their English accents(against warnings from me about the piano maker,with whom I had had previous dealings). The person who brought him over was a rare book dealer who had a collection of antique keyboard instruments. He turned out to be a huge shyster who got sued by several people,and ended up working in a restaurant after he lost his plantation house and collections !!! He was an American.

This thread had turned very contentious a few days ago,and I will admit I was not in the best mood. However,through mutual consent our posts have been deleted,and moods are better now. However,I have no intention of getting back into a huge argument over something as esoteric as saving perhaps 1/4" of wood from nesting coffin smoothers over wide planks of beechwood,whose changing grain would,in any case,make it impossible to maintain correct grain orientation with their soles.

If you have additional means to introduce yourself,I would like to get to know you better.

You'd be part Scottish descent with the name Wilson, as is my maternal side of the family. They're also Wilson.

The premature onset of an aggressive form of Rheumatoid Arthritis led to my early retirement during the spring of 2004. Otherwise I'd still be working with timber and taking an active part in the family business, but problems persist with the disease progress and prevent me from doing so. Prior to health problems I was just a computer illiterate as I am now and this didn't help in terms of even considering the construction of a web site or improved web presence. We simply made furniture, furnishings and stringed instruments by hand on a bespoke basis and relied on recommendations.

There was an opportunity for us to broaden our horizons and expand the business during the 70's, but any "improvements" made would have lessened our physical input as power tooling took hold and we chose to retain longstanding methods. Demand for hand made furniture and stringed instruments was just as strong then as now.

It's a sad indication of the times when such large widespread layoff's are undertaken in any field of endeavour. More so - being totally biased - in terms of the timber trades. Once skills have been lost they take all too long to re-aquire as new blood enters the industry and the relevant craft is never the same regardless of how hard people try to make good.

As with all crafts, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and we always found the best means of testing new employees was via skill tests. Anyone can build portfolio from various sources, but they can't wave a magic wand and miraculously produce skill sets. Having applicants undertake a series of skill tests more often than not eliminates fakers very early on and management should be more stringent when employing staff. Fakers abound in all crafts and on all continents and it's deeply saddening to learn of their falsehoods costing others dearly. Especially when once beautiful objects are reduced beyond repair/recognition.

The only evidence I have of my own work is in use with former customers and that is the items themselves. I've drawings, but had never been interested in taking photgraphs, as my main source of satisfaction was to see pieces I've made in use and serving their intended purpose. I suppose this approach has more to do with the way my two brothers and I were brought into the trade as we apprenticed beneath our grandfather and were educated in an old school manner. It was our job and we'd simply complete one piece to the best of our ability before moving onto another in quick succession. The buzz gained from successfully crafting a nice piece never diminishes.

Pictures were taken by the local press of the pieces we made for the Queen's exhibit and there may be newspaper clippings somewhere, but I've no idea where. One of the pieces was an orphorion that was finished by my grandfather in reproduction of one made by our gr gr gr ..... grandfather Francis Palmer during the early C17th. The original was an interesting nine course instrument (Formerly ten course with a butt ugly headstock!) and in a Danish collection at the time.

Since my son is now apprenticed to the business (Since last summer) I'll ask if they'll take a few pictures of his work as his skills are progressing very nicely, but my days of crafting are unfortunately well and truly over.

--------------

The manner of laying out and using patterns (As mentioned earlier) to produce coffin planes was never intended for or used on an en masse basis. It was a means by which the apprentice would produce his first hand planes and/or a journeyman could produce replacements. A suitable piece of stock would be chosen and - if workable - used to make a series of blanks. Nothing earth shatteringly eye opening, but very straighforward using selected Beech which was then in far greater abundance and well quartered in days gone by. If grain orientation proved troublesome they'd simply adopt a different method, but decent Beech is fairly forgiving.

Another method quite often involved carving the throat on the outer faces of a rectangular blank before halving and re-marrying the two sections. The frog and outline contours would then be refined and wedge plus blade iron/irons.

