Economics of planemaking in the 19th century

[Kees Heiden]

In light of a recent thread that's better quietly left alone, I did some research to the economic side of wooden planemaking in the nineteenth century. Maybe one or two readers are interested, so I won't let my work go to waste and post it in this new thread.

Just like all manufactoring in the 19th century, planemaking went from small scale businesses, more or less on the master-apprentice basis, to large scale factories at the end of the century. More so in the USA with big brands like Sandusky and Union. Less so in Britain where small shops just grew a little larger, like the Marples shop with 10 benches in 1909. Sandusky had 36 benches, and a lot of specialised machines. Much of the work was done with special kinds of morticers. Fitting of wedge and blade was still handwork. The man who did this work fitted 200 planes a day, 3 minutes each! At the height of production Sandusky made 70000 planes a year. With 300 working days in a year, that means 7 planes a day per bench. (Data comes from Whelan: Making traditional wooden planes).

In the Netherlands the guild of planemakers dissapeared at the end of the 18th century. Small planemaking shops gradualy dissapeared too. First the company Peter Duesing took over. Later in the 19th century Nooitgedagt was the largest plane making company. Duesing started making planes in 1830. They had a 14 hp steam engine for cutting and sizing the wood, I don't know if they also had morticing machines. Overall it never was a huge factory. In 1894 there were 12 people, producing about 15000 planes. When you assume 10 people doing the actual planemaking ( the other two doing all the other jobs neccessary to run a business) that makes 5 planes being made per day per man. Nooitgedagt was a larger company. Started in 1865. 13 man and 3 children working for him in 1880. And in 1902 about 50 man. They didn't make planes only but also all kinds of other wooden carpentry tools. A seperate line where iceskates. Nooitgedagt had his own blacksmith shop to produce plane irons. (Data from v.d. Sterre, 4 centuries of planemaking in The Netherlands).

So, 5 to 7 planes a day. When you ever made planes yourself this sounds pretty remarkable! To get an insight in the workmanship and type of working environment of these specialists it's allways nice to watch the swiss video from the Raggenbass planemakers in Geneva.
http://www.rts.ch/archives/tv/culture/suisse-au-fil-du-temps/3464421-les-outils-de-bois.html

What kind of costs are we talking about? We can look at contemporary pricelists. The toolemera website has a nice selection. The oldest one is from Joseph Clark, Newcastle in England from 1816. A single iron smoother is 2 shilling, the double iron variation is 3 shilling. Converting to US dollars, that would be about $0.56 and $0.84. (I used a varied mix of conversion programs on the Internet, so it's probably not 100% accurate). A later catalog, the Arrowmammet Works in Midletown, Conn from 1858, also quotes the prices for plane irons. That's interesting because we now can make a guess about the costs of making a wooden plane.
A simple smoother with cast iron blade. Single iron, $0.45, double iron, $0.70.
When we look at the price of 2" irons, a pretty standard size for a smoother, we find:
Single irons, $2.- per dozen, makes 17 cents each. Double iron $4.125 per dozen, makes 34 cents each.
Interesting to see that a buyer payed a premium when he wanted a double iron plane. The double iron plane is 25 cents more expensive then the single iron plane, while the double iron itself is only 17 cents more. At that time the single iron plane was obviously regarded as an inferior product.
http://toolemera.com/Trade%20Catalogs/tradecatalog1800.html

When we want to know the labor costs of making a plane. We need to know how much a planemaker earned in these days. I googled a bit around to find wages in the 18th century and compared a few articles. A carpenter could expect to earn about $1.50 a day in 1816 and $1.70 in 1858 (http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2486.pdf table 2, page 462). When we assume such a carpenter, specialised in the planemaking trade, made 7 planes a day in the Arrowmammet Works in 1858, then this makes 24 cents per plane. The wholesale price for a sinle iron was 17 cents, but the works themselves made them somewhat cheaper of course. So how about 12 cent for the iron? Beech was cheap, but needed to be cut and sized. Then the other expenses like energy, rent, interest on loans etc. Another 5 cents? There wasn't really much room for profit.
24 + 12 + 5 = 41 cents for a single iron plane. Selling price only 45 cents.

While the buying power of our current money is usually a lot better then in the 19th century, this seems not to be the case with wooden planes. It is a bit of a niche market of course. The only suppliers of western wedged wooden planes, made in a factory and of reasonable quality nowadays is ECE in Germany (as far as I know). A double iron smoother is 70 euro (http://www.fine-tools.com/putzh.htm). A carpenter in Germany gets around 1500 euro a month, that is 75 euros a day. So, the plane costs almost a full daily wage now, verses only 1/2 in the 1800's.

I hope this was mildly interesting to everyone interested in the history of our tools. I would apreciate comments and corrections, because I am of course no historian, nor especially knowledgable in financial matters.

[george wilson]

Kees,an interesting read. What does Nooitgedagt mean,please?

[Will Boulware]

Mildly interesting? This was fascinating! Thanks for the insight!

[David Weaver]

There's a lot of documentation of the chapin company in one of Gary's (father's) printings, I just don't remember the details too well, except that the rate that makers made the planes was pretty alarming.

Water power was the mode there, IIRC, and there was some discussion in the beginning of the book about locating a supply of already dried timber before settling on a spot (so the drying, at least initially, was done by someone else and the maker was buying stock that was seasoned and ready).

You have a good supply of steamed and stable beech in europe, even if maybe it's not that easy to find in plane billet sizes. It can be a chore to find it here in any quantity, don't know if that would be different if there was a maker making 100 planes a day, but we regulate business out of existence here, so there won't be such a maker no matter what.

[Jason Coen]

There's a lot of documentation of the chapin company in one of Gary's (father's) printings, I just don't remember the details too well, except that the rate that makers made the planes was pretty alarming.

Kenneth Roberts was his father? Huh, I never made that connection.

