FWW's "Every Handplane Needs a Tuneup" - a video response

[Pat Megowan]

I realize this is quite strong for a first post, and hope you will forgive that. I'm mostly a messenger here, with knowledge expressed earlier and better by generations of hand plane experts, and making no claims about any "best" answer.

The recent Fine Woodworking article "Every Handplane Needs a Tuneup" and accompanying video are incomplete (at least) on some critical points, posing a real risk of ruining a good tool. This is particularly true for folks starting with high quality handplanes like Veritas and Lie-Nielsen, which are a) quite unlikely to need several of the recommended procedures, and b) quite likely to be screwed up if you don't know a good deal more than is presented in the article and video.

Here is the original FWW video:


http://www.finewoodworking.com/toolguide/toolguidearticle.aspx?id=35026


And here is a video response, which points out the most serious issues and recommends an alternate tuneup:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLhQEikIa5w&feature=youtu.be


There are fairly extensive comments in the description section of the video as well.

No disrespect is intended to the author Tommy MacDonald, who responded quickly and kindly to my concern, or to FWW, both of whom have taught and inspired many woodworkers. Tommy's high end planes apparently needed at least some of this work. On the other hand, I have set up many planes for friends, students, customers, and myself, and while some brands needed everything in the book--or relegation to paperweight--none of the top quality planes needed frog removal, sole flattening, or chip breaker work. After blade prep, honing, and setting the cut, they worked beautifully.

It's a matter of playing the probabilities; doing what's sure to help (super sharp, light shaving) and letting the plane tell you if it needs more. If it does need more, look to a thorough treatment of the subject like Garrett Hack's "The Handplane Book".

I'll be interested to hear the collective Neanderthal wisdom on this subject!

[george wilson]

Your link to the FWW video does not work,nor did I think it would. You have to pay to see those videos. Even I do,although I am featured on one with my journeyman,Jon,showing how we made planes in the toolmaker's shop in Williamsburg. Some others feature my journeymen. It might not be legal to post links like that. I'm sure others know better than I about doing that.

I agree that one does not need to be fiddling around with high quality new planes by LN and LV. Inexperienced operators could foul one up. I didn't quite agree with all of your processes,though. You did not wipe the roller off of your sharpening guide before going to the finer stone. Also,I don't trust the flatness of those thin,plastic core diamond stones. I don't rest the end of metal planes on my bench top,nor do I lay planes on their soles on the bench. The bench looked clean,but I always at least have a strip of wood to raise the front end of the sole off of the bench,just in case. I do not recommend making sideways adjustments to the chip breaker after I've finished adjusting it,without viewing the adjustment again.

Thank you for your video.

[Bob Jones]

I have tuned several Stanley's, but I have never done anything to a LN or LV plane except sharpen the blades. The just don't need it. I have not watched the videos.

[Pat Megowan]

Sorry about the link George! I checked the video while logged out of FWW and thought that was proof of concept, but obviously not.

As you say DMT duosharps are often wonky and need to be checked for flatness; I took a Starrett straight edge to the store. Raising the sole off the bench is prudent, I usually use shavings; setting it flat is a holdover from working crowded tool classes/demos where a tool on its side is prone to being hit by another tool, chipping the blade:(. Double checking the chipbreaker after tapping is smarter too--I was hastening to beat the youtube 10 minute limit, which I had missed more than once--a bit overwhelmed, and you caught me!

Thx,

P

[Jim Koepke]

Pat,

Welcome to the Creek. I see you have been around awhile without posting. I was also going to say your profile doesn't show your location, but your video tells us you are in Oregon.

I agree with your comments about using the plane before taking it apart. Even old Stanley planes deserve a trial before being dismantled. Most of my planes haven't had their soles lapped. It can be a tricky procedure fraught with the possibility of messing it up.

I used to read FWW regularly. There was too much plywood and power tools for my liking. It seems all of their hand tool articles are more or less filler content for them to appeal to hand tool users.

I will watch their videos sometimes, but most of the time they are just lead ins to their paid subscription.

Most of my work on the sole of an old plane is to remove any rust. Most of the time taking them apart is to clean out any old wood dust that may accumulate moisture and cause rust.

I used to think anyone could learn to tune a plane. Since then, I have learned some folks just do not have the mechanical abilities needed. Also, I have ran across a few planes like a newer Stanley that just didn't have the proper machining to be put together right.

There is a post of mine in the Neanderthal wisdom/FAQs section, "Fettling a Plane From Junker to Jointer." There was an old type 7 Stanley/Bailey plane in an antique mall. I had passed on it a few times. A member was wondering about getting a jointer for cheap. My thought was if need be the handles would sell for the cost of the plane if need be. We went into town before the person got back to me. The person at the shop let me check it thoroughly. It looked good, so it was purchased and offered to ship it to them at cost. They changed their mind, so it was a project for me to document and post here. The plane turned out fine and works great. I liked it so much that I sold off my type 10 or 11, can't remember now, #7. Didn't think two were needed.

The only Lie-Nielsen bench plane that I have bought only needed the lever cap screw loosened. This was explained in the instruction sheet. Worked great right out of the box otherwise.

The other two Lie-Nielsen planes in my shop worked fine right out of the box. My fettling on them didn't enhance the performance one bit. It did make for a smoother feel to the adjustable mouths. My work there was just to polish the mating surface of the sliding pieces so the slid a touch smoother. I didn't think to put a caliper to it before and after, but it was probably less than 0.001" of metal removed.

Hope to see more posts from you and maybe some pictures or builds of of your furniture.

jtk

[george wilson]

Pat,you are right. As I am well aware,trying to film is a high pressure situation,especially when you have a strict time to squeeze it into. Been there several times. I take straight edges with me,too,when selecting a diamond stone. Selecting one is a bit tricky. They are packaged under shrink wrap,and the height of the diamonds keep the straight edge from mating down on their surfaces anyway. Even the all steel ones(which are the ones I use),are not surfaced very flat most of the time. They seem more like they have been roughly Blanchard ground.

I enjoyed your video,and I agree with not undertaking excessive tinkering with high quality LN and LV planes.

[Steve Branam]

I met Pat at the Lie-Nielsen 30th anniversary open house, where he was working as one of their demonstrators. I found all of his advice very useful, helping out with my body mechanics using jointer and smoother. So I'm definitely willing to listen to what he has to say.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll just mention I'm a total LN fanboy. But that's based on the fact that I've found their tools to be excellent, very well-made, ready to use right out of the box with no tuning required. As he says in his video, that's part of why you buy a premium tool. You have high expectations, and they live up to it. On the rare occasions where something goes wrong, they stand behind their products and make it right, as has been noted several times here.

One lesson to be gleaned from this is to give each new tool a thorough test run before doing anything to it, rather than assuming that every one needs work.

[Tony Shea]

I am also in agreement with Pat. I would never lap the bottom of a $400+ handplane right out of the box. Not only is it completely uneccessary but the ductile iron would take a tremendous amount of work to remove a humped sole anyway. But if you happen to ever get a new handplane in need of sole flattening then send the thing right back. If it is a used plane and you discover the sole is out of flat, talk with the maker of the plane and chances are is they will flatten the tool for you at no cost. I have been through this with a LN #5 that was in very used condition. I brought it to LN in Warren and they flattened the sole and tuned everything else at not cost, even though I expected to pay for the service.

[Josh Rudolph]

Tommy's high end planes apparently needed at least some of this work. On the other hand, I have set up many planes for friends, students, customers, and myself, and while some brands needed everything in the book--or relegation to paperweight--none of the top quality planes needed frog removal, sole flattening, or chip breaker work. After blade prep, honing, and setting the cut, they worked beautifully.


Just a general observation here. The handplane that he is tuning up in the FWW video is one from his sponsor for the show that of which is not LN or Veritas.

I am not trying to start any arguments over what people can do with whatever price planes...
I think if I were to purchase the same plane that he tunes in the video, I would most certainly take it apart and clean the machined edges as I think you can find burrs and chips that hung around into assembly. A very large percent of the time I don't think you would have this with the LN or Veritas line. There was also what I would consider a considerable amount of oil on the frog in the video, something that I would certainly wipe down before it made its way onto my work surface. I can only assume the same amount of oil would be under the frog. The plane he tunes is roughly 47% the cost of a LN.

My biggest issue with his video was flattening with the plane disassembled. As you pointed out, this is a big no-no. The only planes I think a consumer should have to spend any time flattening would be an old plane. If I purchase a brand new plane out of the box that is out of flat, I would be sending it back.

Having said all of that...I too am LN fanboy.....I am also a Veritas fanboy.....I am also a Stanley Bailey fanboy......I am also a Stanley Bedrock fanboy.....I am also a wooden plane fanboy....I think you get the point. I think quality work can be done with almost any plane, just some take more time and attention than others.

The video fails in that it lumps all planes into needing the same attention and as we know not all planes are created with the same attention to detail as others.

[Pat Megowan]

Thanks for the welcome Jim, I updated the profile. Only one jointer plane though, how do you survive;-)? I'll check the #7 fettling story, and have to admit I keep my restored Stanley 5 1/2 mostly for the rosewood tote and knob!

My LN block plane from a million years ago needed a little love to make the mouth adjustment nicer--just as you say, hardly any metal removed, mostly polishing.

I occasionally put pics of complete pieces or a build (or a disaster) at patmegowan.blogspot.com, though I'm not very diligent about getting online so it's sparse.

Hi Steve, I remember that discussion at the open house. I had to cut a section of the video (one of many, my first try was 33 minutes!) that briefly discussed reading the shavings for feedback on both the wood surface and body mechanics. Just as well, it needs more than 60 seconds:-).

I'd be interested to know whether anyone here has measured a change in casting shape with the frog and blade in versus out. I've been taught it's a legit issue, but haven't measured it myself.

[Jim Koepke]

Only one jointer plane though, how do you survive;-)

LOL, not just one jointer. There is also a #8 in the shop and an old Sargent transitional jointer. Just recently I bought a "train wreck" of a #8 to fix up and sell. The lateral is busted off of the frog. Another member sent me newer frog. It is not as badly broken, but will require some modification to work. In the dead of winter when all of the other things are done, I'll get into the frog hunt in ernest.

jtk

[george wilson]

I haven't tested the frog in/frog out flatness issue. I used mostly wooden planes or infills I made most of my career.

However,I'd not be surprised if the frog issue is valid. As a machinist,also,I've found that the smallest things can cause changes when working to .0001"(tenths) accuracy. For example,years ago,I machined a back plate in situ on a lathe to install a 5 C collet chuck. It was bolted from behind with 6 bolts. I was tightening the bolts. The metal was all squeezed together very tightly. Yet,even with all the bolts tightened as tight as I thought I could get them,I found that tightening one of them just a tad bit more caused the collet to run .0001" truer!! You'd see what I meant if you were there,and realized how tight those bolts already were.

Things can get weird and unexplainable when you get down into extreme tolerance ranges.

The much smaller screws on a plane frog can't begin to be put under the tension that much larger,tool steel bolts can. The plane is many times thinner,though,and easier to bend. Since the plane is also long,a bit of tension in the frog area would very likely be magnified towards the extreme ends of the plane's sole.

[Jim Koepke]

I do not recommend making sideways adjustments to the chip breaker after I've finished adjusting it,without viewing the adjustment again.

Thank you for your video.

Yes, thanks for the video Pat.

One thing that slipped by me was the attaching the blade and chip breaker. Because of being a bit of a klutz and trying to do things in a safe manner, my practice of tightening the chip breaker has developed into setting the assembly on a piece of hardwood, at least as long as the blade, while turning the screw. When loosening the screw, the sharp end is to the left. When tightening the screw, the blade edge is to the right. To me this seems safer than trying to hold the blade in the air and it keeps the blade and breaker in alignment. Usually before tightening, the assembly's edge is lightly pressed with the blade of the screwdriver while it is setting on the block of wood or bench top.

jtk

[Jim Matthews]

I thought the whole point of the LN and LV planes was their readiness for use.

Tommy Mac gives me hives. The rare article on FWW that appeals to my methods is well, rare.
It was liberating to realize that I could make furniture (albeit slowly) without $20k in power tools.

That, and I can park two cars in my garage.

[Sean Hughto]

Tommy Mac gives me hives.

Glad to know I'm not the only one. ;-)

[Gary Viggers]

Tommy Mac gives me hives.

I usually like Tommy Mac, but besides what was already mentioned, my two "huh?" moments were:

1) He started with 80 grit sandpaper. The sole would have to be pretty out-of-flat to start at something that coarse. No need for a marker with those scratches.

2) Using the lever cap as a screwdriver. Is this common? I've never heard of this before. I thought you want to keep the flat strip of the lever cap as true as possible. The last thing I would want to do is put some dings/burrs on the part that makes contact with the chip breaker.

[David Posey]

Using the lever cap as a screwdriver was common enough, but certainly not a good practice. They tended to snap or chip out when too much pressure was put on them.

[Ethan Liou]

Thanks for the video Pat.

I tried flattening the sole once and it was indeed a disaster. I knew very little about hand planes back then. Luckily it was my modern Stanley #4, not one of my LVs.

I was wondering though, does anybody seen a plane sole flattened without frog attached? Does it put a convex or concave on the sole? I've seen people saying there's a difference but never know what the difference really is. (It is just a wondering. I don't think I'll ever want to do the sole flattening again.)

[george wilson]

Yes,using the lever cap is NOT a good idea. I don't know the guy in the FWW video,but lever caps are cast iron as far as I know,and thin cast iron is brittle. Bronze lever cap is not suitable,either. Also a good way to chip the chrome plating,if there is any.

[Pat Megowan]

George, way back to your original comments: not sure I understand the comment about not resting the plane on it's end on the bench--could you say a bit more? Is this when I tilt the plane to about 45 degrees to insert the blade? To prevent marring the bench, the plane, or what?

Jim (and others), curious about your choice of grits for flattening soles (only when needed of course). More than one grit?

re lever caps and screwdrivers--I reserve my lever caps for their intended job only, they get munched when used as screwdrivers. I sharpen frequently and LOVE having a short handled screwdriver that fits the chipbreaker screw perfectly. The short handle makes a world of difference for me, I waited way too long to get one. Glen-Drake also makes a plane adjusting hammer that includes a nicely machined screwdriver--sounds awkward but it isn't. It is targeted more at planes w/out adjusters though (planes that you tap to adjust).

A number of my planes--wooden planes I've made, an infill, and of course bevel up planes--have no chipbreaker. One less thing to fiddle with, and they don't seem to work any less well.

I haven't yet found someone who has measured sole deflection with/without frog and blade, but will ask around. However, it's not uncommon for folks to deflect the sole on bevel up planes by over-tightening the lever cap. Many of these planes are bedded at 12.5 degrees, and the lever cap is more than strong enough to distort the thin cross section under the blade. It just needs to keep the blade from being pushed around by the wood.

Finally, how do y'all first notice/suspect a problem with the sole of a plane? My usual scenario is someone brings me a plane and says it won't cut right. The large majority of the time it's either dull or set poorly, so I do those first. Since I'm sharpening and trying it before testing w/a straight edge, the usual symptom of a flatness issue is a plane that won't take a proper shaving no matter how easy or small--either no cut/no cut/no cut/huge cut/jam! (typically a hollow sole), or it wiggles and waggles and takes little scraps of shaving with no rhyme or reason (typically a convexity or bulge, usu. behind the mouth). That's when I reach for a straight edge, how about you?

Btw George and others, some FINE work in the FAQ/gallery. Wow.

[george wilson]

I don't like to mar the bench top,and am a bit OCD about it!!

[Carl Beckett]

Hi Pat, hello to Corvallis (HP world... I was in Vancouver for years)

George/all:

I was somehow trained (I say somehow because I dont know where I got this from) to always lay the plane on its side. Or, to have a strip across the front to lay it on to raise the sole off the work surface. (how they are kept in my shop drawers)

I believe this may have been picked up from the machinist days, where we didnt like close mating surfaces for risk of condensation (for example we always stored calipers slightly open, never fully closed). I do notice that even in my unheated work area, sitting a metal plane on the wooden bench and having the temps cycle appears to cause condensation. (Im trying to fix this in other ways, so expect more updates in the workshop section before Winter is out)

But also laying on its side to reduce risk that it sets on something that damages the blade.

