The Tool Chest of Benjamin Seaton, 2nd ed.

[greg Forster]

The revised/enlarged 2nd edition arrived in the mail last night. Another superb publication... much thanks to all involved; esp. Jane Rees and "The Tools and Trades Historical Society". This is definitely a book for every Neander.

One tool I was very interested in was the router ( my previous post 4/2011 on the Seaton router).
While in Colonial Williamsburg last Spring, I stopped in the Hay's shop, hoping to gain a little more information on this tool. The cabinetmakers had indeed made a copy from the Seaton chest several years earlier, but it had " grown legs" and vanished. The cabinetmaker I spoke with had no experience with this router, but mentioned there were some drawing made.( the drawing included in the 2nd ed.?)

This edition has a much clearer photo plus some drawings. On a cross-section view, there is a notation- 88 degrees, which I took to mean the bed angle; measuring with a protractor, I read appox. 67 degrees ( some one's handwritten 68 was misread as 88 ?). With a plough plane iron in place, I measured the bed angle on my "copy"...68 degrees.

I'm still curious about the uses of the two router types, the "Seaton" plough plane iron version and a "D" type router ( similar to a Stanley #71), which Colonial Williamsburg has and uses.

[Zach Dillinger]

I have both styles, a Stanley 71 and a "OWT" like the Seaton router. I prefer my OWT, although both work well. I think I prefer the OWT because of my own sense of aesthetics, but it does work very well. You can easily make your own router, although mine is a Griffiths Norwich, and I may replace it with one of my own construction based on the Seaton router.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

88 degrees is just shy from perpendicular - looking at that drawing on my lunch break as I skimmed the book, I'm thinking it's referencing the backside of the tool, which does seem to be sloped ever so slightly.

[Jonas Baker]

The OWT style router plane can get into certain smaller areas that a Stanley style router plane can't get into, which is an added benefit. The L shaped blades used on the Stanley style router planes can't route out an area that is smaller lengthwise than the length of the bottom of the blade, while the straight blade used on an OWT plane can get into very tight areas. I'm planning on building an OWT plane for this reason, so I'd love to see how any of yours look.

By the way, Zach, no reason to reply here as I don't want to hijack but I'd love to see some pics of the maple jointer you built!

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Skimming through the book some more, and it occurs to me that the way Seaton's router used the same blades from his plough is a nice way to go with these OWT style routers, as well. I would assume this was probably standard practice, but for some reason didn't occur to me until I saw it mentioned in the book, at which point at sort of had one of those face-palm moments.