That's Wooden Planes in 19th Century America: Volume II that details the Chapin factory. I've got Volume I here in front of me. I'll dig through it today if I get some time.

[David Weaver]

I think it's Gary's dad. There's a foreword in my book (or one of my books), but it's been a while since I read it and I was really reading through it looking for commentary to apply in making some planes. My books came as NOS copies from Gary when he found some boxes full of books.

[Kees Heiden]

Nooitgedagt is the name of the man. His name was Jaris Nooitgedagt. It means something like "Never thought of that" in English.

That book from Kenneth Roberts sounds very interesting. I'll try to find a copy (if you can still find it at a reasonable price).

Edit: Hmm, just googled. Looks a little dear....

[george wilson]

I have often wondered what the name meant!!

[David Weaver]

Edit: Hmm, just googled. Looks a little dear....

The NOS copies that Gary came across were about $25 at the time (or maybe it was $38 and another book was $25, whatever it was, it wasn't that much). I'd imagine that makes them now a good target to be one of those very expensive books on amazon where the secondary market price is nutty and the books never actually sell.

[Kees Heiden]

I saw a set from a British old tool dealer. 350 pounds! :eek:

[Joe Hillmann]

An interesting bit of history, but your conversions to days worked to buy a plane then and now don't seem vary accurate. Or, at least not apples to apples.

The planes from the 1800's were mass produced and used in every wood shop in the country with lots of competition of plane makers so they had to keep there prices low. The modern day one you are comparing them to are a top of the line eccentric tool that is bought by a very small percentage of woodworkers who care about more then the plane working, it is almost a piece of art as well. Also the modern plane maker has no or very little competition.

I don't really there is a modern day equivalent to the wood planes made in then 1800's. You could say they were mass produced to sell at a price everyone can afford, so they should be compared to a $24 Stanley you can buy at Home Depot. Or you could say they were the go to tool of production shops, so you should compare it to a modern electric planer or jointer.

Then there is also the fact that iron and for sure steal is much cheaper now then it was 200 years ago and the price also changed a lot with location. As an example a pair of cast iron scissors in the 1790's in Wisconsin would cost a company man (Fur trappers) about two days wages or a non company man 1- 1 1/2 days wages. You can now run to wallmart and buy the best pair of fabric shears for less then $30.

Although I do think that comparing what something cost to days working is the the best way to compare buying power, there are many other things to take into consideration as well.

[David Weaver]

I think the scissors comparison is different than planes. Good scissors are a bear to make by hand because of the way they have to close, they can't just be straight blades.

For consideration on expense, though look at files. Gary Roberts has a 1890 or so nicholson file catalog, and a mill bastard file in an appreciable size is almost a dollar. A day's wage back then was probably about 2 or 3 dollars.

The other thing that creeps into a days wage is productivity. You get a lot more goods for a day's wage in 2013 than you would've in 1900. Maybe not all are as well made as we'd like, but there are certainly things nobody could've dreamed of in 1900. A set of chisels that costs a day's wage now represents a larger slice of the entire economy.

[Joe Hillmann]

Dave,

You are probably right, the scissors may not be the best example but it is one that sticks in my mind from a 5th grade field trip to a voyageur reenactment. That was the example they used when they were saying how much a fur trapper was paid.

I also forgot to point out that crucibal steel wasn't "invented" in the west until the 1740's so steel for any fine cutting edge would have been much much more expensive then now. I realize that by 1800 60 years had passed so steel would have came down in price but still much more expensive than it is now. The blades were 1/3 the cost of the entire plane.

[Kees Heiden]

I think you and I are in agreement Joe. What I wanted to say is that good quality handplanes are relatively expensive today. The 24 dollar hardware store plane is not good quality. The ECE planes are decent stuff and probably some of the cheapest usable handplanes on the market. And they are made in a factory setting. Not handmade oneoffs. In Germany this is still a common plane (allthough they are seriously in decline).

It's very difficult to compare now and then. Overall we are about 7 to 9 times better of now when you look how much you can buy for your monthly wages.

[Kees Heiden]

There is one thing I forgot in my guestimates: taxes.
Taxes are a big deal nowadays in Europe. Adds considerably to the costs of everything. But I have no idea how it was in 19th century America.

[Andrae Covington]

Some more data points to throw in. (I also looked into this a couple years ago for my own interest, and settled on "percentage of daily carpenter wages" as the most reasonable estimation of "how expensive".)

First, up through at least the 1870's, farm and factory workers were often partially paid with room and board in addition to their cash wages. That complicates the comparison to today's wages, where food and housing are your own problem.

Second, longer hours. Data is sketchy before the late 1800's, but a general estimate is that American factory workers in 1830 worked about 70 hours per week. By 1890 this had dropped to about 60 hours. It did not drop to 40 hours until the 1930's. Saturdays were work days. Wooden Planes in 19th Century America, Volume II by Kenneth Roberts notes a broadside from the Collins Company in 1870 indicates workers were expected to work October through March from "sunrise" to "sunset" with a half-hour lunch. The rest of the year, they worked from 6:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. with an hour lunch.

Wooden Planes in 19th Century America, Volume II also provides some contract details, which gives an idea of what planemakers were being paid. A couple examples:


Hermon Chapin (who would go on to own a large planemaking operation) apprenticed in 1822 with D & M Copeland to be paid $50 the first year, $150 the second year, $175 the third, and $225 the fourth, plus board and washing.
1833, Henry Bailey to work on bench planes for three years, paid $175 the first year, $200 the second year, $225 the third year, plus board.
Chapin's Union Factory in 1837 was paying apprentices $20 to $65 (ranging in ages from 15 to 21) plus board and washing for 311 days of work each year.