Good practice or should I be doing something different?

[Chris Griggs]

Pat, nice video. Funny, I had the exact same reaction to the FWW video - I cringed when I watched him lap a brand new disassembled plane on coarse sand paper clamped down to a wooden bench top, that I seriously doubt was as flat as a newly machined piece of iron.

I completely agree that before any major lapping, grinding is done, it is best to just sharpen the blade, set the iron see how the plane works.

Very well done response.

[David Keller NC]

Pat, nice video. Funny, I had the exact same reaction to the FWW video - I cringed when I watched him lap a brand new disassembled plane on coarse sand paper clamped down to a wooden bench top, that I seriously doubt was as flat as a newly machined piece of iron.

If you look closely at one point in Tommy's video, you can see transverse planing marks on his bench that very much look like they were made with a coarsely set and heavily cambered blade. Nothing wrong with flattening your bench top this way as an initial step, and one may not need to go any further if you're working on long parts.

But I rather doubt the hills between the valleys left by the bench-flattening plane are all at the same height, so I figure it's also unlikely that the bench is flat enough to lap a sole to.

Besides, with Woodcraft now selling long, precision ground granite surface plates for very little money, I can't see a need in using one's bench to flatten a plane sole, even if you don't have a table saw or jointer to use as a reference surface.

[Dave Beauchesne]

Good discussion here - I am chalking this one up to having a WW Magazine needing new fodder to fill the pages. I subscribe to FWW and enjoy the magazine, and after watching the video, I am dismayed to a point.

I watched the host tighten the chip breaker screw and a shiver went up my spine - I would say near 10 percent of old Stanleys have lever caps chewed up for this reason.

As well, rattling the file around in the mouth of the plane - well, we know what can happen there.

There are other good points that have already been beat up enough - I fall back on my magazine fodder theory.

All in all, reading the SMC FAQ and reading the posts here are a much better way to learn and do it right. I can only pray that there are no LN or LV planes that fall victim to possible abuse because of the video.

JMHO -

Dave B

[Bob Warfield]

I thought I may as well chime in too. I saw the video too and wondered why would he do this. I guess we all know he was working on a new Woodriver plane. I have a couple of them, a #3 and a #6. I'm sure there are many here who own or have looked at them. It's my opinion they are machined at about 98% of a LN or LV plane. Yes they both had a lot of oil on them but I didn't find it a big deal to clean them off.
I can't help but wonder what the brass at Woodcraft think about the video.

Happy Holidays
Bob

[Chris Fournier]

My experience with LN planes is that they are indeed very well made. I can tell you though that their earlier work always benefited from some extra attention in my shop. I would never start lapping a plane sole with 80 grit sandpaper! If a plane needed that kind of attention it would go back to the manufacturer if it was new, onto my surface grinder if it was used and worth saving, or be given away to look quaint on a shelf somewhere.

As George points out metal can move depending on conditions and assembly and these movements can be subtle but vexxing if you don't realise what's going on. I would think that a person serious about tuning a handplane would have a granite inspection surface, a sharpie or some blue layout dye and a good machinist's straight edge at least. Doing some research into metal properties and machining should be considered a must in my opinion.

It is very interesting to watch how a plane sole distorts when a blade is tightened. If you want the plane to be ideal in use it is critical to evaluate it's condition while under operating settings -tight blade.

It does indeed take a long time to remove metal, this is the saving grace of metal for those who are new to removing it!

One thing to remember about measuring the flatness of a plane body is the temperature of the plane body. Holding the plane in your hands while lapping the sole will change it's dimensions and consequently flatness, especially in cooler conditions. Manipulating metal to a fine degree gets very fussy very quickly but it can be done with some knowledge and care.

[george wilson]

I haven't seen the FWW video,but I certainly would NEVER lap a plane using a wooden bench top as the master flat. Granite surface plates are pretty inexpensive now,and infinitely flatter than a wooden bench.

[michael osadchuk]

There is one qualification I would make to Pat's reply video.

Pat recommends, at about the 2:35 point in his video to always flatten the back of a blade.

Lee Valley blades, for at least the past four or five years have come to us with a very flat tolerance on their faces .... something like 0.0005" over their entire faces
http://www.leevalley.com/en/Wood/page.aspx?p=60009&cat=1,41182,43698&ap=1
...... yes, I gather the faces have a dull charcoal grey finish to them, not "shiney" but they are flat.... I suggest is that if you want to make the last inch of the back 'shiney' use an 8000 grit stone or finer or some green honing compound (also to remove any burr which I suspect LV removes)

good luck

michael

[Ben West]

I thought the same thing, George. Lapping the sole of a new Veritas or LN is ridiculous enough, but on a bench? Unbelievable. I just lost a lot of respect for FWW.

[Pinwu Xu]

Worse yet, I would not use a file to clean up/round the plane body on my bench

[Pat Megowan]

It is very interesting to watch how a plane sole distorts when a blade is tightened. If you want the plane to be ideal in use it is critical to evaluate it's condition while under operating settings -tight blade.

One thing to remember about measuring the flatness of a plane body is the temperature of the plane body. Holding the plane in your hands while lapping the sole will change it's dimensions and consequently flatness, especially in cooler conditions. Manipulating metal to a fine degree gets very fussy very quickly but it can be done with some knowledge and care.

This comment intrigues me Chris--can you say more about how the sole distorts, and by any chance have you taken measurements, giving us a sense for how bad things could get lapping with the frog and blade assembly out?

Thanks,

P

p.s. Hi to Carl from HP of yore (I was with HP Corvallis for 14 years), and thanks/your welcome as appropriate for folk's comments on the video.

[george wilson]

As a machinist and toolmaker,I can verify that things like precision levels need to be handled with gloves. Micrometers will also be affected by the warmth of the hand. Many of the modern ones have plastic heat shields on them.

The level I use to level my lathe is accurate to within a ten thousanth or so of tilt per foot. We are talking about very fine measurements here. Gage blocks are another tool you don't want to be affected by the heat of your hand. They can be accurate to millionths of an inch. They come in different grades of accuracy. When using high precision straight edges during re scraping of machine surfaces,and working to very close tolerances,the straight edges should be handled by the wooden handles usually mounted on them,or with gloves,or they will warp and give inaccurate readings.

[Pat Megowan]

There is one qualification I would make to Pat's reply video.

Pat recommends, at about the 2:35 point in his video to always flatten the back of a blade.

Lee Valley blades, for at least the past four or five years have come to us with a very flat tolerance on their faces .... something like 0.0005" over their entire faces
http://www.leevalley.com/en/Wood/page.aspx?p=60009&cat=1,41182,43698&ap=1
...... yes, I gather the faces have a dull charcoal grey finish to them, not "shiney" but they are flat.... I suggest is that if you want to make the last inch of the back 'shiney' use an 8000 grit stone or finer or some green honing compound (also to remove any burr which I suspect LV removes)

good luck

michael

Great point Michael. For starters I should have called it "back preparation" or maybe "back polishing", as these blades are plenty flat. With a bit more time I'd have started the back discussion w/ something like "the objective (for the back) is to be flat and polished at the cutting edge", then gone on to various steps that might be necessary to achieve the objective, and how to decide which ones your blade needs. As George pointed out somewhere, learning to SEE well and work from there is invaluable, much preferable to applying a recipe.

Given the flatness of blades from these companies, I could skip back prep, since with even a tiny back bevel all my polishing effort lands right at the cutting edge. However...I do still prep the back as shown (though perhaps less diligently than before, and in far less time with these nice flat blades), and from time to time polish the back laying flat on the 8000 stone as well as honing the back bevel. Why this apparently superfluous step? In order to keep rust at bay and stop pits from forming that would create problems down the road. Not sharpening per se, but worthwhile blade maintenance for me in rainy Oregon.

Thanks for raising this point.

[Pat Megowan]

Worse yet, I would not use a file to clean up/round the plane body on my bench

Couldn't agree more, my bench doesn't need embedded metal particles for patina!

[Jim Koepke]

Gage blocks are another tool you don't want to be affected by the heat of your hand.

Having heard stories of journeymen tossing them in the garbage after some apprentice oiled them, I don't think I even want to breath near a set of gage blocks.

jtk

[Rodney Walker]

I cringed when I saw Tommy use the cap iron to loosen the chip breaker screw. I've seen far too many broken cap irons where that was the cause. Just because it fits doesn't make it the right tool for the job.
I don't disagree with disassembling a plane and cleaning the excess oil off. If nothing else it gives the proud new owner a chance to learn how it all goes together. If ever I buy a new plane, I may do the same. I gravitate toward the old Stanleys and usually I have to disassemble them to clean the rust instead of oil off them. I have yet to find even one of my basket cases that was seriously out of flat on the sole. If you're buying the cheapest of the cheap then maybe you will need to flatten it. I wouldn't expect a high end manufacturer to let a plane that was out of flat leave the factory. I doubt the sole flattening step is really necessary.
Rodney

[Jim Koepke]

I cringed when I saw Tommy use the cap iron to loosen the chip breaker screw. I've seen far too many broken cap irons where that was the cause. Just because it fits doesn't make it the right tool for the job.
I don't disagree with disassembling a plane and cleaning the excess oil off. If nothing else it gives the proud new owner a chance to learn how it all goes together. If ever I buy a new plane, I may do the same. I gravitate toward the old Stanleys and usually I have to disassemble them to clean the rust instead of oil off them. I have yet to find even one of my basket cases that was seriously out of flat on the sole. If you're buying the cheapest of the cheap then maybe you will need to flatten it. I wouldn't expect a high end manufacturer to let a plane that was out of flat leave the factory. I doubt the sole flattening step is really necessary.
Rodney

OMG! The FWW video didn't come through for me. If a person can not use the right tool for the job, they shouldn't be doing the job in the first place.

Many of us have no problem taking apart a plane and putting it back together. Some folks have never had any experience with things mechanical and may have gotten into woodworking because it is a great way to make your own furniture or what have you.

I have seen disasters from trying to thread a screw into a nut by those unfamiliar with what they were doing.

I do not know if Veritas or Lie-Nielsen planes have 100% inspection. Even if they do, it is possible for a mistake to slip by at times. Their willingness to take care of their errors and even their non-errors puts them in a better category than most other tool makers.

jtk

[Pat Megowan]

I'm puzzled that folks can't view the video, since I can view it even when I'm logged out of FWW. While many FWW videos are subscriber only, I think the magazine companion videos are open because some folks buy the magazine at a store rather than by subscription.

If you are interested, maybe try this: go to www.finewoodworking.com, scroll down about a page to a blue column on the right entitled "The Magazine". Click on "Video:Handplane How-to".

[Pat Megowan]

Here is the original FWW video:


You should be able to see the original FWW Tommy MacDonald video even if you are not a FWW subscriber, I just tested this with a friend:

Go to www.finewoodworking.com,

Scroll down about a page to a pale blue area on the right entitled "The Magazine".

As of this second, the second Online Extra is entitled "Video:Handplane How-to"--click on it.

Play the video.

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

Hope this helps

[Josh Rudolph]

You should be able to see the original FWW Tommy MacDonald video even if you are not a FWW subscriber, I just tested this with a friend:

Go to www.finewoodworking.com (http://www.finewoodworking.com),

Scroll down about a page to a pale blue area on the right entitled "The Magazine".

As of this second, the second Online Extra is entitled "Video:Handplane How-to"--click on it.

Play the video.

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

Hope this helps

Pat,

i am not a subscriber and was able to see it. I think it is likely an adobe flash issue where some may not have it installed or may be using a mac which tends not to play nice with adobe stuff.

Josh

[Pat Megowan]

Thanks for the tech support Josh!

[John Coloccia]

So I finally decided to open this thread and see what's up. My first reaction reading the title, "Every Handplane Needs a Tuneup", was "Uh, no it doesn't." They must be running out of material, or something. I do hope people watching that video don't do any of that past taking it out of the bag and removing the oil from the sole.

[Adam Cruea]

Wow, I am so glad I'm not the only one that had an adverse reaction to that article/video.

To me, the first dead giveaway that I shouldn't be reading was when it was stated a new plane needed tuning up. Uh, sorry, but I'm not going to be dropping $425 on a Lie-Nielsen jointer that's ground flat and square, or to within .0015" of flat just to run it over sandpaper clamped to my bench. Nor do I really think a Lie-Nielsen (or Lee Valley) for that matter has burrs running rampant.

That said. . .sure, I'd tune up a new Stanley, or maybe even an old Stanley. Use a wood top? Nah, I'll take the 24" piece of floated glass I have, thanks.

[Adam Cruea]

Yes, thanks for the video Pat.

One thing that slipped by me was the attaching the blade and chip breaker. Because of being a bit of a klutz and trying to do things in a safe manner, my practice of tightening the chip breaker has developed into setting the assembly on a piece of hardwood, at least as long as the blade, while turning the screw. When loosening the screw, the sharp end is to the left. When tightening the screw, the blade edge is to the right. To me this seems safer than trying to hold the blade in the air and it keeps the blade and breaker in alignment. Usually before tightening, the assembly's edge is lightly pressed with the blade of the screwdriver while it is setting on the block of wood or bench top.

jtk

I hold the chip breaker/blade assembly while I tighten/loosen. It's not particularly that hard to feel when the chip breaker starts to slip (or if it does slip). But I also use a foot-long screwdriver to tighten the thing down so that I can make sure the chip breaker is married to the tip of the blade to minimize chatter.

I'm actually more worried about running the screwdriver through my hand than the blade of the plane mauling my hand, to be honest.

[Chris Griggs]

I'm actually more worried about running the screwdriver through my hand than the blade of the plane mauling my hand, to be honest.

No kidding! I have jabbed myself in the hand on more than one occasion tightening down the cap iron. Haven't pierced the hand with the screwdriver, but even just a hard jab to the knuckle or palm is not a lot of fun.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

That's why I really like having one of these (http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?cat=1,41182&p=60111)

[Chris Fournier]

Wow, I am so glad I'm not the only one that had an adverse reaction to that article/video.

To me, the first dead giveaway that I shouldn't be reading was when it was stated a new plane needed tuning up. Uh, sorry, but I'm not going to be dropping $425 on a Lie-Nielsen jointer that's ground flat and square, or to within .0015" of flat just to run it over sandpaper clamped to my bench. Nor do I really think a Lie-Nielsen (or Lee Valley) for that matter has burrs running rampant.

That said. . .sure, I'd tune up a new Stanley, or maybe even an old Stanley. Use a wood top? Nah, I'll take the 24" piece of floated glass I have, thanks.

I'm not sure how spending $425.00 make a product immune from deficiencies, in fact I'm certain that this is not the case. Has anyone here spent much more money than this on equipment only to find that manufacturing tolerances have not been held? There are threads all over the place that would indicate yes. Are there burrs running rampant on an LV plane? I don't know. What I do know is a bit about manufacturing and I know that CNC machined items come off the machine with burrs. In many cases burrs are removed manually. Manually, well there's room for error now.

I personally have returned two planes to a high end manufacturer and my friend has returned one to the same manufacturer - why? Because a casting was cracked, sides of a shooting plane were ground out of square in excess of 2 degrees and the bottom of a > $425 plane was anything but flat. (The manufacturer was beyond reproach in their response to our concerns in each instance!) Mistakes happen in production - period. If spending $425 makes you think that you're buying perfection then you certainly can save money on buying machinist quality measuring tools but it doesn't mean that the article holds the stated production tolerances.

We can all read these threads and think that we've "learned" something but really we all need to go back to our shops and put the time in to actually do what we are speaking of. Of course in many cases this means spending money as well as time. An opinion is just that, an opinion, but it really isn't that useful if it is not backed by hard earned knowledge.