[Rob Lee]

For the purpose of discussion away from theory, though, Rob - when you push a square plane, like a krenov plane, or you push a coffin smoother of similar size and reasonably close in relative weight, the noticed difference in effort to use the plane..

.. I think that there is not a noticed difference. Especially not like the difference between a plane that puts purple marks in your palm vs. one that does not (i.e., I think a user will notice the comfort difference quickly in one session smoothing something bigger than a door rail, but they will probably never noticed a difference in the friction of coffin shaped vs. non-coffin shaped).

Hi David -

Yes - I agree with the ergonomic observations...no problem there... but the forces of kinetic friction for planes of the same wood, and same sole area, are the same.... no matter what the shape is...

Which puts me firmly in the "shaped for comfort" camp...

Cheers -

Rob

[george wilson]

Sorry to hear about your arthritis. I have been plagued with pain in my back and neck every day since I injured myself at 21. By now I have had 14 surgeries,but have managed to keep going since my hands still work,at least.

I am descended from the family of Sir Francis Drake,whoever he was related to,I haven't researched. my mother got into it a lot,but I haven't been curious about genealogy. Also of Huguenot blood.

Rob. I have put forth the old fact that to start a fire in a very primitive way,you rub by some means,a pointed stick against a spot on other wood. That small area creates enough heat to eventually start a fire as is well known.

Your father sent me his sharpening book. I sent him one of our White back saw reproductions. Do you know anything about it? It was an early,fairly primitive English saw known to have been popular in Va. in the earlier 18th.C.. The repro was rough,as was the only surviving original example.

[David Weaver]

Hi David -

Which puts me firmly in the "shaped for comfort" camp...



That's what I was getting toward.

There was a fellow named Randy Sohn who frequented a forum I used to also frequent, he's a pilot. He had a saying about old wives' tales, something along the lines of them being dangerous because they're false, but have something in them that either could be true, or is close enough to quasi logic that they sound like they could be true. That makes them very hard to kill.

I think the friction issue with coffin smoothers (that they are shaped as such) fits the latter, it sounds like there could be something to it, and people take that part for granted and run with it. It's not true, but it sounds close enough to a logical argument that people will make a go of repeating it. If my post prior implied it may be, it was just laziness on my part in not putting it together correctly - I was leaning toward implying just that it doesn't take much use from a user to tell that there is no perceived difference, even when you're slack armed from having dimensioned the pieces to that point, your head would have to be playing games with you to think there is a difference.

See you in the saw nib thread!

[Mike Henderson]

Rob. I have put forth the old fact that to start a fire in a very primitive way,you rub by some means,a pointed stick against a spot on other wood. That small area creates enough heat to eventually start a fire as is well known.
George - I think Rob (and others) are correct when they say that the friction isn't changed.

Let's say that when you rub two pieces of wood together, you generate one unit of friction. That one unit of friction generates one unit of heat.

If your surface area is large, you still have one unit of friction and one unit of heat, but the heat is spread over such a large area that the heat dissipates before it can get hot enough to catch fire.

If you make the area small enough, you still have one unit of friction and one unit of heat. But the area is so small that the heat can't dissipate fast enough, which causes the temperature to rise to the point where the wood will burn.

Mike

[Rob Lee]

(snip)

Your father sent me his sharpening book. I sent him one of our White back saw reproductions. Do you know anything about it? It was an early,fairly primitive English saw known to have been popular in Va. in the earlier 18th.C.. The repro was rough,as was the only surviving original example.


Hi George -

That doesn't ring a bell with me - I'll ask him about it...

His office is about 30 miles from here (Almonte ON), and who knows what he's got stashed there... :D

He does have an affinity for "the good stuff" ....

Cheers -

Rob

[Bill Houghton]

Where you can theoretically reduce kinetic friction, is by introducing a fluid (say air) between the sole of the plane, and the surface being planed....

Cheers -

Rob

When can we expect to see the Veritas hoverjointer?