In the 1830's, the Union Factory had 27 planemakers: 12 journeymen, 11 workmen, and 4 apprentices. In 1830 annual sales were $6353, in 1835 $10,754. Chapin was an early adopter of water-, then steam-powered machinery, which increased his production rates and efficiency. This was offset somewhat though by the increase in material costs over the years, especially the wood. By 1850, the Union Factory had annual sales of $30,000, consumed 10 tons / $800 of boxwood, $1500 of beech, $5300 of plane irons, 3 tons of sheet brass, and $4200 other materials.

Kenneth Roberts estimated, based on eight handwritten pages of 1858 cost data from Union Factory, that Chapin's workers were each producing 3 to 12 planes per day, at a cost of $0.50 to $0.10 each. Retail prices were $0.40 to $8.50, but that covers a staggering array of plane types beyond what is available today, and everything from very basic to fancy rosewood plow planes. Most bench planes sold for $1.00 to $1.50.


I think the comparison to today has to lie somewhere inbetween the available wooden planes and mass-produced powertools. Before the 1900's, everyone used hand tools for their trade, so demand was high and an entire production industry existed. Only a few weirdos like us use handtools on a regular basis now, it's a pretty small market. Today you can buy a cabinet saw with all the bells and whistles for the same cost or less than a wooden screw-arm plow plane. I have read one estimate of annual table saw sales (including the cheap benchtop saws) of 800,000. How many plow planes do you think are sold each year, even including the metal ones. Bench planes are a somewhat wider market, especially carpenters' block planes, so it's worthwhile for metal ones to be mass-produced in China et al. A bench plane from Harbor Freight is pretty cheap... By the late 1800's, the planemaking factories, using steam machinery automation and sometimes even prison labor, were churning out cheap planes that were just as low-quality as what HF sells today. If you could and would afford more, you could buy something better, just like today.

[Kees Heiden]

Thanks a lot for all the extra information. Very valuable.

And indeed, good quality handplanes are expensive now because it is a niche product and not much competition. Another factor, we have time and money available for a hobby. That's worth a lot for most of us. So we tend to spend more easilly on such products. For a carpenter a plane was a tool, important for his daily bread, but not so much an emotional purchase.

[Joe Hillmann]

Kees,

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, I found your original post very interesting.

[Kees Heiden]

Ah, that's a pitty, because disagreement is the root of all discussions. And discussions are fun. ;)

[Jeff Heath]

Thank you very much for reporting your findings. I find it astonishing that an average day was 5 to 7 planes. Yesterday, I put in a 6 hour day in my shop. Figure in the fact that I am still just recovering from major surgery 5 weeks ago, and am not at full pace yet. I completed 2 wooden jack planes, including the work required on the irons (Hock, so they take a while) and I got a jointer plane "roughed in". I don't know if I could ever make 5 to 7 planes in a day, from start to finish, and turn out a quality plane. Tuning the plane, at least for me, including fitting the mouth, wedge, etc.....takes longer than making the plane.

Really humbling to hear 5 to 7 planes a day........wow!

Jeff

[Larry Williams]

... That's interesting because we now can make a guess about the costs of making a wooden plane.
A simple smoother with cast iron blade. Single iron, $0.45, double iron, $0.70.
When we look at the price of 2" irons, a pretty standard size for a smoother, we find:
Single irons, $2.- per dozen, makes 17 cents each. Double iron $4.125 per dozen, makes 34 cents each.
Interesting to see that a buyer payed a premium when he wanted a double iron plane. The double iron plane is 25 cents more expensive then the single iron plane, while the double iron itself is only 17 cents more. At that time the single iron plane was obviously regarded as an inferior product....


You're basing that "inferior" comment on the price of one specific item? How about other offerings?

If you look at catalogs, you'll find the price of a supposedly "inferior" premium single plane was significantly higher than the price of double iron planes from the normal line of planes. If single iron planes were inferior, why were they offered in the premium lines?

Here are some scans of catalogs of Greenfield Tool Company, Ohio Tool Company catalog and Sandusky Tool Company. They all show the same thing--a premium single iron plane cost more than the normal double iron.

250815250816250817250818250819250820

[george wilson]

I have been awake since 4:30 A.M. due to back trouble. Maybe I'm not seeing something,but the double iron planes all seem to cost more. Do the single iron "premium"planes have a feature or 2 that the double iron ones do not have? Like "brass bolts"?

All the Sandusky double iron applewood planes cost more than the single iron ones.

Why are single iron planes offered in the premium lines? Maybe some workers found them quicker to sharpen and use. We don't know what type work every workman was using them for. Maybe some wanted a premium plane body but still wanted to save a few cents on a single iron plane.

All this info is too hard to deal with tonight. I'll study it more tomorrow.

[Larry Williams]

You also had an issue with my statement that double iron planes were a cost saving move for plane makers as the supply went from being locally produced to fitting into a modern retail system where planes were made in a factory. Keep in mind that each size and type of plane had to be offered in four different pitch versions for traditional cutting geometry but only one for double iron planes.

Let me give a contemporary example of this that most of use and are or will be dealing with. Just a year or two ago I could go into any clothing retailer and by underwear based on my waist size. Getting a good fit was easy. There was a cost to the supply chain to offer such a wide selection. The industry decided to switch to a heaver, more resilient fabric that offered some stretch but reduced the size offering to four sizes -- small, medium, large and extra large. They didn't have a problem raising the price to cover the heavier material. Now the manufacturer only has to produce, package, label, and carry an inventory of just four sizes. The wholesale distributor only has to stock and ship four sizes. The retailer also has to only stock and display four sizes. There's a big savings in inventory control and warehousing costs for the whole supply chain.