I have no doubt that many woodworkers are very happy with their planes, chisels etc. right out of the box. I am sure that they get right down to doing some beautiful woodworking once the package arrives at their door and that's great. I personally have come to the place where out of the box is not the finish line, close but not quite there. To date I feel that my efforts out of the box have been worth the extra time and money spent.

[Chris Fournier]

I hold the chip breaker/blade assembly while I tighten/loosen. It's not particularly that hard to feel when the chip breaker starts to slip (or if it does slip). But I also use a foot-long screwdriver to tighten the thing down so that I can make sure the chip breaker is married to the tip of the blade to minimize chatter.

I'm actually more worried about running the screwdriver through my hand than the blade of the plane mauling my hand, to be honest.

I would be more concerned about using a screwdriver with the appropriate blade size and profile than about it's length. A foot long screwdriver will deliver no more torque than a 3" long screwdriver!

[John Coloccia]

I'm not sure how spending $425.00 make a product immune from deficiencies, in fact I'm certain that this is not the case. Has anyone here spent much more money than this on equipment only to find that manufacturing tolerances have not been held? There are threads all over the place that would indicate yes. Are there burrs running rampant on an LV plane? I don't know. What I do know is a bit about manufacturing and I know that CNC machined items come off the machine with burrs. In many cases burrs are removed manually. Manually, well there's room for error now.

I personally have returned two planes to a high end manufacturer and my friend has returned one to the same manufacturer - why? Because a casting was cracked, sides of a shooting plane were ground out of square in excess of 2 degrees and the bottom of a > $425 plane was anything but flat. (The manufacturer was beyond reproach in their response to our concerns in each instance!) Mistakes happen in production - period. If spending $425 makes you think that you're buying perfection then you certainly can save money on buying machinist quality measuring tools but it doesn't mean that the article holds the stated production tolerances.

We can all read these threads and think that we've "learned" something but really we all need to go back to our shops and put the time in to actually do what we are speaking of. Of course in many cases this means spending money as well as time. An opinion is just that, an opinion, but it really isn't that useful if it is not backed by hard earned knowledge.

I have no doubt that many woodworkers are very happy with their planes, chisels etc. right out of the box. I am sure that they get right down to doing some beautiful woodworking once the package arrives at their door and that's great. I personally have come to the place where out of the box is not the finish line, close but not quite there. To date I feel that my efforts out of the box have been worth the extra time and money spent.

I think the point is that you would never do this to a LV or LN plane out of the box...ever. You would return the plane and get a proper one. LV and LN planes come absolutely ready to go out of the box (save a little honing you should do on the LN irons, but the LV irons come sharp), and if they're not you should NOT tune it up, file things, etc. You should send it back.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

FWIW, I haven't seen the video yet, and I've only glanced at the article, and while looking at the pictures, I immediately question how flat Tommy's methods would actually get a plane sole (although I also question whether you actually need machinist tolerance flat on a most planes) I do notice that the blurb under the photo in the first picture of the "flatten the sole" picture says:


Check it first. If you see light under your straightedge, you've got a major problem. On a flea-marker find, it's worth an hour or two of sanding to level a warped sole, but a new plane should be sent back.

Color emphasis is mine, bold from the article text. I don't know if the video echoes this statement or not, but it seems like the article pretty much says the exact same thing we've been saying - on a newly manufactured plane, you shouldn't have to do this, and the manufacturer should make it right.

Interestingly enough, in the same issue of FWW, they talk about Lee Valley's 35 anniversary - they have a video online of that as well. One of the photos in the magazine accompanying that article shows a machinist at the LV/Veritas plant using a dial indicator to check the flatness of a jointer plane. Which I think speaks to the fact that these planes don't need that kind of work - and I doubt the majority of home woodworkers have the equipment to check for flat to the same degree that Lee Valley does.

The accompanying video (http://www.finewoodworking.com/ToolGuide/ToolGuideArticle.aspx?id=35086) to the Lee Valley article shows their industrial lapping machine, and Asa says


The machine works perfectly, so please do not lap these blades on sandpaper yourself. You might ruin them!

I think ruin is a strong word, but I do appreciate how the new LV blades don't require any work.

It seems like FWW may not have been overly clear, and there's some questionable advice in the article but I don't think they were straight out recommending that we start attacking to planes with coarse methods . . .

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Beginning to watch the video, I wish there was a mention of making sure you have a precision straight edge. If you see light between the sole of a plane and the edge and you don't know the difference between a precision straight edge and a hardware store ruler, I can tell you where the problem may very well lie if you're checking a nice new plane. I don't think this is mentioned in the article either.

Also beginning to watch the video, more of complaints make sense - the caveats in the article certainly aren't present in the video, and being that the video is free and folks who see that may not have access to the article, I can see how this presentation could go bad for someone.

Still better than some of the router and table saw jigs I've seen in that magazine, though.

[Chris Fournier]

Okay, that's a fine point John but to know that your out of the box plane is flat, square etc. you still really need to be able to evaluate that yourself don't you? By the time you've measured it you might as well tune it up. Things may have changed but I don't believe that manufacturers grind the plane bodies with the frogs in situ and the iron tightened down - this is something that a woodworker can improve in his shop with some care - a plane that is flat while tensioned ready for use. (We can discuss whether a plane sole really needs to be flat everywhere to work well but that would muddy these waters.)

And if you don't think that the effort is worth it you don't have to do it, it's just that I've seen plenty of SMCers discussing 0.001" tolerances on their shop built cross cut sleds and router tables and very few people seem to think that this pursuit is out of the ordinary (let alone measurable and achievable) so why not hold a fine handplane to the same standard as a shop built cross cut sled or router table?

My final stance is that your tools should not hold you back from doing your best work. In the pursuit of good work some folks take more time setting up their tools - it may just be a mindset thing but in my opinion attention to all of the details along the way encourages a better outcome.

[Jim Koepke]

Okay, that's a fine point John but to know that your out of the box plane is flat, square etc. you still really need to be able to evaluate that yourself don't you? By the time you've measured it you might as well tune it up. Things may have changed but I don't believe that manufacturers grind the plane bodies with the frogs in situ and the iron tightened down - this is something that a woodworker can improve in his shop with some care - a plane that is flat while tensioned ready for use. (We can discuss whether a plane sole really needs to be flat everywhere to work well but that would muddy these waters.)

And if you don't think that the effort is worth it you don't have to do it, it's just that I've seen plenty of SMCers discussing 0.001" tolerances on their shop built cross cut sleds and router tables and very few people seem to think that this pursuit is out of the ordinary (let alone measurable and achievable) so why not hold a fine handplane to the same standard as a shop built cross cut sled or router table?

For me it seems how the plane does its job is a better evaluation than all the measurements one can take on the plane body.

If it is a new plane that cost me a lot of bucks, there should be no reason to mess with it. If the maker isn't going to stand behind the purchase, then maybe they are not worthy of my investment.

There is also a point of my being a touch finicky. On my two LN planes that did get a little work, they came with smooth mouth adjustments. My desire was for "finer than the finest silk" adjustments.

On chip breakers, mine are always examined for fit before pushing them across a stone.

The most egregious act in the video, as mentioned by someone else was using the lever cap to loosen and tighten the screw on the chip breaker. I have worn out too many screwdrivers to do anything but cringe when watching someone use an expensive to replace item to do the job of an inexpensive tool.

My suggestion for anyone who wants to learn about tuning up planes is to start with the cheapest yard sale finds on which one can cut their teeth. The next step in the process would be to find everything written available to see what others have done. A lot of the processes will be the same. Discard any of the outlier techniques, like tightening screws with the lever cap, that are unique to a single source. If along the way one wants to try something not in the "common knowledge" bank, it may be enlightening without being costly.

In my younger days, a few of us just loved to take things apart. With new items we called it a warrantee voiding party with computers and other electronics we bought and just wanted to look inside.

jtk

[Pinwu Xu]

So I finally decided to open this thread and see what's up. My first reaction reading the title, "Every Handplane Needs a Tuneup", was "Uh, no it doesn't." They must be running out of material, or something. I do hope people watching that video don't do any of that past taking it out of the bag and removing the oil from the sole.



Could be that they ran out of materials.

In fact, there are a lot of magazine back issues available on Google, and if you do take your time read them, you'll find lots of articles repeating ...

As for this plane tuneup thing, I just feel that people are over emphasizing it, regardless of the condition, usage, etc. for a particular plane. For example, I would take a
#5 (in a hand tool shop) to be used right after scrub, thus don't think it has to be of high precision, could care less if it's flat, straight, or not. But I kept seeing people
take a #5, spend don't know how much time try to flat the bottom... Seriously, I might try to flat my $20 #4, but not (or never) a LV or LN one, I'd just contact the
maker to get it right.

[Matt McCormick]

OK guys..... I just can't hold this back any longer....... Where I come from we don't keep the chips, we keep the part we are working on.
Not to offend anyone here, but to even consider that your screws holding the frog are affecting the process of removing material from the wood you are
working, is not a productive road to go down. Competitive Chip making well OK, But woodworking, come on man, come on.
Poor Tommy, I bet he is regretting this one, Magazine calls "We need an article on tuning up handplanes by tomorrow night" He's really busy, thinks a little bit "hmmmm, I bet I can get a sponsor some good exposure here" And the rest is history.... Good Idea , poor execution. Yes he is wrong about tuning a plane that does not need tuning annnd he goes about it differently than I would but anyway..... Most of us are afflicted with Tool Worship to the point it ruins our woodworking....:rolleyes:

And since I am typing (a once a year phenomenon) I want to point out How really fortunate we are to have George Wilson Post here, this guy is a true one in a million
Craftsman and much more. It is a shame that someone has not made it worth his while to write a book on How a Craftsman thinks is almost criminal, Also with all the DVD stuff available a few hour Video with a true master can't be arranged? We are blessed that a guy with George's knowledge wants to freely share it is a gift every time we log on here. This is my opinion. -matt

[Archie England]

...I want to point out How really fortunate we are to have George Wilson Post here, this guy is a true one in a million
Craftsman and much more. ... We are blessed that a guy with George's knowledge wants to freely share it is a gift every time we log on here. This is my opinion. -matt

+1. George has certainly blessed me!!!!

[Jim Koepke]

If George's posts have not lead to awe and inspiration it may be time to call the undertaker.

jtk

[george wilson]

Those are very kind words,guys. There are those that get jealous,when all I really want to do is teach the right way to do work and design things. I can tell someone something in a minute that took me 10 years to find out!!

There are things I have learned from others here,too.

I was actually taught to use the lever cap as the screwdriver!! Many shop teachers will teach things like that because they do not know better themselves.

[Zach Dillinger]

Those are very kind words,guys. There are those that get jealous,when all I really want to do is teach the right way to do work and design things. I can tell someone something in a minute that took me 10 years to find out!!

I was actually taught to use the lever cap as the screwdriver!! Many shop teachers will teach things like that because they do not know better themselves.

That explains why you see so many lever caps with busted-up front edges. I never could figure out how people broke them; now it makes sense.

[Pat Megowan]

I'm not sure how spending $425.00 make a product immune from deficiencies, in fact I'm certain that this is not the case. Has anyone here spent much more money than this on equipment only to find that manufacturing tolerances have not been held? ... Mistakes happen in production - period.

Well said! The making of things is challenging, nothing is failsafe. More care in manufacturing can reduce problems impressively but not eliminate them. A person highly skilled in metalwork can almost certainly further improve a fine plane, but like everyone else will benefit from returning a plane that slipped thru with significant mistakes.


we all need to go back to our shops and put the time in to actually do what we are speaking of.

Bingo. Knowledge isn't robust until is has serious mileage on it. The catastrophes, dead ends, "good enough" outcomes, and genuine successes along the way cover a great distance between idea/opinion and excellent results, earning the term "hard-earned".

Chris' use of the word "opinion" seems significant in another way; earning a skill inevitably personalizes it, adapting it to the worker and their environment. When they then share it (here, for instance), it is both informed and biased. It may work for another reader, or not--that reader likewise must head to the shop, where they will find...


...in many cases this means spending money as well as time.

Yes...and Ouch. Answering the ubiquitous forum question "what's the best...?" is almost always a matter of trying stuff, much of which won't be the best answer for you. Forums can suggest options and factors to consider, a tremendous help but still someone else's journey, not yours.

Consider playing the odds as you earn your knowledge, letting the tool tell you where it needs work, and letting the manufacturer make it right if they can do it better or with more safety to your pocketbook. And by all means learn some metal work, it's cool too!

Yet another opinion;-).

[Ryan Baker]

Until this thread, I had never seen the lever cap used as a screwdriver. I sure wouldn't do that, even if someone DID try to convince me that it was a good idea.

As for the video, Tommy should certainly know better. While attempting to be helpful, this is really just contributing to a lot of bad advice out there for beginners that don't know any better. FWW should pull the video and replace it with a new one that is redone to correct the blatent errors. Perhaps the title was supposed to have been "Every WoodRiver Handplane Needs a Tuneup" -- though that isn't really fair to Woodcraft either.

The idea of a book or DVD series from George has come up before. I think it's a great idea. Somebody with the right resources should talk George into it. There are plenty of us around here that would pay for that. We need to learn all we can from the guys with decades of experience so that we don't have to spend decades ourselves learning from the same mistakes. Short of that, there is a pretty good pile of information in the archives right here.

[Pat Megowan]

Reasons I switched to a short screwdriver:

I feel safer from skewering myself;
I shake a little bit, it's easier to engage the screw slot;
I found one that fit perfectly

Another case of trying stuff 'til I was happy.

[Chris Fournier]

I wouldn't want to put words in George's mouth or tell him what chapters to include but I'd bet that George's book would be heavy on equipment and hand tool tuning and the pursuit of precision - measurement and production. I'd bet that George is very concerned about the minutiae and has been for a very long time.

[Ryan Baker]

Reasons I switched to a short screwdriver:

I feel safer from skewering myself;
I shake a little bit, it's easier to engage the screw slot;
I found one that fit perfectly

Another case of trying stuff 'til I was happy.

The stubby LV chipbreaker screwdriver works quite nicely! No way to slip off, and it won't tear up the screw.

[george wilson]

I have several LN planes,and also had bought several for the toolmaker's shop. The only defect I ever found was a blade in a block plane tested at 58 Rockwell,when advertised at 60. They sent a new blade immediately. I think 60 is too hard,anyway. As I've mentioned before,when using wooden planes for many years,I found that the irons I could BARELY file with a new,fine file would hold up better. This was on antique,bitted irons,and would have put the hardness at about 55 Rockwell or less. The saws made from 1095 spring steel are about 52 Rockwell,and are rather hard on files(but do stay sharp longer).

I have an antique user made chip breaker screwdriver. I should post it. It has a blade that is about 5/8" wide at the edge,getting wider at the handle,and only less than 1" long. It has a short,wide handle. I'll dig it up and post it one of these days. This pattern was common for chip breaker screwdrivers.

[Pat Megowan]

By the time you've measured it you might as well tune it up. Things may have changed but I don't believe that manufacturers grind the plane bodies with the frogs in situ and the iron tightened down - this is something that a woodworker can improve in his shop with some care

I don't know the creek audience, Chris, but (at the risk of being a d--k) I think you are too generous concerning what woodworkers in general (e.g. FWW's readership, me included) can reliably achieve flattening a sole. I work with a lot of folks and a large majority struggle to sharpen and set the cut well, and fear regrinding the primary bevel. This is in spite of the feast of forum help, perennial mag articles on "the best method to sharpen", and YouTubes galore. Beginners, intermediates, woodworkers with decades of professional experience...even well-known handtool writers, I've seen them all. This is not a criticism; there's lots to learn, not enough time for everything, a confusing abundance of approaches, and ways to work around anything including dull tools (esp. when you haven't experienced really sharp ones).

Virtually all can learn to sharpen well (esp. w/live help--brain flash--George, lessons via Skype! (sorry if that's absurd)) and could learn to work the sole with enough help and experience. However, I've seen fine tools seriously messed up by careful, well meaning, and experienced woodworkers, and their disappointment made a big impression on me. Jim's advice to practice on swap meet specials seems smart, just the place to gain hard-earned knowledge. Once they can do that well--and measure accurately to back it up--then whatever floats their boat!