[Derby Matthews]

Not if John Economaki gets there first! :D

[Derby Matthews]

BTW on a more serious note, we've been discussing FRICTION without bringing up ADHESION. My understanding is that Stanley produced many more corrugated jointers than they did smooth bottomed ones, and vice versa with the smaller jacks, etc. I read that it was because of the expected use of the larger planes would be to joint softwoods (perhaps undried?), so the grooves would theoretically lessen adhesion / friction to pitch, not necessarily to wood fibers alone. Ideas? And no rotten tomatoes please!

[Jon van der Linden]

I'm not sure why we're looking at friction as the only force here. As Rob said friction is not affected by area. A block plane has the same friction as a #8. That doesn't mean that friction is the force that we're really thinking about, it's only what we think we're thinking about. :eek:

Maybe it's a little closer to traction. Most of us recognize that a wider tire holds better than a narrow one.

It would be interesting to see an empirical measurement of the force required to move different shaped plane bodies (including diagonal movement as when skewing the plane). I suspect that the force required for the actual cutting action of the blade is far greater, even on thin shavings. Of course if people "feel it" then it's there in some sense regardless of measurement.

[Pedro Reyes]

I didn't want to chime in about friction, because that is a side topic. But, friction is independent of area, at least that's what the theory says. It was a (and still is to this day) a difficult concept to accept when I was taking my courses.

But friction only depends on the normal force and the (friction) coefficient. The coefficient is determined empirically. So different coefficient between your #7 +polished rosewood and between the same #7+ rough oak. Normal force is just the weight plus whatever component of the force you are excerting on your plane (the one perpendicular to the contact area). So we all agree that area is not in this equation, and by the same reasoning pressure isn't either. Since I can increase the area and maintain the same force (thus reducing the pressure) and still have the same result of frictional force.

People tend (my self included) to associate pressure to friction, but that's because when you apply more force to the same area, pressure does increase, and since in most cases we have a constant area (sole of the plane) then pressure and force are directly proportional and for that matter pressure could be used to calculate friction (just multiply by the area of your sole).

sorry for the tangent, just had to get that out.

peace

/p

[Frank Drew]

I'm not sure why we're looking at friction as the only force here. As Rob said friction is not affected by area. A block plane has the same friction as a #8.

only if your block plane weighs as much as a no. 8 plane; an object's weight is a downward force that adds to the static and kinetic friction that the object has to overcome in order to start moving and keep moving across a surface. if weight didn't matter, then it would be just as easy to push a manhole cover across the floor as a butter plate [we agree with the assumption about friction that contact area doesn't count.]

[george wilson]

Regardless,whenever I have had to move anything heavy,like my table saw,I was able to slide it easily by fastening a length of shelving underneath it,instead of trying to rely upon pulling it laying down so that the corners could dig in. I wouldn't have let that happen anyway.

My saw weighs 600#,and I had at one time rented a little house for a shop since my basement(in the 60's) was too damp. I was able to move the saw,bandsaw, drill press,and jointer by myself. The saw was by far the heaviest thing,but spreading out the area did make it easier to slide it. Somehow it worked for me.

[David Weaver]

There are too many issues to use theoretical physics. You can't account for deformation of the surface, which probably increases as the surface area of the sole decreases, especially if the weight doesn't change.

The best way to avoid getting bogged down in this is to just get two planes with a similar width iron, one coffin and one square, and then find out why one appeals to you over the other.

I doubt surface friction will ever come into anyones' minds if they use both planes. A practical test is so easy that it's goofy to get bogged down in theoretical details.

[george wilson]

I'm not going to worry about it. I just do what works for me.:)

[David Weaver]

I'm not going to worry about it. I just do
what works for me.:)

Sounds like sound practice!

[Jon van der Linden]

only if your block plane weighs as much as a no. 8 plane; an object's weight is a downward force that adds to the static and kinetic friction that the object has to overcome in order to start moving and keep moving across a surface. if weight didn't matter, then it would be just as easy to push a manhole cover across the floor as a butter plate [we agree with the assumption about friction that contact area doesn't count.]