Are they better? Well, I recently bought a couple 3-packs of the size suggested on the package. At first everything was okay but a few trips through the laundry later the resilience and stretch in the fabric went away and they were too big. So, thinking I should have gotten the next size down, I bought a 3-pack of the next smaller size. I quickly discovered the waist band is still made of the same elastic and these were too small. Okay, time to switch brands. I talked to a salesperson who seemed knowledgeable and bought a 3-pack of another brand. These also didn't fit. I went on line and started reading reviews to find something that might fit. I found I'm far from the only one dealing with this. I did manage to find a brand and size that fits but the rag bag has more new underwear than I do. Is the heavier fabric better? So far it seems okay but the test will be the Summer when it's hot and I'm sweating. I'm a little skeptical I'll be as comfortable as I used to be.

The savings of reducing production and inventory costs plus the extra profit of selling more expensive fabric worked out fine for the supply chain. I don't feel it's given me a better product.

[george wilson]

Larry,do you make your own irons? Is the reason you offer single iron planes because you can't find anyone to make double iron plane irons economically,and therefore feel you must push the value of the single iron system? We made single iron planes for the Historic Area because the boss wanted them. When I make my own planes,I make either single or double irons. The double iron blades are MORE WORK to make. More than twice the work,actually,as the iron has to be slotted,and the cap iron bent,and a nut made(or else the whole cap iron forged down thinner around the nut,and the whole thing finished smooth,at least in 19th.C. versions. It cannot be denied.

I'm having trouble stretching your underwear situation to fit plane making.:):):) Are you wearing the too large shorts right now? It makes it easier for the shorts to get into a wad when they are too large.:):):)

I'll warrant that the great majority of planes were used in house construction, and trim work,where only soft woods were used for everything except parts like stair railings and special hard wood paneling. Such paneling usually does not employ figured woods,from old but elegant houses I have seen. A single iron plane would not be dealing with difficult or highly figure woods in those circumstances,and would be quicker to sharpen,get back to work (likely they were paid by piece work), and cheaper to buy. How many cabinet shops do you think were out there,making fine furniture from highly figured hard woods,compared to house carpentry workmen? How many of them could afford new underwear,or were they wearing pot luck hand me downs?:)(O.K.,I made up that last part.) Actually,from my much earlier days,I think they were wearing long Johns.

[Kees Heiden]

Thanks a lot for the wonderfull catalog scans. Are these a little later? The earlier catalogs didn't contain pictures.

I was a little quick with my suggestion about the value of single iron planes to the woodworkers of old. Of course, it IS suggestive that the double iron planes cost more then the single iron plane + the extra value of the double iron blade. But there is no denying that single iron planes where in demand. They where offered all the time, next to the double iron ones. No idea why. Maybe indeed because the blade is quicker to cycle when sharpening?

What you never find in these catalogs are planes with steeper pitch (never is big word of course). In Germany it is normal that the most premium smoother is a 49 degree plane, instead of the others with 45 degrees. These smoothers do have a double iron though, and usually an adjustable mouth. But In England and America they seem to be much more rare. They do exist, like the little plane from Bob from Logan cabinet shop: http://logancabinetshoppe.com/blog/2010/10/le-petit-rabot/

From Andrea's data I understand that my estimate of the labor costs in planemaking where too high. The use of aprentices must have been a clever move to keep the costs down. The wood itself was a bit more expensive then I thought. In the later catalogs from Larry it is remarkable that the price difference between a single and double iron is less then in the earlier parts of the century. I could imagine that is because making a chipbreaker is something that can be automated rather nicely. To make a laminated plane iron you still need knowledgable blacksmiths. Allthough there were some really smart roller machines helping out in shaping the hot metal.

About the inventory costs and the never ending spiral down to cheaper and lesser. I hear you Larry. But in the catalogs from the 19th century I still see a bewildering assortment of planes. Different kinds of irons, beech or apple, several levels of trim, double or single iron. I don't see anyone making an effort to save on inventory costs.

[Kees Heiden]

I had a closer look at the difference in price between single and double iron planes of the same quality in the catalogs from Greenfield, Ohio and Sandusky.

When you look at the cheeper end, the simple beech planes, you'll see the price difference between single and double is still 1/3 to 1/2 of the price. In the more upmarket planes, the absolute difference is still around 30 cents for a smoother, but here the major part of the price is because more expensive kinds of wood or a more elaborate finish is used. So that's what threw my bearings off.

In the normal beech planes, the iron is still a substantial part of the price of a plane. Labor costs is less important because of the use of cheap labor.

[David Weaver]

Larry, are the new underwear burnishing your valuables?

[Kees Heiden]

Let's try to stay civil in this thread.

[george wilson]

Are your shorts at standard or York pitch?:)

[Kees Heiden]

Mine came from the black market in Hanoi. They are REAL Bjorn Borgs. At least, that's what the guy said to me.

[george wilson]

This thread has gotten bizarre,starting with post #23.:) I think I am not getting enough sleep,because I still can't make much sense of the analogies in post #23.

Speaking of manufacturing speeding up in the 19th.C.,even during the Civil War period,musket barrels were very quickly welded up from flat "skelps". Formerly like in the Gunsmith's Shop in Wmsbg.,the kelps of wrought iron were hand hammered in short steps around a tapered mandrel. About 2" was welded up. Then the mandrel was knocked out,the next section was hammered together,mandrel re inserted,and 2 more inches welded,etc. By the mid 1800's,flat skelps were run back and forth at high heat through powered rollers with progressively tighter "U" shapes cut into them. When the skelp turned into a tube that was very nearly shut,the whole tube was brought to welding heat(with flux added),and run through the final roller which brought the tube forcefully together,welding it.

I'm not sure how these developments affected making plane irons,but the Butcher planes I have had were forged to a thick,square,integral "nut"in the center of the cap iron. This might have been done in a forging die,but the cap irons were always subsequently filed or otherwise brought to a bright,and pretty well finished state. In any case,it still cost more in time and material costs to make this cap iron and the screw,and to slot the plane iron itself. Many other cap irons have the peened in brass,threaded insert added separately,as well as some separately added steel ones,though I far more commonly see the brass ones (lower friction). This eliminated the cost of the forging die,I suppose,and likely made polishing the cap iron bright faster,since it was a flattish surface before the nut was installed.