This is the heart of my discomfort with the original video--while one photo caption suggests returning a new plane with problems, the headline and thrust of the article is that all planes need it (false, even including lesser tools) and here's how you can do it (seriously incomplete), illustrated with a brand new spiffy looking plane (which coincidentally looks like an LN). While a high quality plane may indeed have problems, the article and video are playing lousy probabilities.

I agree totally with your summation that attention to all the details assists in better work. Given the limits of time, it's also worth considering which details to tackle, in what order, and when to call the RCMP;-).

[Pat Megowan]

I have several LN planes,and also had bought several for the toolmaker's shop. The only defect I ever found was a blade in a block plane tested at 58 Rockwell,when advertised at 60. They sent a new blade immediately. I think 60 is too hard,anyway. As I've mentioned before,when using wooden planes for many years,I found that the irons I could BARELY file with a new,fine file would hold up better. This was on antique,bitted irons,and would have put the hardness at about 55 Rockwell or less. The saws made from 1095 spring steel are about 52 Rockwell,and are rather hard on files(but do stay sharp longer).

I have an antique user made chip breaker screwdriver. I should post it. It has a blade that is about 5/8" wide at the edge,getting wider at the handle,and only less than 1" long. It has a short,wide handle. I'll dig it up and post it one of these days. This pattern was common for chip breaker screwdrivers.

Interesting notes on hardness, steel is fascinating and seems surprisingly subtle/complex. Love to see the screwdriver.

Hope the Skype sharpening lessons idea doesn't get me on your bad side! Personal help often makes all the difference; it can be hard for folks to spot the difference between what even a well-shot video shows and what they are doing, while experienced eyes may spot it in a second.

[george wilson]

Why would Skype lessons get me on your bad side??:) I've only ever Skyped once. That was with Chris Vesper,the Aussie toolmaker. I doubt the size and quality of Skype would be good enough for teaching.

[Charlie Stanford]

I realize this is quite strong for a first post, and hope you will forgive that. I'm mostly a messenger here, with knowledge expressed earlier and better by generations of hand plane experts, and making no claims about any "best" answer.

The recent Fine Woodworking article "Every Handplane Needs a Tuneup" and accompanying video are incomplete (at least) on some critical points, posing a real risk of ruining a good tool. This is particularly true for folks starting with high quality handplanes like Veritas and Lie-Nielsen, which are a) quite unlikely to need several of the recommended procedures, and b) quite likely to be screwed up if you don't know a good deal more than is presented in the article and video.

Here is the original FWW video:


http://www.finewoodworking.com/toolguide/toolguidearticle.aspx?id=35026


And here is a video response, which points out the most serious issues and recommends an alternate tuneup:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLhQEikIa5w&feature=youtu.be


There are fairly extensive comments in the description section of the video as well.

No disrespect is intended to the author Tommy MacDonald, who responded quickly and kindly to my concern, or to FWW, both of whom have taught and inspired many woodworkers. Tommy's high end planes apparently needed at least some of this work. On the other hand, I have set up many planes for friends, students, customers, and myself, and while some brands needed everything in the book--or relegation to paperweight--none of the top quality planes needed frog removal, sole flattening, or chip breaker work. After blade prep, honing, and setting the cut, they worked beautifully.

It's a matter of playing the probabilities; doing what's sure to help (super sharp, light shaving) and letting the plane tell you if it needs more. If it does need more, look to a thorough treatment of the subject like Garrett Hack's "The Handplane Book".

I'll be interested to hear the collective Neanderthal wisdom on this subject!

God works in ways I'll never understand. On the surface (sorry for the pun) it sounds like bad advice. Then I remembered to check Macdonald's portfolio:

http://www.thomasjmacdonald.com/content/galleries/t-mac-furniture

Not too shabby. Nothing succeeds like success?

[george wilson]

The fact is,a good craftsman can make good work with relatively primitive tools. The wooden pieces I have posted here previously were made with wooden planes. The marquetry guitar I made was sawn out with a wooden frame fret saw I made. They used similar tech in the 17th. and 18th.C's. I'm sure none of the wooden planes I used (still use) are as flat or as rigid as a good metal plane. I knew how to get them very sharp,and set them very fine. I had only a double sided India stone and a razor stone. No array of $500.00 fancy stones.

Ther Anthony Hay cabinet shop in Wmsbg. makes fine furniture with similar tools to what I used. The master used to spit on an odd cut Belgian coticle and sharpen with it. It was an odd shaped piece no more than 4" long in any direction.

In the Gunsmith's Shop in Williamsburg,they make guns that cost over $20,000.00 with extremely primitive tools: Hammer,anvil,tongs,files,hand braces,hand forged drill bits,and a few chisels and carving tools. Screws were hand filed out,not lathe turned for many years,not until they realized that the 18th.C. inventory they were going by(of the original shop) did not include a wooden lathe bolted to the wall. Then,I made a wooden treadle lathe for them. Early American Industries Assn. members complained that the gunsmiths were "working in medieval conditions",and THEY WERE!! The original master was way too conservative !!

Craftsmanship and tool prep can be two entirely different things,believe it or not.


The lion's head was hand carved with a few carving tools. The steel die was made entirely by hand with a few chisels made from old triangular files.The holes were hand punched and drilled. The guitar marquetry was sawn out with a wooden frame saw held in the hand. The lion head violin and guitar were made with the public about 4 feet away. I'll guarantee you that very small work is harder to do than large furniture,NOT by any means to demean the fine furniture you showed the link to. I mean here only to point out that it's not all tool prep that makes good work. I believe that paper money is still mostly hand engraved,but I think they use machines to do the borders.

Craftsmanship does not depend entirely upon the flatness of a plane.It is mostly can you design,can you saw exactly on the line,etc..

I really think that things like flat planes and sharpening stones are dwelt upon entirely too much on this forum. Those things are nice to talk about,but they just won't make you a great craftsman by themselves.

[Chris Griggs]

I really think that things like flat planes and sharpening stones are dwelt upon entirely too much on this forum. Those things are nice to talk about,but they just won't make you a great craftsman by themselves.

Well crap!!!! If that's the case I'm screwed!!!:D

Actually, even though I am of the main perpetrators of such sharpening/etc discussions I must say I totally agree. I've said before I would love to see more people post their work here. The most I ever learn is when someone posts a completed project, talks about how they did it and what the challenges were, and then others give feedback on how to improve the design, work methods, or general quality of the end result.

I do still enjoy the new tool and sharpening discussions. Not sure why,like you said, it is just sometime fun to talk about.

[Pat Megowan]

I want to soften some words (they're easier to eat when soft;-) based on recently received info.

I've received confirmed sightings from folks who have been in the factories that neither LN nor LV lap most planes with the frog/blade assembly in place. Apparently ductile iron and carefully designed cross sections (among other things) are sufficient to keep even their machinist and fanatic types satisfied, and of course there's the pudding: the vast majority of users find these planes flat enough for fine work.

Therefore, my emphasis on the change in sole shape when removing the frog/blade assembly appears to be overstated for LV and LN--my apology. I don't know about other brands or vintages--for instance the castings on my pre-WW1 5 1/2 are far lighter and not ductile iron.

Nonetheless, for reasons Chris, George, and other metal savvy Neanders have stated, on those rare occasions I flatten a wonky plane, I'll continue to leave the frog/blade in place.

What hasn't changed is the experience suggesting that nearly all high quality planes are plenty flat for great work. As George noted in his latest post, we spend too much time obsessing about this, time we could be in the shop making something lovely and useful.

Those with enough experience in metalwork can no doubt improve (or at least personalize) their fine planes. The improvement may be more in their satisfaction using the tool than in noticeable differences to their woodwork, but that's a fine reason since we work for pleasure in process as well as result. And if it is a key to some brilliant work, just more support for the value of learning some metalwork! On swap meet planes!

[paul cottingham]

That's why I really like having one of these (http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?cat=1,41182&p=60111)
+1 the most useful crazy thing I've ever bought.

[Adam Cruea]

The fact is,a good craftsman can make good work with relatively primitive tools. The wooden pieces I have posted here previously were made with wooden planes. The marquetry guitar I made was sawn out with a wooden frame fret saw I made. They used similar tech in the 17th. and 18th.C's. I'm sure none of the wooden planes I used (still use) are as flat or as rigid as a good metal plane. I knew how to get them very sharp,and set them very fine. I had only a double sided India stone and a razor stone. No array of $500.00 fancy stones.

Ther Anthony Hay cabinet shop in Wmsbg. makes fine furniture with similar tools to what I used. The master used to spit on an odd cut Belgian coticle and sharpen with it. It was an odd shaped piece no more than 4" long in any direction.

In the Gunsmith's Shop in Williamsburg,they make guns that cost over $20,000.00 with extremely primitive tools: Hammer,anvil,tongs,files,hand braces,hand forged drill bits,and a few chisels and carving tools. Screws were hand filed out,not lathe turned for many years,not until they realized that the 18th.C. inventory they were going by(of the original shop) did not include a wooden lathe bolted to the wall. Then,I made a wooden treadle lathe for them. Early American Industries Assn. members complained that the gunsmiths were "working in medieval conditions",and THEY WERE!! The original master was way too conservative !!

Craftsmanship and tool prep can be two entirely different things,believe it or not.


The lion's head was hand carved with a few carving tools. The steel die was made entirely by hand with a few chisels made from old triangular files.The holes were hand punched and drilled. The guitar marquetry was sawn out with a wooden frame saw held in the hand. The lion head violin and guitar were made with the public about 4 feet away. I'll guarantee you that very small work is harder to do than large furniture,NOT by any means to demean the fine furniture you showed the link to. I mean here only to point out that it's not all tool prep that makes good work. I believe that paper money is still mostly hand engraved,but I think they use machines to do the borders.

Craftsmanship does not depend entirely upon the flatness of a plane.It is mostly can you design,can you saw exactly on the line,etc..

I really think that things like flat planes and sharpening stones are dwelt upon entirely too much on this forum. Those things are nice to talk about,but they just won't make you a great craftsman by themselves.

Well said, Mr. George.

It makes me wonder, though. . .if "perfect" and "flat" are so important, how did the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other ancient cultures make such beautiful and elaborate work?

[Adam Cruea]

I would be more concerned about using a screwdriver with the appropriate blade size and profile than about it's length. A foot long screwdriver will deliver no more torque than a 3" long screwdriver!

I will kindly disagree. A foot long screwdriver can have a 4" handle I can grasp with my ham hock and utilize. A 3" screwdriver does not. Hence, I can tighten better with a foot long screwdriver. :)

[paul cottingham]

Well said, Mr. George.

It makes me wonder, though. . .if "perfect" and "flat" are so important, how did the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other ancient cultures make such beautiful and elaborate work?
Most of their extant work is made of stone, but I still agree with your original point, I doubt their tools were as flat or sharp as we seem to think is essential.

[Adam Cruea]

Most of their extant work is made of stone, but I still agree with your original point, I doubt their tools were as flat or sharp as we seem to think is essential.

I was also thinking "perfect" as in "suitable for the job".

As far as I know, none of the ancient cultures had the hard tool steels we do today. I don't even think really good steel started showing up until Japanese Feudal times, which was used in swords (but I could well be wrong), so stones and soft metals/alloys were the tools to use on any medium.

[george wilson]

Adam,I don't understand your point. Where did I say that "perfect" or "flat" were essential to tools(or plane soles?)

It does not take a flat tool of any kind to make a flat stone. They were made by chipping away at stone surfaces with chisels,and rubbing with harder stones. The most amazing precision stone work is that found at very high altitudes in South America. Such high altitudes that it is hard to just get enough oxygen. It is felt that a man would dedicate his whole life to shaping a single stone. I don't(no one) knows how they really did the work they did on the very hard types of stone they used. The Egyptians made the pyramids from relatively soft limestone. Imagine using soft copper tools to do that,though!!

Then,in Jerusalem,there is a stone that weighs about 400 tons (IIRC) that was shaped and used in the wall of the temple. We don't really know how they moved those,either.

[Adam Cruea]

Adam,I don't understand your point. Where did I say that "perfect" or "flat" were essential to tools(or plane soles?)

It does not take a flat tool of any kind to make a flat stone. They were made by chipping away at stone surfaces with chisels,and rubbing with harder stones. The most amazing precision stone work is that found at very high altitudes in South America. Such high altitudes that it is hard to just get enough oxygen. It is felt that a man would dedicate his whole life to shaping a single stone. I don't(no one) knows how they really did the work they did on the very hard types of stone they used. The Egyptians made the pyramids from relatively soft limestone. Imagine using soft copper tools to do that,though!!

Then,in Jerusalem,there is a stone that weighs about 400 tons (IIRC) that was shaped and used in the wall of the temple. We don't really know how they moved those,either.

You never did. I was referencing those that flip out about things being dead flat in their shops, ie, flattening a brand new plane (or flattening a chisel, etc).

And yes, I've seen specials (Ancient Aliens?) about the stone slabs in South America. Some speculate that they actually melted the rock down and poured it to make the joints (doubt it). Others think it was aliens (maybe?). Personally, I just think people then didn't over think things and kept it simple. ie, for something perfectly vertical, use a weight on the end of rope. For a flat line, simply use a piece of string strung between two points and you'll have a reference for "flat".

[george wilson]

I don't think the stones have anything to do with aliens,but they do exist,and are quite remarkable,aren't they? There are remarkable ancient constructions in many places.

[Dale Cruea]

I have been reading most of this thread with little interest.
I think, "Good grief, If it works use it."
I bought a plane the the last half of the heel of the sole is .005" or more bowed up.
I would not use it because it was not "flat".
I started using it for roughing work.
It is one of the best best planes I have for getting a board flat.

To tune a plane.
Do what you need to do. After you have made a shaving or two.
Old planes and LV or LN, I hone the blade and use them.
I let the shaving, the feel of the plane and the finish on the board tell me if the plane is working to my specs.

Flat, square and parallel are things to strive for in woodworking and should be understood that is will never be reached.
Get it as close as you can with your skill level and move on.

Hope I did not upset anyone. It was just a video. If you don't agree fine. If you do, also fine.
My work and tools are not perfect.
I left perfect when I retired.
My hobby is for me and is fun.

My opinion only. Hope you all have a great day. Make shavings not war. :p

[Jim Koepke]

I think, "Good grief, If it works use it."

What a concept…

It seems many people likely get themselves into troublesome situations because instead of first trying out a new tool they want to take it apart and make it better. Do these same folks do this when they purchase a, washing machine, TV or a vehicle?

Usually at most for me is the blade is removed and sharpened before any other adjustments are made. Having done this a few times, it isn't a big deal for me to disassemble and reassemble a plane. For some, it is a new world.

Over the years my thoughts on recommending purchasing new versus used has been adjusted by adding a few caveats. If a person has some background working with mechanical things, tuning up a hand plane shouldn't be rocket science. If a person has to go to the hardware store to buy tools to work on a hand plane, then it is likely to be a difficult challenge to tune it up as the first mechanical project of one's life.

jtk

[David Weaver]

"bowed up" or convex is good. "bowed down" the same amount for anything but a rough plane is bad.

Part of the problem is most of the people talking and most of the people being catered to don't have enough experience to know what flaws are neutral or even positive and what flaws are negative, and it's not just a magnitude issue.

Most of the people reconditioning planes in volume don't have a clue, either, because either they've never designed a plane or they've never done any serious woodworking where they forgo sanding and machine planing.

The people who have no clue what they're doing are more willing to spend money than the people who do. That steers what's in print. I thought the magazines were interesting when I was a beginner. I haven't taken one in a long time, though, I think the business model is outdated and doesn't return the money for my dollar. For the same price as a subscription, I'd rather get a couple of used books or one new one, and have an extensive reference without router bit comparisons, chisel bashing tests and finger-joint how to.