Maybe I should have said a 9" infill smoother has the same friction as a #8 jointer to be strictly correct. In any case, in planing a lot of the force comes from YOU not gravity, so weight is not the big factor you might think when it comes to friction. Your analogy of simply moving objects is false because in planing you're not simply moving the plane, you're pressing on it.

My point was that by talking about friction you're missing the point. The question is "is a coffin smoother easier to push than a straight sided plane?" I'm sure there are people here that can figure that out with a definitive test.

The issue I have is that there are people who are professional woodworkers that I respect who swear that the coffin shape moves better. Does it really? I don't know, but it would be interesting to know if it's more than a feeling.

[Pedro Reyes]

This is why I hesitated to post about friction, it is very misunderstood. Besides what George said "I'll do what works for me" is ultimately what matters. I never lapped the soles of my planes with the intent to reduce friction.

Jon, your statement about two planes having the same friction is not necessaily accurate even if they weight the same (ask anyone pushing a woddie).

I would never do this simple experiment because I could care less about friction (ultimately most of the opposing force comes from the wood in question, depth of cut, sharpness of blade et al... all of which have bigger influence in the force it takes to push a plane than friction)...but if I cared about friction, or anyone does... pick 2 planes (irons retracted) add weights to the lighter one so that it matches the heavier one, put both on a board and tilt the board, first one to move has less friction coefficient, and thus assuming you push down both with similar total force (yours plus gravity), it presents less opposing force due to friction alone.

So a coffin maybe easier to push, but perhaps because it is ergonomically better, perhaps because having no tote there is less inclination to push it down with as much force, but not really because it's shape or it's area presents less friction.

peace

/p

[george wilson]

I think the whole premise of the coffin shape was that it was more comfortable to work with anyway. This friction thing is a late new comer.

[Jon van der Linden]

This is why I hesitated to post about friction, it is very misunderstood. Besides what George said "I'll do what works for me" is ultimately what matters. I never lapped the soles of my planes with the intent to reduce friction.

Jon, your statement about two planes having the same friction is not necessaily accurate even if they weight the same (ask anyone pushing a woddie).

I would never do this simple experiment because I could care less about friction (ultimately most of the opposing force comes from the wood in question, depth of cut, sharpness of blade et al... all of which have bigger influence in the force it takes to push a plane than friction)...but if I cared about friction, or anyone does... pick 2 planes (irons retracted) add weights to the lighter one so that it matches the heavier one, put both on a board and tilt the board, first one to move has less friction coefficient, and thus assuming you push down both with similar total force (yours plus gravity), it presents less opposing force due to friction alone.

So a coffin maybe easier to push, but perhaps because it is ergonomically better, perhaps because having no tote there is less inclination to push it down with as much force, but not really because it's shape or it's area presents less friction.

peace

/p

It's relatively obvious that different materials change the force required to push them. I didn't think it necessary to mention that a plane made out of rubber will not push as easily as a plane made of BAM. In the same way brass, steel, and wood all behave differently and behave differently when planing different woods.

I guess I'm not really expressing my point exactly, since there still is much confusion about what I was getting at.

The question only has practical relevance when you're talking about infill smoothers that have the coffin shape vs infill smoothers that are the same size but rectangular. Both shapes commonly have a similar bun in front and identical handle in the rear, so "comfort" is not an issue. Since these are made purely to be the ultimate performers, it would make sense to actually know which is better or if they're equal.

I'm aware of the ramp test, but it might not be an accurate representation of what is going on. It could always be that the force to start the plane moving is not proportional to the force needed to keep it moving, or the speed at which it moves. If I get bored I'll test some different things and post the results, but it might be a while since I have lots of priority projects at the moment.

[Derby Matthews]

I tried my boss's coffin smoother yesterday (after a half hour of overhead time on the tormek taking the rust off the iron's bevel) and - after a light waxing of the bottom surface of the plane - to eliminate the friction question - really liked how it felt in my hand and worked a large surface of Honduras Mahogany. An equivalent rectangular smoother (that I also touched up on the Tormek) seemed to take more effort. I could skew the coffin in my hand noticeably more easily without wrist cramping.