[george wilson]

I think the high cost of wood back then had largely to do with how far they had to HAUL it. Around here in the 18th.C.,trees were pretty limited because everyone needed them for firewood and for charcoal. Trees for miles around here were cut down. There are said to be more deer around here than there were in the 18th.C.. I believe it,if they had no forest.

Hauling lumber back then was slow,hard on horses and wagons(no ball bearings,wheels had to be rebuilt frequently),and time consuming. If possible,water was used to transport it. It was still a long,slow process.

The wood had to be sawn up,too. That meant more labor until later on when saw mills began to be used. The English were very slow to adopt them because the workers vigorously protected their work. Sawmills were erected in Swtizerland hundreds of years before the English would allow them. Workers would riot and burn down equipment they felt was taking away their lively hoods.

Needle grinders were paid extra,because they died younger because of "pointer's rot",from inhaling dust. When a scientist affixed lodestones to a grinder as a cure,they rejected the idea. They wanted the extra pay for hazardous work.

[Michael Ray Smith]

Thanks for sharing, George. Fascinating! I appreciate every opportunity to be educated by the masters!

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

That's always what I've heard about the forests here in Vermont too - that we've actually got more trees now than we have had any time since colonization. I remember like 5 years ago hearing the forest coverage in the state actually declined for the first time ever since the peak of mid-1800's land-clearing. About the only really old-growth trees we have are the occasional "wolf tree"

[george wilson]

Seems amazing,but when you consider that earlier people depended upon wood for heating,most houses,especially charcoal for forges,and all the other uses they had for wood,it isn't so surprising. Even during the Civil War period,charcoal burners (makers) used up a great deal of timber.

Today we have nice shade trees lining the streets of Williamsburg. Back then,they did not allow these trees in town. They wanted the town to look like a CITY,not an outpost. The place looked a lot different back then.

There was a huge garbage pile at the front end of what is now the Palace Green,next to the Geddy house. People for some stupid reason threw their trash into the stream that goes across the town. It has proven to be a rich source of artifacts. Lots of tools,bits and pieces of furniture,and other things have been taken out of the stream,just past the cabinet shop,which it runs under. People also filled up old wells with garbage. It's a wonder that disease didn't kill everyone off. Why were people so stupid as to mess up their water supplies? There were outhouses everywhere,and lots of flies and mosquitos. People up in New England lived longer-cooler climate,less bugs. The main street was said to be 40 feet wide and 2 feet deep with horse and animal leavings. Hogs,chickens and pigs wandered all over town. Those pretty little fences were there because it was considered YOUR duty to keep animals off your property. Exactly the opposite,now!!

A dead horse was excavated just outside the cabinet shop. It had been shot,apparently from the rear during the Civil War,fell down the little hill,and was just allowed to stay there!! A deer was killed next to the highway in front of my house,a few hundred feet away from the house. I had to argue with the highway people that it was on their right of way. It took 4 days to get them here,and I can tell you,in that short time,the smell was getting REALLY ALARMING. Imagine a horse just outside your shop,and you working in there with the windows open in the Summer.

Even in the very early days,wood was exported back to England. There is a large Elizabethan building in London that is fitted out with cedar from America. They needed ballast after unloading cargo,and trees were available in the early settlement times. Walter Raleigh commented on the "Sweet timber"(the cedars) he saw in North Carolina.

All this is from things I learned 40 years ago,so I hope it is mostly still accurate!!

This is getting away from plane making,but it points out that wood had to be hauled a long way,at least.

[Adam Cherubini]

The John Head account book from early 18th c Philadelphia indicates Head paid to have timber hauled to the sawyers, and boards brought back to Head in Philadelphia. I suspect this was done via the Delaware. Don't recall the exact cost, but it was not too terribly considerable. The price/cost of lumber (at least in the Head account) was the cost of sawing.

[george wilson]

True,Adam,sawing was done by hand. But,you still had to pay those men who spent their time,wagons,horses and ships hauling timber. Everything cost more back then,in relative terms.

When men went into jungles with oxen to get mahogany,I've read that they might lose 50% of their number to malaria and other causes(It HAS been a long time since I studied these things). Then they spent a lot more time sailing slowly and rather perilously to the customers.

Probably the cost of hauling depended upon where you were,and how much timber was being hauled there. Philly was a large center. The English regarded American sawn wood as inferior since it wasn't as skillfully sawn. Likely made a big difference when you had to hand plane it to accuracy.

Like I said,it has been many years since I studied some of these things,and my memory isn't always the best at 73,about things that don't directly involve making things. Making things is much more deeply ingrained in my head because I still do that.

[Larry Williams]

Larry,do you make your own irons? Is the reason you offer single iron planes because you can't find anyone to make double iron plane irons economically,and therefore feel you must push the value of the single iron system? ...

That's pretty insulting. I assure you we have the tools and skills to make double irons if we want. We don't care to go that way.

The supply chain costs are a lot more relevant than labor costs per plane by early makers. Today's makers have a very different market. Most wooden planes of the past were sold unsharpened and with no finish on the wood. That wouldn't fly today. The finish has to be near perfect and the planes have to be finely tuned. Anyone who's actually fine tuned a wooden plane knows it can't be done without a sharp iron.

[Larry Williams]

Thanks a lot for the wonderfull catalog scans. Are these a little later? The earlier catalogs didn't contain pictures....About the inventory costs and the never ending spiral down to cheaper and lesser. I hear you Larry. But in the catalogs from the 19th century I still see a bewildering assortment of planes. Different kinds of irons, beech or apple, several levels of trim, double or single iron. I don't see anyone making an effort to save on inventory costs.