[Jim Neeley]

I'm not sure how spending $425.00 make a product immune from deficiencies, in fact I'm certain that this is not the case. Has anyone here spent much more money than this on equipment only to find that manufacturing tolerances have not been held? There are threads all over the place that would indicate yes. Are there burrs running rampant on an LV plane? I don't know. What I do know is a bit about manufacturing and I know that CNC machined items come off the machine with burrs. In many cases burrs are removed manually. Manually, well there's room for error now.

I personally have returned two planes to a high end manufacturer and my friend has returned one to the same manufacturer - why? Because a casting was cracked, sides of a shooting plane were ground out of square in excess of 2 degrees and the bottom of a > $425 plane was anything but flat. (The manufacturer was beyond reproach in their response to our concerns in each instance!) Mistakes happen in production - period. If spending $425 makes you think that you're buying perfection then you certainly can save money on buying machinist quality measuring tools but it doesn't mean that the article holds the stated production tolerances.

We can all read these threads and think that we've "learned" something but really we all need to go back to our shops and put the time in to actually do what we are speaking of. Of course in many cases this means spending money as well as time. An opinion is just that, an opinion, but it really isn't that useful if it is not backed by hard earned knowledge.

I have no doubt that many woodworkers are very happy with their planes, chisels etc. right out of the box. I am sure that they get right down to doing some beautiful woodworking once the package arrives at their door and that's great. I personally have come to the place where out of the box is not the finish line, close but not quite there. To date I feel that my efforts out of the box have been worth the extra time and money spent.

Chris,

I *generally* agree with what I'm reading that you've written. I say it that way because we may well be in close agreement, syntax aside.

I'm a believer in "inspect what you expect", something I endeavor to practice yet sometimes get bit with. By this I agree that we should not ASS-U-ME that a single LV, L-N or other fine tool is "blemish or flaw-free". What I believe though is that they *should* be pretty darned close, but that we should confirm it meets our requirement prior to putting it to a crucial service, if not when first received.

What I haven't seen yet in the dozen or so LV or L-N planes I've purchased is one requiring any serious fettling. If I did, I'd be talking to Rob or Tom about it.

My point is these vendors have the quality in their products that places themselves head-and-shoulders above even some of their like-priced competitors.

In other words, I inspect prior to gathering up the fettling tools. :-):-)

Just my $0.02.. YMMV.

Jim in Alaska

[david charlesworth]

I am astonished no one has mentioned that Pat Megowan appears to be using the Charlesworth sharpening method !!

It is extremely odd that Tommy was working on what apeared to be a Quansheng or perhaps Woodriver plane. However much one wishes to dislike these, the surface grinding of sole and sides has been outstanding, on the ones I have seen. The soles are going to get much, much worse if abraded on 80 grit paper on the average bench surface.

Plane tuning fascinates me as my first Stanley UK planes, circa 1971, did not work at all well as they were so crooked and badly made. Todays high end planes are completely different and do not need messing with.

I have a three part article on plane tuning with the IBC Cosman blade sets, appearing in Furniture & Cabinetmaking issues 200, 201 and 202.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

[Matt McCormick]

I am astonished no one has mentioned that Pat Megowan appears to be using the Charlesworth sharpening method !!

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

Hey give us some time...... We complain about one thing at a time.... You are probably next David . :) :)

[david charlesworth]

Excellent !!

David

[eric mah]

My friend and I were discussing this thread. I told him that anyone who is purchasing a LV or LN plane would probably have a good idea of what they purchased and how to use it. He smiled, shook his head and reminded me about the LV and LN planes I had purchased from a trader type who had dabbled in woodworking for a time. Apparently he had adjusted and misadjusted the planes, but said he could never get a good cut with them. I took them to my friends shop to show off my new planes. We threw a piece of poplar in the vice and proceeded try out my new toys. Sure enough neither of us could get a shaving after adjusting the blade out. Took the blade off and noticed the breaker was set a 1/16" beyond the edge of the blade covering the edge. A quick readjustment and the plane worked fine. Sure we sharpened the blade anyway, but what a waste of a plane. Oh yeah, the LN dovetail saws supposedly needed to be resharpened too, but they cut thru oak pretty easily when we tried.

[Jim Koepke]

Oh yeah, the LN dovetail saws supposedly needed to be resharpened too, but they cut thru oak pretty easily when we tried.

Maybe he forgot to remove the tooth cover?

jtk

[Adam Cruea]

Maybe he forgot to remove the tooth cover?

jtk

No no. Upside down. :-P

[Jim Koepke]

No no. Upside down. :-P

Less likely to leave unsightly scratches that way.

jtk

[Ryan Baker]

Chris Schwarz has a nice video reply on the Lost Art Press blog (video's on Youtube).

[Charlie Stanford]

Chris Schwarz has a nice video reply on the Lost Art Press blog (video's on Youtube).

Here's what I don't care for about Chris Schwarz, he writes on his blog thusly:

"Whenever I set up a new plane, this [sic] are the exact steps I take to get it out of the box and planing wood. It’s a different approach than the one in the article and video. I think my method is valid, and I hope you will consider it."

Reasonable enough.

And then he undoes it completely by parenthetically adding the word "really," apparently for emphasis and effect, to the title of the video. The master has spoken I guess.

I'm more or less ambivalent to Tommy MacDonald. I did visit his website and viewed the pieces in his portfolio, a good exercise for anyone to undertake before they dismiss his approach entirely. He clearly knows what he's doing.

I've seen a lot of workbenches by Chris Schwarz. Where is his bombe' secretary, a Salem secretary, Federal breakfront, Hepplewhite sideboard? Maybe I missed these.

http://www.thomasjmacdonald.com/content/galleries/t-mac-furniture Take a thorough look!

When an individual skilled enough, disciplined enough, and organized enough to complete the pieces at the link above speaks I tend to listen to what they have to say or at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they know a little bit about woodworking and tools.

Otherwise, it is absurd on its face to assume (makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me") that everything from certain manufacturers, or any manufacturer, is perfect. If a guy who *clearly* qualifies as a master woodworker makes a little nip and tuck here and there then so be it. I'll certainly keep it all in the back of my mind.

And, for what it's worth, it took three right hand skew block planes from Lie-Nielsen before I got one that was "correct." And I still had to file burrs here and there. Really. The machining on one screw post was so bad you could see it with the naked eye and the depth adjustment nut seized in a turn and half both ways. It happens. They made it right, but stuff happens. I have an L-N scrubber and the cap screw is still balky. After seven years.

I honestly hope FW shows a little backbone and doesn't offer up an unnecessary apology. There are a few of us who are less 'star struck' with the tool companies. I was actually encouraged by the fact that FW wasn't performing the usual kowtow as has become commonplace from a lot of quarters.

[Sean Hughto]

I hear you, Charles, but see it a bit differently.

Successfully making pieces of furniture - at least furniture that looks competent in photos even ( I take you have not experienced Tomy's pieces in person) - is not necessarily an indication that the maker has mastered all aspects of tools and woodworking. The body of knowledge is just too large and the methods of getting to given ends just too diverse. In short, Tommy may be able to make a Secretary, but still not know what to do to fettle a high end modern plane.

Tommy strikes me as someone out to make himself into a woodworking personality and spokesperson - a new Norm or some such. He seems to be for sale. His video didn't come across as informed by experience and insight as much as having read other articles over the years about steps one might consider for fettling.


Chris' video on the other hand came across as practical and well informed by real world experience and actual results with the tool.

My own experience in the real world with planes tells me that Chris is right and that Tommy's advice is likely to cause amateurs to ruin some nice planes.

[Charlie Stanford]

I hear you, Charles, but see it a bit differently.

Successfully making pieces of furniture - at least furniture that looks competent in photos even ( I take you have not experienced Tomy's pieces in person) - is not necessarily an indication that the maker has mastered all aspects of tools and woodworking. The body of knowledge is just too large and the methods of getting to given ends just too diverse. In short, Tommy may be able to make a Secretary, but still not know what to do to fettle a high end modern plane.

Tommy strikes me as someone out to make himself into a woodworking personality and spokesperson - a new Norm or some such. He seems to be for sale. His video didn't come across as informed by experience and insight as much as having read other articles over the years about steps one might consider for fettling.


Chris' video on the other hand came across as practical and well informed by real world experience and actual results with the tool.

My own experience in the real world with planes tells me that Chris is right and that Tommy's advice is likely to cause amateurs to ruin some nice planes.

The man can apparently work wood. One doesn't knock out anything in the bombe' form without chops. He learned SOMETHING at North Bennet. And he did not get through that program without a pretty extensive exposure to hand tools I'm pretty sure.

I think he was told he could be the next Norm Abrams, he's actually probably a better furnituremaker than Norm ever was or could be, but somehow the production just doesn't "come off" like it should. A large part of the blame certainly falls on the production folks around him.

Tommy is trying to get a demographic of 50+ year olds to identify with him. That's tough, he doesn't look like us, well, maybe a much younger, fitter, muscular, and thicker-haired version of all of us. If that dude couldn't run all the serious leg in Boston then my name isn't Charles Stanford. Might as well face it. Those days are behind most of us. A lot of guys hated him by the time the first five words came out of his mouth.

Look, clueless beginners shouldn't try to fettle even an inexpensive Anant. No disagreement from me that somebody who doesn't know what they're doing shouldn't approach a Lie-Nielsen plane with 40 grit and an engineer's scraper in hand. I have a sense that something was left on the cutting room floor or out of the script. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. By my experience, though, I am certainly unwilling to just take as Gospel that anybody's handplane (except maybe a Holtey) will be perfect out of the box.

[Peter Hawser]

Here's what I don't care for about Chris Schwarz, he writes on his blog thusly:
"Whenever I set up a new plane, this are the exact steps I take to get it out of the box and planing wood. It’s a different approach than the one in the article and video. I think my method is valid, and I hope you will consider it."

Reasonable enough.

And then he undoes it completely by parenthetically adding the word "really," apparently for emphasis and effect, to the title of the video. The master has spoken I guess.


Very good point and I felt this way too. It was unnecessary.

I have been at a few LN tool events and there is no shortage of guys with too much money and way too little patience and experience, so much so that I feel like some kind of Yoda-esque guru of woodworking by comparison. Based on a few observations some of these guys think these tools should magically make furniture all by themselves and the LN people seem quite used to it with eye rolling visible across the room. Like spoiled college students who think daddy's big tuition check should buy them all A's, some of these customers think they are buying woodworking skills with a few fancy planes or saws. Some of these guys can't even make shavings let alone furniture and yet have this sanctimonious attitude, "No electrons shall be part of thine craft." Yes, it is a minority, but a small petty part of me would kind of like to see one of these guys ruin a new $350 plane with some 80 grit paper. Still, I doubt it will ever happen. The opposite, that each tool will magically impart craftsmanship with gossamer shavings, seems to be the predominate mindset.

[Peter Hawser]

Successfully making pieces of furniture - at least furniture that looks competent in photos even ( I take you have not experienced Tomy's pieces in person)

I don't understand this or wonder if there is some innuendo at play. Are you saying you have seen his work in person and that he is not competent? I'm curious to hear what you think if you have.

Of all the TV shows available now, it seems like Tommy Mac should be getting the least criticism! Maybe this forum is being a little hard on him because unlike Scott Phillips, he really should know better.

[Jim Koepke]

I have a SENSE that something was left on the cutting room floor or out of the script.

Maybe the part where the chip breaker screw is loosened and then tightened with the lever cap should have been left on the cutting room floor.

Many times someone has told me they knew what they were doing only to make a mess of a job. It is almost human nature to not admit to being unfamiliar with a task that needs doing. Probably guilty of it more than a few times myself.

jtk

[Sean Hughto]

No I have never seen it and didn't mean to imply anything. I was saying that pictures and in person are different (or at least often can be) .

[Charlie Stanford]

No I have never seen it and didn't mean to imply anything. I was saying that pictures and in person are different (or at least often can be) .

With all due respect, I think in this case that's a huge stretch.

Is there anything in particular that makes you think he COULDN'T do that sort of work? Did NBSS graduate a dud?

[Charlie Stanford]

Oh cripes I do this. I must have done it thousands of time and haven't left so much as a mark on a lever cap and if I did I'd just move down and use another part of the cap.

[Mel Fulks]

Charlie ,I don't don't know what the guy is capable of doing ,but tv always has producers and I doubt the show reflects how he actually works on his own time. I hope he does not think the best way to make 'sprung' glue joints is to use a power jointer and then tweak it with hand plane, but he does that on the show. That joint can be done with either tool,I don't see any good reason to reason to use both on the same boards. I think he is a smart guy, who's show I don't find helpful.

[Sean Hughto]

So you have never had the experience of taking a picture that obscures imperfections, or indeed, taking pictures that do not capture the qualities of the piece? If you trust the school, you don't even need the pictures I suppose.

[Sean Hughto]

Charles, everything else aside, who do you think handled the set-up more correctly? Tommy or Chris? If we just stick to the substance - whether the information is correct, the proxies - the indirect indicators of likely wisdom can be dispensed with.

[george wilson]

I agree with Sean that pictures are not the same thing as seeing the work in person. A picture of a large piece taken from 10 or more feet away(to get all of it into the picture) can leave out the fine details that make for superior workmanship. On the other hand,extreme closeups will show imperfections quite well.

I haven't seen this furniture in person,but I do know that pictures taken from several feet away just don't tell the whole story. If I have them,or can make them,I try to include some closeups with my own pictures. You really can't tell if inlay really fits properly from a few yards away,nor can you tell a lot of other details.

I have bought quite a few LN planes for use at work,and at home (not that I really needed them),and I have not found imperfections in them. The LV planes are also marvelously well machined and ground. Someone must be unlucky with buying tools.

The truth is,makers like LN and LV are now making some of the finest tools ever made,in the reasonably priced market that you can afford.

[David Weaver]

Tommy's endorsement is essentially for sale, his original podcast was made in hopes of getting a paying show. It looks like he does pretty nice work and he went through the NBSS, but most of his original podcasts had a lot of power tool and jig work in them.

His original show informed users with the hand tools he does use to buy cheap and make the tools into something you want, but he had gotten a few LN tools before WC picked up his show and I recall him saying several times "I hate to say it, but these are really nice and they work really really well".

I'd imagine FWW requested information and instead of saying "i'm not an expert in that" he filled the obligation to make an article/video.

That said, I don't put a whole lot in what CS says, either. He's a writer and a publisher, not a fine woodworker, and his advice is for beginners with an eye toward some social obligation to buy from current makers. He's had some comments that make no sense, (like ridiculous claims of LN tools being cheaper than vintage tools because it's too difficult to make old tools usable).

[Sean Richards]

Do people seriously pay much attention to these videos, magazines etc?

[David Weaver]

Beginners pay a lot of attention to them, and so do toolmakers and retailers, I'd bet.

I've seen some really ridiculous things lately, targeted at beginners. Yesterday, I was trying to find strop hardware (something that costs a dollar or two) for razor strops, and when I searched google, it gave me a match of a bench strop that was either ply or MDF and with a strip of leather, on a base that fits in a dog hole....$140. Really...$140 for a stone sized piece of leather on some wood contraption.

Who else could it be aimed at? I don't know if anyone has a blog post yet describing the virtues of $10 of leather and wood for $140, but when I subscribed to them, that's just the kind of junk that was peddled at beginners.

And though nobody likes to hear this, the goofy trade of high dollar marking knives and high dollar marking gauges is a product of a beginners market.

( I did ultimately find my strop hardware from an equine supply store for $1.22. I'm glad I didn't have to go through a woodworking boutique tool place to get it, it would've been unaffordable).

[Jason Coen]

And though nobody likes to hear this, the goofy trade of high dollar marking knives and high dollar marking gauges is a product of a beginners market.

What's "high dollar"? It will obviously vary from person to person, but I'm curious as to where you'd draw the line.

[David Weaver]

Personally, I'd say $30+ for a knife with a small scrap of steel in it and a brass ferrule is high dollar. It should be telling to woodworkers when they don't find a whole bunch of ornate vintage woodworking knives. They are something that can be made from shop scrap.