Don't know how this translates to the more recent discussion, but it answered the original question to my complete satisfaction: In theory: anything is mathematically possible. In practice: one's favorite method wins out every time.

[george wilson]

"Ones favorite practice wins out every time" is a rather true statement,Derby. We all develop our own ways of dealing with how to do things. I'll be the first to admit tat I often do things THE HARD WAY,but I have developed the skill to pull it off.

For example: The ACCEPTED way to make the overhang of the violin's top and back come out even all around its complex shape is to glue them on oversize,then cut them down to fit the shape of the sides,then scribe the edges and inlay the purfling. I say,that method does not allow for getting the edges of the top and back exactly evenly thicknessed all around in the little dip just inside the edges. I like to be able to get a caliper on that. I accurately carve my tops and backs,and fully finish carving,thicknessing,and inlay the purfling before finally gluing them permanently down.

They still fit perfectly all around,but it is the harder way to do it. I just prefer to do it that way. I get a more perfect instrument that way.

[Jon van der Linden]

They still fit perfectly all around,but it is the harder way to do it. I just prefer to do it that way. I get a more perfect instrument that way.

George, that's the perfectionist in you! I suppose a case could be made that to achieve your goals of more perfect results, the "easy way" would actually be more difficult. From here it looks like your cup is half full and you didn't even know it!:D

I always love hearing these details because that's where true differences are made.

[David Keller NC]

I'm very late to this discussion and perhaps this has already been mentioned. Many have mentioned comfort as the reason for the coffin shape, and I think that's wholly correct.

But there's some complexity to this. I use wooden planes at least half of the time in my shop (the other half is with bailey/infill planes). Without exception, anything longer than a smoother has a tote, and these are all typically retangular.

The problem pushing a rectangular plane without a tote is that it is, as one might expect, enormously uncomfortable.

Therefore, one might expect that wooden smoothers would all be made with an integrated tote. However, there's a problem with doing this. Handled wooden smoothers do of course exist, but they are fairly rare (and expensive if you find one on a tool dealer's site). And, critically, they are all in the 8" plus length range.

A smoother, by definition, needs to be somewhat short so that all areas of the surface are planed regardless of small irregularities. A 8-10" long smoother is in the longish range for the type, and there are many instances where one would wish for a 6", 5" or even 4" long smoother, and it is not possible to integrate a handle into this design - there isn't enough room.

Ergo, one sees coffin-shaped smoothers because it's not possible to integrate a tote into the short length, and a rectangular plane would be extraordinarily uncomfortable to push.

[Graham Hughes (CA)]

Good Western woodies are shockingly, shockingly sophisticated beasts. I have three coffin smoothers that I use on a regular basis, and have my favorite among them, but I have no idea why I like it so much. Larry Williams has documented dozens of small features that disappeared in the 19th century to make manufacturing cheaper, but bench planes are at least as sophisticated. And there are still design features that they put in their planes that are unclear, but were exceedingly common in period; the one I know of is offset handles on bench planes (which I personally dislike because I'm ambidextrous and frequently find it easier to switch hands than pick the piece up and reverse it).

[george wilson]

Are you taking about 18th.C. bench planes with offset handles,Graham? I put up a post a few weeks ago about an 18th.C. jack plane with an offset handle that I had made. In Elizabethan times the handles were flush with the side of the plane.

It was so you could catch the handle in the web of the thumb,and not get carpal tunnel grasping the handle in the usual way we do today. The handle began to move towards the middle of the plane in an evolutionary sort of way till it reached the center.

[Graham Hughes (CA)]

Are you taking about 18th.C. bench planes with offset handles,Graham? I put up a post a few weeks ago about an 18th.C. jack plane with an offset handle that I had made. In Elizabethan times the handles were flush with the side of the plane.

It was so you could catch the handle in the web of the thumb,and not get carpal tunnel grasping the handle in the usual way we do today. The handle began to move towards the middle of the plane in an evolutionary sort of way till it reached the center.

I did just notice that recently. I've never really noticed that I have that problem myself, but then I do switch hands with regularity. Thank you! I'll have to play around with it some.