The Greenfield catalog is from 1872, the Ohio Tool catalog is from 1910 and the Sandusky catalog from 1925. The Greenfield is interesting because it dates from near the competitive peak of the larger American wooden plane makers. The Sandusky catalog seems to be the last catalog from the last of the American makers. Greenfield seems to have been competing by offering variety while some makers were going for cheap prison labor.

If you doubt the effectiveness of steeper pitches all you have to do is look at the recent market for low angle bevel-up planes. Even with their significant clearance angle issues they've done very well. It's surprising to me how few people seem to understand clearance angles, what’s going on in the wood during the cut, and why it’s important to understand it all. The reality is that there’s no artifactual or textual evidence the blunting of cap irons and the extremely close setting was ever trade practice in Anglo/American woodworking. It wasn’t lost, it wasn’t done.

[David Weaver]

Larry, have you not been reading anything in the last year? I can't speak to the preparation of the cap iron as trade practice, but there are plenty of text examples describing the use of the second iron for controlling tearout. How do you think they did it, do you think they set the cap iron far away? if the effective angle of the cap iron was 40 or 45 degrees stock, it still would've buried a single iron plane with pitch anywhere close, and in the hands of a skilled user it will bury a plane with a 55 degree iron when set at common pitch. And just like a current inexpensive bench plane, it works well on everything, from soft woods to tropicals.

The simple fact is that double iron planes took over, and it wasn't a blunder or some misstep that they did. It is because in function they are superior to any single iron plane, and in the case of a user who wants to learn to use them correctly, superior to any pair of single iron planes.

[Adam Cherubini]

George, you've forgotten more about woodworking and craftsmanship than I'll ever know. You make more stuff and nicer stuff at 73 than I do at 49.

Adam

[Charlie Stanford]

The Greenfield catalog is from 1872, the Ohio Tool catalog is from 1910 and the Sandusky catalog from 1925. The Greenfield is interesting because it dates from near the competitive peak of the larger American wooden plane makers. The Sandusky catalog seems to be the last catalog from the last of the American makers. Greenfield seems to have been competing by offering variety while some makers were going for cheap prison labor.

If you doubt the effectiveness of steeper pitches all you have to do is look at the recent market for low angle bevel-up planes. Even with their significant clearance angle issues they've done very well. It's surprising to me how few people seem to understand clearance angles, what’s going on in the wood during the cut, and why it’s important to understand it all. The reality is that there’s no artifactual or textual evidence the blunting of cap irons and the extremely close setting was ever trade practice in Anglo/American woodworking. It wasn’t lost, it wasn’t done.

Every woodworking book I own written by a Brit from the late 1800s through the Alan Peters edited edition of Joyce's Encyclopedia from the late 1980s mentions extremely close cap iron settings to control tearout. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

[Charlie Stanford]

George, you've forgotten more about woodworking and craftsmanship than I'll ever know. You make more stuff and nicer stuff at 73 than I do at 49.

Adam

Hear, Hear. Based on the photos I've seen George produced world-class wooden planes and their irons all in a day's work. In between building musical instruments. For $hits and giggles.

[Kees Heiden]

I think nobody doubts the usefullness of steeper pitches. In molding planes the middle and half pitch are as relevant as ever! When we translate all this to today, a lot of people choosed to dump their trusty Stanley #4 in dispair and bought a bevel up plane instead. It's a godsend for these people that they can now easilly learn how to use their double iron plane to its fullest potential. Saves a bunch of cash beter used for buying wood, or tools you really need.

About knowing how to use the double iron, there are plenty of accounts from the 19th and 20th century about how to use it. When you don't find info about the obtused front end of the chipbreaker, it's possibly because in daily practice it seems not to be so neccessary. The standard Stanley chipbreaker works well enough.

The oldest account we could find is in Salivet. http://books.google.nl/books?id=Ksk9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA349&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
A crude translatoin in English:

When walnut is reversed as the workers say, or wavy, it must be worked with a toothing plane, an end plane, or a plane with two irons. The toothing plane is something other than an ordinary plane, in which there is an iron, the back of which has an infinite number of grooves. It sharpens like any other iron, and it produces small curly shavings. This method is excellent for all cases where you want to glue or map onto strong wood, thin pieces of precious wood. The end plane is a tool with an iron inclined to less than the ordinary inclination of forty five degrees. Finally, the plane with two irons, the invention of which is not very old, that it appears we owe to the Germans, is something other than a tool, in which is placed two irons, lying back to back, the one as the other with opposing bevels. But then the iron is inclined in the usual manner. The iron below being very inclined, consuming wood as in all common bench planes; but as in this case it throws many chips from the shaving location of the mouth, following this inclination. The bevel of the top iron, turns up the field of the shaving, and forces it to leave the inclination that it began. But it is not that the two bevels merge into a straight line; the lower must extend a little more, & the less it exceeds the second, the less it will make chips. To the point where you are able to plane the united oak branches, the same almost still green, and this is the highest test, since there is no work as difficult to plane as log timber. We hope that our readers will forgive us this discretion which is no more appropriate with walnut than any other wood.