Someone did buy me a BS small knife once a while ago, it's nice, but I could've made something just as functional for free, and though I'm not a "craftsman", I do have enough scrap spring steel floating around to make a marking knife without using anything that would cost money.

Marking knives, boutique mallets, marking gauges, expensive non-guaranteed squares, expensive strops ....all of these things are inexpensive to make and aimed at beginners.

[Jason Coen]

Personally, I'd say $30+ for a knife with a small scrap of steel in it and a brass ferrule is high dollar. It should be telling to woodworkers when they don't find a whole bunch of ornate vintage woodworking knives. They are something that can be made from shop scrap.

Is that all these knives are, though? Does ornamentation or design play any part? What about convenience?

There are numerous things that I could make from shop scrap that I've gladly paid good money to purchase Instead of make for various reasons. Last year when i made my first set of moulding planes, for instance, I gladly bought the needeed floats instead of making them myself (which I could have easily done). i was interested in spending my free time making planes, not floats. I'm not sure that qualifies as "goofy".


Marking knives, boutique mallets, marking gauges, expensive non-guaranteed squares, expensive strops ....all of these things are inexpensive to make and aimed at beginners.

I hold my knife and gauge probably more than any other tool. Why shouldn't I trade money for time and skill and get the exact knife I want instead of learning how to turn and finish a small cylinder? I want to make furniture, not pen bodies. Same with the other stuff - if someone likes it, newbie or not, I'm not going begrudge them paying more money to acquire it than in my opinion is reasonable

[Charlie Stanford]

I agree with Sean that pictures are not the same thing as seeing the work in person. A picture of a large piece taken from 10 or more feet away(to get all of it into the picture) can leave out the fine details that make for superior workmanship. On the other hand,extreme closeups will show imperfections quite well.

I haven't seen this furniture in person,but I do know that pictures taken from several feet away just don't tell the whole story. If I have them,or can make them,I try to include some closeups with my own pictures. You really can't tell if inlay really fits properly from a few yards away,nor can you tell a lot of other details.

I have bought quite a few LN planes for use at work,and at home (not that I really needed them),and I have not found imperfections in them. The LV planes are also marvelously well machined and ground. Someone must be unlucky with buying tools.

The truth is,makers like LN and LV are now making some of the finest tools ever made,in the reasonably priced market that you can afford.

There are close-up photos of every piece on his website. At least close enough for me.

To believe his work is sub-standard one has to throw North Bennet under the bus. Maybe he's total fluff. Don't think so but who knows.. I do know the school is not.

Still looks pretty good to me. Maybe it's just smoke and mirrors:

http://www.thomasjmacdonald.com/content/galleries/t-mac-furniture/salem-secretary

Click on the thumbnails for a pleasant surpris at the link above.

More info:

http://www.thomasjmacdonald.com/tommypieces.php

He apparently built and sold the block-front secretary while a student at NBSS.

His website says the Hepplewhite sideboard sold for $50,000.

The bombe' secretary was apparently a copy of a piece at the RISD museum. His copy was put on display for six months next to the original at the RISD museum.

I think I'm going to go out to the shop and fettle the hell out of a Lie-Nielsen plane. :-)

[Charlie Stanford]

Sean, it's a reach at best.

Stop digging would be the best advice I can offer you at the moment.

[george wilson]

First of all,I DID NOT say his work was sub standard. All I said is that you need good very closeup pictures to evaluate work. In person is still best. I'm not familiar with his work anyway. I'll look at your pictures.

Personally,I find building furniture rather boring. I make instruments and tools and flintlock guns,cannon,and do replacement parts for mechanical antiques (that's where I actually can make money!)

I don't know why you are trying to throw LN under the bus. Have you bought 10 of them? I have,and no problem. I am not affiliated with them in any way. In fact,I had a problem with their customer service myself years ago. I can't go into it here.

Read into my posts what you will,o.k.? Now,feel free to ruin your LN plane,if it suits you,by all means.:)

[Sean Hughto]

I think my old friend Charles is berating me, George. Not you.

Charles, I see you find it easier to answer things I did not say than the things I did. This is all rather stupid anyway, so suit yourself.

I had some fun at the lathe today making some end table legs. What choo been makin?

[David Weaver]

Charles also believes that some premium tool makers have made an active effort to get him banned from forums. Temper comments with that.

[Charlie Stanford]

I think my old friend Charles is berating me, George. Not you.

Charles, I see you find it easier to answer things I did not say than the things I did. This is all rather stupid anyway, so suit yourself.

I had some fun at the lathe today making some end table legs. What choo been makin?

Shaker chairs.

[David Weaver]

Is that all these knives are, though? Does ornamentation or design play any part? What about convenience?

There are numerous things that I could make from shop scrap that I've gladly paid good money to purchase Instead of make for various reasons. Last year when i made my first set of moulding planes, for instance, I gladly bought the needeed floats instead of making them myself (which I could have easily done). i was interested in spending my free time making planes, not floats. I'm not sure that qualifies as "goofy".


I hold my knife and gauge probably more than any other tool. Why shouldn't I trade money for time and skill and get the exact knife I want instead of learning how to turn and finish a small cylinder? I want to make furniture, not pen bodies. Same with the other stuff - if someone likes it, newbie or not, I'm not going begrudge them paying more money to acquire it than in my opinion is reasonable

Floats aren't really a relevant comparison because they are much harder to make than a marking knife, and they go to a much narrower audience. I stand by my comments on the knives, they don't need to be small cylinders, you could shape anything with a shave or even sandpaper. Spring steel can be cut with a hacksaw and filed to shape.

As far as what people can buy, of course they can buy whatever they like. I bought a lot of things I learned to make, but at this point, I'm glad I didn't spend a lot of money on purchased marking knives.

[Charlie Stanford]

Huh? Who would that be?

[Charlie Stanford]

If the guy is bogus he's fooled the folks at NBSS, some apparently well-heeled clients, and the director of the Rhode Island School of Design Museum for a start.

I'm not throwing Lie Nielsen under the bus. Just dragging this poor chap, a brother woodworker (worth saving too), out from under the one you guys are trying to pitch him under.

[David Weaver]

huh? who?

LV, though IIRC the punishment following the crime being carried out by a forum moderator on behalf of..

I don't know what forum that would be, though, it doesn't appear to be SMC.

[Jason Coen]

Floats aren't really a relevant comparison because they are much harder to make than a marking knife, and they go to a much narrower audience. I stand by my comments on the knives, they don't need to be small cylinders, you could shape anything with a shave or even sandpaper. Spring steel can be cut with a hacksaw and filed to shape.

They're relevant insofar as that floats are much easier for ME to make than is my ideal marking knife (honestly, I couldn't have made the marking knife I wanted several years ago, as I was terrible on a lathe). And of course they don't need to be round, but that's what I greatly preferred and wanted. For years I used one of the small box cutters with the snap-off blades, and I'm quite certain that the furniture I make now isn't any better because I have a knife that looks better and feels better in my hand.

But if our return on investment is judged solely by measurable improvements in the finished product (let's assume furniture for the sake of discussion) versus dollars spent, would anyone ever buy natural waterstones or any sharpening stone that costs more than about $50? I've mentioned my Chosera 10k and how much I like it. I think I paid $270 or so for it, which is an obscene amount considering I can get the same edge (functionaly speaking) with a $40 oilstone and scrap leather. But I'd buy it again in a heartbeat simply because I enjoy using it. I could achieve the same result at a much lower cost, but I'm willing to pay more for something I like using and can't make myself (or can make but don't want to spend the time making).


As far as what people can buy, of course they can buy whatever they like. I bought a lot of things I learned to make, but at this point, I'm glad I didn't spend a lot of money on purchased marking knives.

And that's the whole point of all of this, isn't it? Shouldn't you enjoy your hobby? You're happy that you didn't spend a lot of money on marking knives, and I'm happy that I got the marking knife I wanted even though it cost more than $30. To you it's goofy that someone would pay more than $30 for a marking knife, to me it's goofy that people pay outrageous sums for natural waterstones.

To bring it back to fettling planes, isn't one of the selling points of a LN or a LV plane the fact that they're intended to be essentially a turn-key tool that doesn't require the various routines you might expect be needed when buying a vintage tool? Again, you're trading dollars for time spent tuning a plane to bring it to a working condition. If a new plane requires anything more than touching up the blade to my preferred state to get it running in top form, then that plane is going back. (Which has yet to happen with LN or LV.). And if I counted the hours I spent flattening and honing chisel backs as billable hours, I'm quite certain the LN chisels were a better value for me. We just had our second kid a couple months ago, and right mow I'm not willing to waste any shop time working on vintage tools (unless it's something unique or interesting to me).

[David Weaver]

Billable hours...not a relevant comparison. The market rate on mindless labor doesn't count as billable hours.

Anyway, LN can make something you can't easily make. And do it such that something is functionally superior.

The same is true of someone who can make a socket chisel and harden and temper it in a vacuum furnace.

The same isn't true with marking knives. It still goes back to my comment above, if a beginner needs to know (when they don't have enough experience to know) what items they will have to buy and what items they won't have to buy, they can look at the supply of vintage tools. If there aren't gobs of professionally made marking knives from the past, that's a good hint. If there aren't gobs of maple marking gauges, that's a good hint.

There are gobs of excellent vintage chisels, carving tools, and planes. While one can make a krenov plane fairly easily, executing any of the professionally made planes in a functional way and with similar construction is not easy. Making a decent marking knife or 10 and a mallet is, and quickly. Usually with stuff laying around the shop.

By the way, in no location is it easier to make a bed float or a side float and do a good clean job of it unless you have a mill and a setup to do it. Even then, you'll need to be able to heat treat it. I made a couple of edge floats but also paid for the side and bed floats. I could make 10 marking knives in the time it took to file the teeth into a bed float, and still the bed float wouldn't work nearly as well or have nearly as sharp of corners as the LN version.

[David Weaver]

>>natural stones<<

Pretty hard to make those, and they are definitely NOT aimed at beginners, either.

I'm not sure how they would come into a discussion that was about beginners and tools that a craftsman or even amateur woodworker should make. I can't remember ever seeing them recommended to or marketed to beginners, unlike the marking knives, mallets, etc...

[Josh Rudolph]

If the guy is bogus he's fooled the folks at NBSS, some apparently well-heeled clients, and the director of the Rhode Island School of Design Museum for a start.

I'm not throwing Lie Nielsen under the bus. Just dragging this poor chap, a brother woodworker (worth saving too), out from under the one you guys are trying to pitch him under.

Tommy is certainly not bogus. I have met and talked with him for quite some time a few years ago and have chatted via forums in the past. Some people have a hard time liking him due to his personality, fast talking, and hyper activity. It is who he is.
His work is among the best IMO. Having said that...whatever he puts out for any publisher, it is his reputation that he is sticking out there. Knowing how talented he is, i just cannot understand the article and video he put out with his endorsement. To me there are a few things that could have caused this...he is only focused on making a dollar, he doesn't have much of a clue on new premium tools, or he was getting told to be sure to include certain things in the article. Having met him....i whole heartedly believe he is not solely looking to make a buck. I do believe he loves the craft and is passionate about it. I do think he may be a little out of touch on premium tools as he used to use cheap tools to make them work the way he wanted them to, he then was using some LN as they were designed. Shortly after he got picked up for the show and has been using sponsor tools since. I also think he was asked to include certain things in the video and article with those things being best reserved for rehabbing an old plane and not a new premium plane.

So i think there are various reasons for the mis-information. Tommy is partly to blame, but i lay the largest blame on "fine" :rolleyes: woodworking. They frankly should know better....if they don't, it only shows the decline that everyone has been talking about for years.

I am willing to forgive and forget this one for Tommy as his work earns him that...at least from me.

I can't say the same for FWW.

[David Weaver]

Josh, I think you pretty much summed up my guesses in better detail. He probably had to do an article, and he probably had some outside input on what it should cover.

That's just life when you have obligations.

[Jason Coen]

Billable hours...not a relevant comparison. The market rate on mindless labor doesn't count as billable hours.

It's relevant when it's the opportunity cost of being in the shop. When I'm home and otherwise free, I can choose to work or choose to spend time making furniture, but not both. The market rate for mindless labor isn't a variable.


Anyway, LN can make something you can't easily make. And do it such that something is functionally superior.

A LN/LV plane is absolutely better than anything I could make, but it's also functionally superior to any other bench plane made previously. The materials are better and the tolerances are tighter, but how much does that matter when looking at a finished surface? How superior does it really need to be? A plane is just a jig for a chisel. Can someone tell the difference in a surface finished with a LN smoother versus a surface smoothed with an old coffin smoother or with a Krenov-style plane? I don't need my bronze LN No. 4 to get a great finished surface, but it sure is nice to use.


The same is true of someone who can make a socket chisel and harden and temper it in a vacuum furnace.

The same isn't true with marking knives. It still goes back to my comment above, if a beginner needs to know (when they don't have enough experience to know) what items they will have to buy and what items they won't have to buy, they can look at the supply of vintage tools. If there aren't gobs of professionally made marking knives from the past, that's a good hint. If there aren't gobs of maple marking gauges, that's a good hint.

This comes back to personal preference and need versus want, does it not? My box cutter knife makes a line indistinguishable from my new knife. The box cutter was completely functional and did everything I asked of it. I hated it. I tried to make one I liked. I failed repeatedly. Should I have kept taking time away from doing what I really like doing until I finally got it right? I didn't need to buy a knife to get one that worked, but I had to buy a knife to get what I wanted.


There are gobs of excellent vintage chisels, carving tools, and planes. While one can make a krenov plane fairly easily, executing any of the professionally made planes in a functional way and with similar construction is not easy. Making a decent marking knife or 10 and a mallet is, and quickly. Usually with stuff laying around the shop. .

Probably 60% of my tools were made before the Titanic sailed, so don't think I'm averse to buying old stuff - it's how I started, and if I still used the same tools my furniture would look no different than it does today. If you consider just planes, it's probably more like 80%. And while I agree that any woodworker could make a functional marking knife, I wanted one that I liked holding and that also looked interesting. That's quite a higher bar, and one I couldn't quite reach. Again, need versus want - I didn't need a new knife, but I wanted something I liked more than what I had.


By the way, in no location is it easier to make a bed float or a side float and do a good clean job of it unless you have a mill and a setup to do it. Even then, you'll need to be able to heat treat it. I made a couple of edge floats but also paid for the side and bed floats. I could make 10 marking knives in the time it took to file the teeth into a bed float, and still the bed float wouldn't work nearly as well or have nearly as sharp of corners as the LN version.

Agreed on the side and bed floats. When attempting to make a knife I went through several iterations, none of which I was content to keep using. They worked just fine, but just didn't look right or work in the way I wanted. I still use the first edge float I made, even though it's never been heat treated. It's not ideal, but it does what I need even though it's not as crisp as my LN floats, and the total time spent on it was less than my attempts at making the exact knife I wanted.

[Jason Coen]

>>natural stones<<

Pretty hard to make those, and they are definitely NOT aimed at beginners, either.

I'm not sure how they would come into a discussion that was about beginners and tools that a craftsman or even amateur woodworker should make. I can't remember ever seeing them recommended to or marketed to beginners, unlike the marking knives, mallets, etc...

More an example of diminishing returns. I think that made it in there in between diaper changes.

[John Coloccia]

Shoot, guys...this has nothing to do Tommy, his career, his skills, whether or not you like him, etc. I don't even know how we got into any of that. The only problem here is recommending to beginners that you take a new, perfectly good plane and start fettling it like it was some antique store find. As George has said, EVERY LN and LV plane I've ever owned or seen has been ready to go right out of the box, and if it wasn't I wouldn't start futzing around with it. I would return it. The WoodRiver planes I've seen are ready to go out of the box. The planes that AREN'T ready to go out of the box, like the Groz, take WAY more work than is actually shown.

He say's flat out, "I've had $5 planes and $500 dollar planes", and then proceeds to say that the flatness of the sole depends on when it was milled; if it was milled on a Friday afternoon, you'll have a lot of flattening to do. Who else makes $500 planes other than LN? Surely that's who he means, no? That's just utter and complete nonsense. Any LN that came anything but dead flat would be replaced on the spot with nothing more than one call to Maine, and to suggest you should start flattening it is absurd. A beginner will take a beautifully machined plane and will AT BEST end up with a plane that is no flatter than it was and full of 80 grit scratches.

Suggesting that a beginner take their new chip breaker to a stone is almost sure to lead to a worse result than the factory fit.

Woodworking is hard enough as it is. We don't need to make it MORE difficult. I don't know anything about Tommy...I don't watch TV, and I've never seen his show. I'm sure he's a fine guy. If you're going to put yourself out there as a guru and target beginners, you'd better get it right or you're going to lead these poor guys to disaster. Ask yourself this: would you take your new LN or LV hand plane, give it to a beginner and say, "Hey, would you do me a favor....toss some 80 grit on your bench and flatten this for me, OK?"

[Chris Griggs]

Shoot, guys...this has nothing to do Tommy, his career, his skills, whether or not you like him, etc. I don't even know how we got into any of that. The only problem here is recommending to beginners that you take a new, perfectly good plane and start fettling it like it was some antique store find. As George has said, EVERY LN and LV plane I've ever owned or seen has been ready to go right out of the box, and if it wasn't I wouldn't start futzing around with it. I would return it. The WoodRiver planes I've seen are ready to go out of the box. The planes that AREN'T ready to go out of the box, like the Groz, take WAY more work than is actually shown.

He say's flat out, "I've had $5 planes and $500 dollar planes", and then proceeds to say that the flatness of the sole depends on when it was milled; if it was milled on a Friday afternoon, you'll have a lot of flattening to do. Who else makes $500 planes other than LN? Surely that's who he means, no? That's just utter and complete nonsense. Any LN that came anything but dead flat would be replaced on the spot with nothing more than one call to Maine, and to suggest you should start flattening it is absurd. A beginner will take a beautifully machined plane and will AT BEST end up with a plane that is no flatter than it was and full of 80 grit scratches.

Suggesting that a beginner take their new chip breaker to a stone is almost sure to lead to a worse result than the factory fit.

Woodworking is hard enough as it is. We don't need to make it MORE difficult. I don't know anything about Tommy...I don't watch TV, and I've never seen his show. I'm sure he's a fine guy. If you're going to put yourself out there as a guru and target beginners, you'd better get it right or you're going to lead these poor guys to disaster. Ask yourself this: would you take your new LN or LV hand plane, give it to a beginner and say, "Hey, would you do me a favor....toss some 80 grit on your bench and flatten this for me, OK?"

Exactly! This has nothing to do with his skills as a craftsman. To me there is no doubt that he is a better woodworker than most of us ever will be. He's probably a nice guy to. That doesn't mean everything he does will be without fault. That video was flat out bad advice. Like others said he probably was asked to do it, there were probably a number of things they wanted him to cover, and FWW/Taunton probably wanted something to feature the WR planes in. The things he did in that video I would never do to a new LN, LV, Clifton or even a WR. Every one of those planes should and typically does come accurately machined out of the box - and if it isn't it should go straight back to the vendor.

[Charlie Stanford]

Exactly! This has nothing to do with his skills as a craftsman. To me there is no doubt that he is a better woodworker than most of us ever will be. He's probably a nice guy to. That doesn't mean everything he does will be without fault. That video was flat out bad advice. Like others said he probably was asked to do it, there were probably a number of things they wanted him to cover, and FWW/Taunton probably wanted something to feature the WR planes in. The things he did in that video I would never do to a new LN, LV, Clifton or even a WR. Every one of those planes should and typically does come accurately machined out of the box - and if it isn't it should go straight back to the vendor.

I think the video was unfortunate. I think the TV show is unfortunate. But obviously other people are involved with both besides the on-air personality.

I didn't know a whole lot about Tommy MacDonald until I read this thread and decided to see if he had a website.

If anything I've posted here has helped to clear any misconceptions about his chops as a furnituremaker then I'm glad of it. Seemed like he was getting railroaded on more than one front. Further reading on the website indicates he was injured working in construction on Boston's Big Dig project and was told heavy construction/manual labor was no longer an option for him, post surgery. So he went to NBSS and started a new career. Good on him. It also says he was born in 1966, so he's 46 years old or about to turn 46. He graduated from NBSS in 2002. He seems to have done pretty well for himself in the space of ten years.

I will say, somewhat as an aside, that I am very thankful that such a gifted artist and tool expert as Chris Schwarz is around, ever vigilant and on guard, to protect us from all the bad woodworking advice making the rounds.

[george wilson]

No matter what any of us say,Stanford will keep on insisting that we are denigrating Tommy. Reminds me of the song "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".Was that Dillon?

I have never used a marking knife myself. What is wrong with a plain old German bench knife,the one with a straight edged blade and a curved down to the tip blade. Beveled on both sides? Tip it a bit.

[Chris Griggs]

I think the video was unfortunate. I think the TV show is unfortunate. But obviously other people are involved with both besides the on-air personality....

.... He seems to have done pretty well for himself in the space of ten years.

.

Sounds like we are in agreement on this (though I can;t speak to the TV show, haven't seen it). I'm guessing most others here are agreement with these statements too.

[David Weaver]

This comes back to personal preference and need versus want, does it not? My box cutter knife makes a line indistinguishable from my new knife. The box cutter was completely functional and did everything I asked of it. I hated it. I tried to make one I liked. I failed repeatedly. Should I have kept taking time away from doing what I really like doing until I finally got it right? I didn't need to buy a knife to get one that worked, but I had to buy a knife to get what I wanted.


It's an oversimplification to say that, and a false dilemma with the knife. One of the favorite things for people to say in the shaving forums, and on this one, is "your mileage may vary". Sure, it might if everyone is floating around in varying levels of incompetence with a target on their back.

Nobody suggested a box cutter, that's the false dilemma. A useful knife with a pleasant profile is as far away as a scored, snapped and filed piece of saw plate (most people are going to run into a saw that's no good for them if they're at this long enough), some scrap wood and epoxy. Functionally the same, nobody will waste time babying it or searching for it, and the cost for the last knife I put together was zero.

It is (the high dollar marking knife) again a product of the gentleman woodworking market, a cheap to produce high dollar item sold to individuals who don't question too much. That does, however, make it an ideal product to hoof off to a woodworking show where you have to move your goods to the show and pay for space. Plus, there's a large supply of beginners at places like that.

I did, btw, make my edge floats (I couldn't see a reason not to), and when I made them I glued a temporary pine handle to a piece of O1 with epoxy. Did nothing else to affix it, it's still firmly in place, and the float sees much more pressure than a marking knife ever would.

And back to the billable rate, if I applied mine to woodworking, I'd never work in the shop at all. You're drawing an arbitrary line by even suggesting that we are saving money by making furniture, but you can certainly be better off by having a 10 minute marking knife and a high quality gouge than you can by having a high dollar marking knife.

George's comment sums it up well. I'll continue to wait for the flow of vintage professionally made simple marking tools to appear and take direction from the past. I might be a gentleman woodworker, but that doesn't mean that I strive to stay there with internet arguments and blogger promotions. The wiser road was paved long before.

[David Weaver]

There may be. It just goes to show, if there is something that is uniformly found to be ridiculous (the plane tuning video, the first one), then we'll just argue about something else in it's place.

[Jason Coen]

It's an oversimplification to say that, and a false dilemma with the knife. One of the favorite things for people to say in the shaving forums, and on this one, is "your mileage may vary". Sure, it might if everyone is floating around in varying levels of incompetence with a target on their back.

Nobody suggested a box cutter, that's the false dilemma. A useful knife with a pleasant profile is as far away as a scored, snapped and filed piece of saw plate (most people are going to run into a saw that's no good for them if they're at this long enough), some scrap wood and epoxy. Functionally the same, nobody will waste time babying it or searching for it, and the cost for the last knife I put together was zero.

That's great and all, but my mileage DOES vary. The box cutter isn't a false dilemma simply because that's what I used, and it worked fine. I never recommended it. I tried making a knife that I would be happy with. I looked at other manufactured knives. It's about more than simple function.


It is (the high dollar marking knife) again a product of the gentleman woodworking market, a cheap to produce high dollar item sold to individuals who don't question too much. That does, however, make it an ideal product to hoof off to a woodworking show where you have to move your goods to the show and pay for space. Plus, there's a large supply of beginners at places like that.

I agree with that. Humans have a tendency to like small shiny things that look nice and perform a mundane function. I'm surprised premium marking knives haven't appeared before now, honestly. It's a good thing the market for premium tools exists. Tommy Mac, Tom Lie-Nielsen, Rob Lee, and Chris Schwarz are glad this market exists, too. Without it we wouldn't be here discussing such an inane topic.


And back to the billable rate, if I applied mine to woodworking, I'd never work in the shop at all. You're drawing an arbitrary line by even suggesting that we are saving money by making furniture, but you can certainly be better off by having a 10 minute marking knife and a high quality gouge than you can by having a high dollar marking knife.

I've never suggested that anyone is saving money by making furniture. I've only said that my free time is worth something, both intrinsically and mentally. I'm not going to waste it doing something I simply don't enjoy (like making marking knives, prepping chisels, etc.). If I can either spend my limited free time doing something I enjoy because I traded one good for another or spend the same time engaging in an activity I dislike and making something that I'm not going to be happy with, I cannot fathom how one might consider buying that good to be foolish.


George's comment sums it up well. I'll continue to wait for the flow of vintage professionally made simple marking tools to appear and take direction from the past. I might be a gentleman woodworker, but that doesn't mean that I strive to stay there with internet arguments and blogger promotions. The wiser road was paved long before.

Again, it's about more than function. The knives I made scored wood exactly where I intended. They worked fine. The friends I gave them to still use them, and like them. I simply wanted something nicer than what I was able to produce. If it were not for the goofy high-dollar marking knives, I'd still be annoyed every time I picked up one of my failed attempts.

There's no "one true path" in woodworking. What makes one person happy in woodworking (or cooking, or fishing, etc.) isn't any more valid or right than that in which someone else finds pleasure. I am intensely interested in the way things were done before, but that doesn't mean I slavishly adhere to those ways and workings. Should I forego purchasing a knife I like that is priced above an arbitrary limit because previous master woodworkers made their own? Should Jim Bob not purchase a Mont Blanc because Macbeth was written with quill and ink?

People obviously like premium marking knives, just as they like premium infill planes and premium backsaws. In each instance, there are other tools that will do an equivalent job for far less money. Again, I have a hard time looking down on anyone that spends their money in a way that makes them happy.

[Jason Coen]

It just goes to show, if there is something that is uniformly found to be ridiculous (the plane tuning video, the first one), then we'll just argue about something else in it's place.

Welcome to the Internet. :D

[Jason Coen]

It is most likely that I am fed up with this whole silly discussion. If people don't read what has been written,what can you do with them. David,are there possibly any trolls at work here????:)

Honestly, it has gotten pretty trite. I guess I'm responsible for the majority of that, which was not my intention. Woodworking is a hobby that attracts people for various reasons. Some collect old tools, some collect new tools, some collect premium tools, and it seems there are even a few out there that actually make things. These different approaches aren't right or wrong or one more erudite than another. They're just what interests people. I'm OK with whatever the reason people choose to engage in the hobby

I'm glad there are people like George that have interests that vary from mine, as that is what leads to expanded knowledge and new ways of envisioning things. If we all liked the same thing we'd collect stamps. ;)

[David Weaver]

I shouldn't make it out like I don't have premium tools...

I took a lot of trolling from charles in my early days for describing how much i like premium tools, premium stones and hard irons and chisels.

The reality of it is, when charles will say things like premium irons and tools taking forever and a day to sharpen, it is an outdated and incomplete statement. I always could, and still can work more wood in less time with modern irons and two shapton stones, and I can still sharpen a modern iron with two shapton stones as fast as anyone can sharpen a vintage tool. The second stone more or less replaces the strop in a fast sharpening regime.

I forked out over $600 for this panel plane as a kit and had to do extensive additional work because the kit was defective (have a look at how much lever cap screw has to be extended to hold the iron in place). It is still, though, probably my favorite plane. You wax the sole, you push it forward. It will take a shaving half a thousandth thick, or it will take a full 2 1/2" width hundredth shaving and remove fore plane marks and leave a surface flat and ready for a single smoother pass. No scraping, no sanding. I would love to play devil's advocate and describe a plane that is as nice to use for $20, but there isn't one, and anyone who does side by side work with this plane and another and claims that this one will wear you out doing the same amount of woodworking just either hasn't ever found paraffin or has no clue how to use it (sure, it would wear you out if you bore down on it vertically instead of simply pushing it forward).

The simple fact that it will do any work in any direction without tearout means that you can plane a panel in an X pattern (so no need to check for wind), right against the grain in one direction so that you don't have to be able to go to the other side of the bench, and still only have a single smoother pass to get your wood to accurate thickness.

247555
I'm halfway inspired to go home to make the fastest marking knife I can make, but the list of the wife's demands is long. Maybe some other time.

[David Weaver]

. Again, I have a hard time looking down on anyone that spends their money in a way that makes them happy.

Me too, it's only when bloggers fling their preferences unnecessarily on beginners as a social obligation or a need that I'm rubbed the wrong way. It's easy to cite examples. A couple of years ago, there was a blog post for the new LN drawknives describing the preference to buy a new LN draw knife because it's too hard to find proper older drawknives. Which was news to me, because a hardly used $20-$30 drawknife is one of the easiest to find items. Inexpensive vintage carving tools....that's hard. The paraphrased response that I got when I called the LN drawknife a solution to a problem that doesn't exist was something along the lines of "selling tools is kind of the point, isn't it?"

I personally never got nutty about how much I spent on things until I had been well into woodworking. I was put off at first at the cost of a King stone, and a friend's suggestion that I buy a LN 60 1/2 seemed to me to be a ridiculous expense. It's since I learned more about woodworking that I have gone ape spending gobs of money on extravagant things. But I know better what I'm doing now and why. (the leather in that picture is genuine horween shell...I've been using inexpensive strops for my razor, same thing, I didn't want to spend any money until I knew what's what). I won't post a picture of the strop here because it's not hand tools, and I haven't finished with the brass work at the top, it's just roughed out there, but it gives me the same pleasure that the infills do - it is the finest leather I've ever seen, it is truly expensive with no cheap alternatives and the reason for that is in the trade work and execution.

[george wilson]

Jason,I have not regarded you as a troll. David,that is still a nice looking plane you've made.Maybe some day I'll get other obligations done with and get back into making some tools.

I have had a drawknife since about 1969 that I spent $1.00 for. It is a Keen Kutter. I have had a few other drawknives,like a nice vintage folding one I got with no rust at all on it. Nice and bright. I don't know why,but I just didn't somehow like the looks of it and sold it. Made a little teeny drawknife I've posted here,for making violin necks. Those are the only drawknives I have. That $1.00 Keen Kutter seems to never get dull.

[David Weaver]

George, that's nice to say. Fortunately, all of the big cuts were done on that plane. The sides were cut by (I can't remember the name of the kit company now, it's the one that went under). The bigger problems with the kit were just lack of attention details. I had to shim the infills with cocobolo veneer because the infill was a hair too small (which is a crime) and the handle didn't come remotely close to fitting in the mortise that had been machined. There's a piece of O1 steel peined into the top of the cap iron (I did that), because their pre-drilled holes for the cap iron were in the wrong place and the threads for the screw and the lever cap are sloppy. The adjuster is the double threaded fragile type.

I hear the earlier kits were better, but my kit was probably made when the company was on its death bed. I had fewer problems with the two infills I scratch built before it, exactly the opposite of what I expected to have in terms of the experience with making the plane.

But lucky for me, they had done the rough design work and faired the curves in it copying a classic design, so that I only had to file the pins and tails, bang it together, do some cleanup on the wood parts and bevel sides and fix the issues with it, etc. (oh...I shouldn't forget hand lapping 18 inches of gummy mild steel...holy cow.)