Salivet also has a picture of a chipbreaker with a very obtuse frontend.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=hhY1AAAAQAAJ&pg=PT30&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
But of course, he is just a Frenchman :)

I showed you the picture of the blunt chipbreaker in the german text from 1934:
http://www.holzwerken.de/werkzeug/hobel.phtml

The japanes seem to have accepted the chipbreaker reluctantly. It doesn't realy fit in with their ideal of a perfect plane, and it is a western invention, making it even more suspect. But they did find it just too damned usefull to let it go. Chris Hall describes in his blog how the chipbreaker is being obtused. In the comments section you find a discussion about the exact shape and level of polish, but none of these Japanese plane veterans denies the tradition of blunting the edge.
http://thecarpentryway.blogspot.nl/2012/07/chip-off-old-block-iv.html

When you look to the English writers, they indeed don't directly mention the blunting of the chipbreaker edge. Nicholson writes that the front edge is "rounded". Of course the degree of roundness isn't mentioned, at least not as flat as a Lie Nielsen capiron.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=v3YOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA92&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Holtzapffel describes the front edge to put a near vertical wall in the shavings path. That means a close to 45 degree front edge when used in a 45 degree plane. In fact that is just like the Stanley chipbreaker, which is good enough in most kinds of woods. Holtzapffel clearly didn't see the Kato video! Otherwise he would have used the chipbreaker closer to the edge then 1/50"! I don't know if he could really meassure that kind of distances with any kind of accuracy. It's difficult enough with my vernier calipers, destroying the edge in the process. BTW. Hotzappfel does describe the use of steeper pitched smoothing planes further in the text for curly wood. It doesn't say if these smoothers were equiped with or without chipbreaker. He also mentioned the bevel up miter plane. He is very complete in his description of the full range of planes to mittigate tearout. The double iron is described on pahe 480:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=rVBIAAAAYAAJ&q=double+iron#v=snippet&q=double%20iron&f=false

All the later English woodworking books describe the setting of the chipbreaker as "a hair from the edge" or "as close as possible". Charly Stanford mentioned some of these books in the other thread a week ago. I don't really want to wade through that one again.

To be sure, I think you make great planes. Everyone who works with them is full of praise (just a pitty you don't sell them anymore). That doesn't mean it's the only way to plane difficult types of wood of course.

And another point, I still don't see the burnishing effect when planing, despite testing all kinds of configurations on different types of wood, last week. With a bevel angle of almost 45 degrees I do see some polish, but it is still not quite what a real burnishing looks like. I think we can safely assume that with a decent clearance angle of 15 degrees there is no burnishing effect at all, until the blade is totally worn out, with or without chipbreaker.


Ps: And here is another admirer of George's work.

[Charlie Stanford]

I think nobody doubts the usefullness of steeper pitches. In molding planes the middle and half pitch are as relevant as ever! When we translate all this to today, a lot of people choosed to dump their trusty Stanley #4 in dispair and bought a bevel up plane instead. It's a godsend for these people that they can now easilly learn how to use their double iron plane to its fullest potential. Saves a bunch of cash beter used for buying wood, or tools you really need.

About knowing how to use the double iron, there are plenty of accounts from the 19th and 20th century about how to use it. When you don't find info about the obtused front end of the chipbreaker, it's possibly because in daily practice it seems not to be so neccessary. The standard Stanley chipbreaker works well enough.

The oldest account we could find is in Salivet. http://books.google.nl/books?id=Ksk9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA349&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
A crude translatoin in English:

When walnut is reversed as the workers say, or wavy, it must be worked with a toothing plane, an end plane, or a plane with two irons. The toothing plane is something other than an ordinary plane, in which there is an iron, the back of which has an infinite number of grooves. It sharpens like any other iron, and it produces small curly shavings. This method is excellent for all cases where you want to glue or map onto strong wood, thin pieces of precious wood. The end plane is a tool with an iron inclined to less than the ordinary inclination of forty five degrees. Finally, the plane with two irons, the invention of which is not very old, that it appears we owe to the Germans, is something other than a tool, in which is placed two irons, lying back to back, the one as the other with opposing bevels. But then the iron is inclined in the usual manner. The iron below being very inclined, consuming wood as in all common bench planes; but as in this case it throws many chips from the shaving location of the mouth, following this inclination. The bevel of the top iron, turns up the field of the shaving, and forces it to leave the inclination that it began. But it is not that the two bevels merge into a straight line; the lower must extend a little more, & the less it exceeds the second, the less it will make chips. To the point where you are able to plane the united oak branches, the same almost still green, and this is the highest test, since there is no work as difficult to plane as log timber. We hope that our readers will forgive us this discretion which is no more appropriate with walnut than any other wood.


Salivet also has a picture of a chipbreaker with a very obtuse frontend.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=hhY1AAAAQAAJ&pg=PT30&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
But of course, he is just a Frenchman :)

I showed you the picture of the blunt chipbreaker in the german text from 1934:
http://www.holzwerken.de/werkzeug/hobel.phtml

The japanes seem to have accepted the chipbreaker reluctantly. It doesn't realy fit in with their ideal of a perfect plane, and it is a western invention, making it even more suspect. But they did find it just too damned usefull to let it go. Chris Hall describes in his blog how the chipbreaker is being obtused. In the comments section you find a discussion about the exact shape and level of polish, but none of these Japanese plane veterans denies the tradition of blunting the edge.
http://thecarpentryway.blogspot.nl/2012/07/chip-off-old-block-iv.html

When you look to the English writers, they indeed don't directly mention the blunting of the chipbreaker edge. Nicholson writes that the front edge is "rounded". Of course the degree of roundness isn't mentioned, at least not as flat as a Lie Nielsen capiron.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=v3YOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA92&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Holtzapffel describes the front edge to put a near vertical wall in the shavings path. That means a close to 45 degree front edge when used in a 45 degree plane. In fact that is just like the Stanley chipbreaker, which is good enough in most kinds of woods. Holtzapffel clearly didn't see the Kato video! Otherwise he would have used the chipbreaker closer to the edge then 1/50"! I don't know if he could really meassure that kind of distances with any kind of accuracy. It's difficult enough with my vernier calipers, destroying the edge in the process. BTW. Hotzappfel does describe the use of steeper pitched smoothing planes further in the text for curly wood. It doesn't say if these smoothers were equiped with or without chipbreaker. He also mentioned the bevel up miter plane. He is very complete in his description of the full range of planes to mittigate tearout. The double iron is described on pahe 480:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=rVBIAAAAYAAJ&q=double+iron#v=snippet&q=double%20iron&f=false

All the later English woodworking books describe the setting of the chipbreaker as "a hair from the edge" or "as close as possible". Charly Stanford mentioned some of these books in the other thread a week ago. I don't really want to wade through that one again.