I am inspired enough by your planes and design work that I still want to make an all steel panel plane like the elephant plane with crisp clean lines on all of the woodwork and metal work. The one I have shown, for all of its faults, is a nice worker, but in excecution (like you say...up close and in person) it is not in a class with your work.

Still a very useful plane for someone like me who doesn't use a power planer or jointer very often. I am glad that I understood making planes from scratch before I took it on, otherwise, it would've been very easy to make a marginal plane out of it.

[george wilson]

Your plane still looks nice,BUT,if it has all those faults,it seems to verify that pictures often aren't enough!!!:):):) You do shape your handles well,and the bun too. That much you did do,regardless of the kit. Was it a Shepherd? I don't know any of these kits as I never built one.

[David Weaver]

It was a shepherd kit, and they did mill out those rough shapes with a milling machine. I wish I could take credit for being smart about the bun, but they had it pretty close in the kit. I just needed to clean up some roughness in the milling job and keep the shape.

It definitely confirms that work looks different up close sometimes than it does in pictures. I've had a lot of guitars where that's the case, and the top makers make a guitar that looks similar in pictures to any other guitars, but when you look at the finish work up close, and the binding and the inlay, they are in a different class.

I knew what you meant by your comment - and this plane is a perfect example of it.

[george wilson]

My advice to
charlie would be to stop buying LN and LV planes he doesn't like,and sell them on ebay unfetteled. Then,he can buy a plane from Newman which has been all set up.

[rob cosman]

This feels like approaching thin ice on the river hoping for a good skate but knowing the lurking dangers! Lots of ways to do this and I am offering mine for those looking for advice. I did this clip for Woodcraft a year ago, no monetary compensation. I was getting a lot of email and phone calls about the Woodriver planes and I needed a way to address the issue. I did this with a new plane that you will see me taking out of the box for the first time. No guarantee yours will be exactly like this but you have the option to return it if it isnt. I work for WC only when contracted, no compensation on WR plane sales though I sell them in Canada. I was hired almost 4 years ago to help WC with the development of the WR line of planes. I insisted they be built "ready-out-of-the-box", no flattening of the sole or squaring the sides. With the exception of sharpening and a few minor cosmetic details these should be ready to go. http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_edit?ns=1&video_id=MYM08CSopNA
cheers
Rob Cosman

[David Weaver]

Rob, I only get a blank screen and a google adsense / youtube partner prompt when looking at your link. You may have been viewing the link through your partner account. Presume this is the video you're referring to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYM08CSopNA

[george wilson]

If you are going to set the chip breaker 1/16" from the cutting edge,which he did,you may as well have a single(not double) iron in the plane. Also,I am careful to wipe off all residue of iron or diamonds that came loose from the diamond stone before going to the fine ceramic stone. Rob did not seem to do that. Otherwise,the Woodriver looked like a nicely made plane. I noted that the frog was precision ground,not just machined like the old ones(and some new ones). I have no problem with the frog being well machined and left that way,but the precision grinding certainly can do no harm.

There is no way to examine the quality of the steel in the blade,but it is a nice,thick blade,and cut a nice shaving in the video. I've examined those planes myself (though they were covered with oil,real close exam was difficult !) and they seemed nice to me.

I think I am spoiled by the PM blades that have come out at LV now.

Thanks for fixing that link,David. It didn't work for me either.

[Adam Cruea]

Yeesh. That video was choppy for me.

That said, that's the type of tuning I would think any plane that you don't find at the weekend DIY stores would need. Call me crazy, but I buy my tools to work wood, not to fettle with and do what should have been done at the factory/shop where they were built. :) Maybe once I get closer to retirement age I'll be more inclined to be okay with making brand new tools better. lol

I almost thought about buying a Woodriver plane the last time I perused a Woodcraft. It seemed like a solidly made plane that looked to be pretty good to go right out of the box. Now, since this was a demonstration I walked through, maybe they'd been tweaked before I got there, but either way, the plane I picked up were pretty nice.

On a completely different note, I can't believe what this thread diluted down toward. I have no clue where anyone said TM sucked as a woodworker. . .we just questioned why anyone (especially the novices that FWW seems to be geared toward) would fuss with a plane that much that was brand new, out of the box.

Can't we all just group hug and get along? :D

[Jason Coen]

I would love to play devil's advocate and describe a plane that is as nice to use for $20, but there isn't one, and anyone who does side by side work with this plane and another and claims that this one will wear you out doing the same amount of woodworking just either hasn't ever found paraffin or has no clue how to use it (sure, it would wear you out if you bore down on it vertically instead of simply pushing it forward).

The simple fact that it will do any work in any direction without tearout means that you can plane a panel in an X pattern (so no need to check for wind), right against the grain in one direction so that you don't have to be able to go to the other side of the bench, and still only have a single smoother pass to get your wood to accurate thickness.

247555
I'm halfway inspired to go home to make the fastest marking knife I can make, but the list of the wife's demands is long. Maybe some other time.

I'm quite envious of those that can do beautiful work like that in metal. For my moulding planes I rough cut the blade blanks with a hacksaw from a bar of O1 and then shape, profile, heat treat, sharpen, and hone. Nothing major, pretty simple to do, and I like doing it. At some point in the process I always imagine working on a beautiful infill like that, but I know that's far beyond my abilities at this point.

Having used several new infills (Konraud Sauer's K18 being my favorite), they certainly are an amazing experience. I agree that there's no way to replicate their exact performance. But (always a but...) is it the case that everyone needs an infill to produce beautiful work? Obviously not. A properly finished surface doesn't care how it got that way, does it? But that doesn't even matter - the fact that you enjoy using it is reason enough to own one, right? That was my point about the marking knife.

And I agree with you about newbies being pushed down a road towards premium tools before they have enough information to decide what is truly needed. My higher-priced tools came into my shop after more than 10 years of seriously making things, and I knew what I needed and didn't need and knew what I wanted out of each of those items. Blindly rushing out and buying the latest and greatest is not something I like to engage in, and it bothers me when I see others feel like they need some expensive trinket to do good work.

I did go back and read the drawknife post, and I can't say I necessarily disagree with anything he said. In fact, I have to say I agree with his last sentence 100%.

[Charlie Stanford]

Charlier, don't you think it is a bit silly that you would think a person with my ability doesn't bother to scratch below the surface? You still haven't understood what I wrote.

I beg your forgivness, sire.

[David Weaver]

On a completely different note, I can't believe what this thread diluted down toward. I have no clue where anyone said TM sucked as a woodworker. . .we just questioned why anyone (especially the novices that FWW seems to be geared toward) would fuss with a plane that much that was brand new, out of the box.



Yep, I don't think anyone said any such thing, it's the essence of trolling to create an argument where there wasn't one, or to shift the discussion by creating a strawman. I do think it's funny that anyone suggested that george didn't examine something thoroughly. I probably have talked to george more than most people on here, I haven't talked to anyone who has more thorough examination of just about anything related to craftsmanship....and clearly has strawman-proof work to back it up. I guess that strategy backfired!

[Dave Anderson NH]

This thread has been drifting into personalitites and has been skirting the edge of what is allowable. Let's get back on track folks so I don't have to do any editing and deleting.

[Peter Hawser]

While 80% of the people here know more about woodworking than I do, I want to share some "wisdom." We had a neighborhood web forum and things got heated over something that was kind of silly and petty. Many of us finally met in person (it does happen) and quite a few people who got along online and seemed to be "allies" ended up not liking each other at all. Meanwhile I met a guy I was arguing with online, with some borderline insults both ways, and instantly we become pretty good pals and sit on the train together almost every day. Something to think about.

[Charlie Stanford]

While 80% of the people here know more about woodworking than I do, I want to share some "wisdom." We had a neighborhood web forum and things got heated over something that was kind of silly and petty. Many of us finally met in person (it does happen) and quite a few people who got along online and seemed to be "allies" ended up not liking each other at all. Meanwhile I met a guy I was arguing with online, with some borderline insults both ways, and instantly we become pretty good pals and sit on the train together almost every day. Something to think about.

Good point.

I just noticed that Tommy MacDonald is on the cover of the December issue of Popular Woodworking (Chris Schwarz must be spinning on a Roubo somewhere). I wonder if they'll be flooded with subscription cancellation requests.

[george wilson]

At least I see that MacDonald has done a good body of artistic and complex woodworking. Good for Pop Woodworking,regardless of the plane fettling anomaly,with which most of us disagree.

My comments about photos not showing everything still stand. It has nothing to do with the attempt to say that I tried to denigrate his work. The picture of David's plane a few posts earlier prove it. He wrote down all that was wrong with his plane,but the pictures do not show shims,etc..

I have not seen Tommy jamming saws,whamming them into the floor,or clenching nails into little,noodley puddles,at least.

[Charlie Stanford]

At least I see that MacDonald has done a good body of artistic and complex woodworking. Good for Pop Woodworking,regardless of the plane fettling anomaly,with which most of us disagree.

My comments about photos not showing everything still stand. It has nothing to do with the attempt to say that I tried to denigrate his work. The picture of David's plane a few posts earlier prove it. He wrote down all that was wrong with his plane,but the pictures do not show shims,etc..

OK George. Photos don't show everything. Color us all shocked at the news. Thanks for informing we hoi polloi of this fact.

[george wilson]

Glad you finally understand my point. That is at least some progress.:) Should I post pictures of my large library of books about craftsmanship,woodworking,steel and iron making,chemistry,marquetry,engraving,and other such subjects to convince you that I READ?? I often spend 6 months researching before I make a complex project,such as a flintlock pistol,or an inlaid instrument to make sure that all the small nuances are proper. They didn't have vast yearly changes in design like we do today. Limits in available technology and communication caused slower change at the time,but it was still there in small details. It just took a bit longer in those days.

Is it conceivable that I could just pull out of thin air a complex project like the marquetry guitar,which has dozens of carefully researched details in the designs on it. Indeed,much more than "scratching the surface" was involved. The period,and the culture have to be researched to within about 10 years for the object to be correct.

I dare say,I often spend more time researching the proper construction and detailing of historic objects I make than the time I actually spend making them. If I don't get these things correct,I feel that I have made a piece of ill conceived nonsense rather than a correct object.

Spending 4 decades in a museum environment meant not only making period objects,but spending a great deal of time researching the work,and the methods by which to make them.

The 2 pistols reflect different periods in the 18th.C.. The closeup of the loch shows the highest development of the mechanism before percussion came in. It has the rain proof pan,the roller on the frizzen spring for quicker ignition,and the geometry of the battery to the hammer for most effective ignition. It is more severe than the other pistol,which is 50 years earlier. Even the angle of the grip changed about every 10 years. Every thing had to be researched and gotten correct. Those flowers are not just pretty flowers. They represent a style current in a certain time period. And,the small picture is really about life size for the steel die,as shown by the quarter. Hold a quarter up to the quarter on the screen. It was pressed with 22 kt. gold for a retirement present for a hard working secretary. Acanthus leaves form a wreath behind the flowers. This was done entirely by hand with files and engraving chisels(die sinking chisels) that I also made. The lion's head violin neck was also entirely done by hand in public,with a few simple tools. All these diverse objects are the result of a lot of research time.

[David Weaver]

Fortunately, if I put the plane in front of you, you might not see the shimmed veneers on the infill either. I was very careful to get a match and glue everything together laser tight with hide glue so that it couldn't be seen without looking for it.

Maybe I'll try to get a picture of it tonight. I've been reading on here long enough, though to know that with that much money tied up in the plane, I should make a good honest try at getting it to look decent, even if it does still have about a 16th inch of shimming between the two sides. My scratch made infill smoother was off about a thousandth or two before I put it in the plane, cleanly done and tight enough that I could use the plane without having pinned the infill into it permanently (which I did eventually). A person who only bought the kit and tried to force the use of the undersized infill blank would've met with disastrous results in the fit around the edges. Lucky it was dark wood, or it wouldn't have been as easy to hide.

But at that, with your eye if you'd have chanced to look directly down on it, you still might have noticed, and it is a good example of a plane that's near perfect in appearance from a distance, but up close there are things like (on the bottom) markings left from the bolts that held it on a peining block. Nothing severe or garish, just "there", and someone with some experience would immediately pick up what they were, and a professional maker would hopefully be horrified to have any such thing on their work.

[Charlie Stanford]

Glad you finally understand my point. That is at least some progress.:) Should I post pictures of my large library of books about craftsmanship,woodworking,steel and iron making,chemistry,marquetry,engraving,and other such subjects to convince you that I READ?? I often spend 6 months researching before I make a complex project,such as a flintlock pistol,or an inlaid instrument to make sure that all the small nuances are proper. They didn't have vast yearly changes in design like we do today. Limits in available technology and communication caused slower change at the time,but it was still there in small details. It just took a bit longer in those days.

Is it conceivable that I could just pull out of thin air a complex project like the marquetry guitar,which has dozens of carefully researched details in the designs on it. Indeed,much more than "scratching the surface" was involved. The period,and the culture have to be researched to within about 10 years for the object to be correct.

I dare say,I often spend more time researching the proper construction and detailing of historic objects I make than the time I actually spend making them. If I don't get these things correct,I feel that I have made a piece of ill conceived nonsense rather than a correct object.

Spending 4 decades in a museum environment meant not only making period objects,but spending a great deal of time researching the work,and the methods by which to make them.

The 2 pistols reflect different periods in the 18th.C.. The closeup of the loch shows the highest development of the mechanism before percussion came in. It has the rain proof pan,the roller on the frizzen spring for quicker ignition,and the geometry of the battery to the hammer for most effective ignition. It is more severe than the other pistol,which is 50 years earlier. Even the angle of the grip changed about every 10 years. Every thing had to be researched and gotten correct. Those flowers are not just pretty flowers. They represent a style current in a certain time period. And,the small picture is really about life size for the steel die,as shown by the quarter. Hold a quarter up to the quarter on the screen. It was pressed with 22 kt. gold for a retirement present for a hard working secretary. Acanthus leaves form a wreath behind the flowers. This was done entirely by hand with files and engraving chisels(die sinking chisels) that I also made. The lion's head violin neck was also entirely done by hand in public,with a few simple tools. Al these diverse objects are the result of a lot of research time.

I have no doubt that you are a thorough and very skilled craftsman.

[David Weaver]

This thread has been drifting into personalitites and has been skirting the edge of what is allowable. Let's get back on track folks so I don't have to do any editing and deleting.

Thanks for exercising exactly the right amount of moderation, Dave. Clearly this section of SMC is the best for it (are we biased?).

As you posted yesterday and I noticed it, I suddenly thought "hmm...i'm dead. I forgot the moderator makes marking knives!!!! albeit some very nice ones. I'm dead in the water, regardless".

[george wilson]

Thank you also from me,Dave. And I did not know you made marking knives either!

[Chris Griggs]

Thanks for exercising exactly the right amount of moderation, Dave. Clearly this section of SMC is the best for it (are we biased?).

As you posted yesterday and I noticed it, I suddenly thought "hmm...i'm dead. I forgot the moderator makes marking knives!!!! albeit some very nice ones. I'm dead in the water, regardless".

That's hilarious. Didn't even occur to me as the conversation was going on... Perhaps as an act of reconciliation you should by one of his marking knives....

[David Weaver]

I hate it when my yap costs me money!

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

I have one, they're very nice knives. . .

[Dave Anderson NH]

As a moderator I try very hard not to use my position to flog the rules or my products. I rarely comment at any level on members home made tools when I make and sell something similar. I can't expect people to respect either the rules or me if there is even the slightest hint of inpropriety on my part. Thanks for the kind comments though.

[george wilson]

A rather hill billish (made up word) (reminds me of some comedian who described the Clintons as "the Hillory Billory billies!") visitor came into the musical instrument maker's shop,and loudly called"Hey,boy,how much are 'em home made violins"? I replied "this is no home!!" I did not try to use words like "custom made" on him,but I also had invented a word "cussed and made" to suit recalcitrant instruments!! "Bespoke" was completely out of the question!!:)

Had I made an instrument for him,the label might have read "Fetched up" rather than "Fecit".:):):)