To be sure, I think you make great planes. Everyone who works with them is full of praise (just a pitty you don't sell them anymore). That doesn't mean it's the only way to plane difficult types of wood of course.

And another point, I still don't see the burnishing effect when planing, despite testing all kinds of configurations on different types of wood, last week. With a bevel angle of almost 45 degrees I do see some polish, but it is still not quite what a real burnishing looks like. I think we can safely assume that with a decent clearance angle of 15 degrees there is no burnishing effect at all, until the blade is totally worn out, with or without chipbreaker.


Ps: And here is another admirer of George's work.



Nice recap.

As to burnishing and burnishing effect, this fellow is purposely using a cornstraw burnisher on a very nicely made component with a mitered breadboard (towards the end of the photo essay):

http://maxwells.smugmug.com/photos/swfpopup.mg?AlbumID=27435237&AlbumKey=rSWtPW

[george wilson]

A nice piece of research,Kees. Should convince all but the most stubborn of the correct way to use the chip breaker. With this,the recent experiments with close chip breaker settings,and the Japanese video,I say case closed.

Larry,my post does sound insulting,after re reading it. Sorry. You make excellent planes. Better finished than my runs of museum planes. I was compelled to leave mine in the same less finished condition that the originals were left in for the sake of authenticity. My saws were also left with rasp and scraper marks on their handles,as were originals. There just has to be some reason why you never,ever agree that you could be wrong about anything. With all respect due to you,I have agreed that I was wrong about the value of the chip breaker. Yet,you continue to assert your superior knowledge about any subject you enter into. This includes machining(which I have done a great deal of,I don't just make wooden planes),steels,diamonds,every thing that arises. I'm trying to understand why that is. None of us know it all. That's a part of the human condition. I want to keep on learning. That is why I have done many diverse types of work,from very plain to ornate.

[Kees Heiden]

Even Stanley tells us to put the chipbreaker very close to the edge, when neccessary!

On the 6th page in the section: To obtain a smooth surface.
http://toolemera.com/pampdf/stanleyhintsplaneAU.pdf

[george wilson]

Kees,all I'm getting from your link is the cover of the booklet.

Again,with all due respect to him,I'm not going to hold my breath until I get an answer from Larry. Unless he thinks I've insulted him,he seems to have ignored my posts ever since I quoted diamond tooling manufacturers concerning what diamond stones and wheels are to be used on. I found it singularly premature from a research point of view,to make a sweeping judgement about diamond abrasives based upon wearing out a single diamond wheel. Personally,I would first try to figure out what I had done wrong.

On a professional machinist's forum,a lot of humor was generated by this judgement.

What I'd like to know,if,as Larry says, diamonds are suitable only for ceramics and some non steel materials,how do they grind solid carbide spiral end mills that can only be machined with diamonds from the blank,round bars of carbide. How do they get those deep flutes cut into their surfaces? The end mills cost less than an average diamond wheel. They can't be wearing out a wheel with each end mill. Also,I'd like to know what those diamond wheels I have a bunch of were sold to me as. The manufacturers said they were for sharpening HSS and carbide end mills and horizontal milling cutters.

Do I see a pattern emerging in this current chip breaker debate? My point here is to encourage folks to not just be stubborn when proof is staring you in the face. If everyone did that,we'd never make any technological progress. Even Stephen Hawking has changed his ideas about some of his previously held rules concerning physics.



I've only been machining with lathes,mills,and other machine tools pretty steadily for about over 40
years,(started in 1960,but did not have the money to buy my own equipment till 1974. The museum had some machines I was able to use before that,starting in 1970.) and I need touch up lessons in how to do it.:):):)

Except for special planes I make in the future,like molding planes,Bu,etc.,my new planes will have chip breakers. Some of the smoothers I already posted here were made with them,even in about 1974.That's about when the smooth plane below was made. I have been further educated here with David's recent discussions,but even then,I did not entirely discount their existence. Note below: the BU shoulder plane has no chip breaker.

[Kees Heiden]

Here is the relevant part of the Stanley brochure. It's from Stanley Australia in 1950. Probably in answer to existing troubles with the usual problematic Australian wood types.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll266/Kees2351/stanley_zps7c4209de.jpg

That smoother looks incredibly nice, George! I have one infill, a noname Scottisch one. I have replaced the infills, years ago. Overall, for a first time it doesn't look too bad, allthough now I wouldn't round the handle grip all the way around the hole. I used Merbau, because that is what I had.

251116

251121

[Larry Williams]

]Larry, have you not been reading anything in the last year?[/B]...

David,
As I said earlier, I read the first Kato paper and watched the videos on Steve Elliot's site a number of years ago. Have I read all this stuff over the last months? No, I can be kinda slow but starting back with the cryogenic tempering fad I started figuring out how stupid it is to deal with all the magic bullets. I'd already been through a lot of rounds about how dovetailed and peened together brass and steel stuffed with googaboola wood imparts some magical properties to infill planes. You went down that road--guess it didn't work out all that well. Then there was low angle bevel-up planes, A-2 steel, the ruler trick, and don't forget the ever valuable magic of diamonds. So no, I haven't read much of it.


if the effective angle of the cap iron was 40 or 45 degrees stock, it still would've buried a single iron plane with pitch anywhere close, and in the hands of a skilled user it will bury a plane with a 55 degree iron

Really? Why? Tell me what's going on with the wood fibers at the cutting edge that makes the visco-elastic compression different when using a cap iron than when using a steep cutting angle. I've asked but gotten no response. Yeah, I can see where you can increase deflection of the fibers with a cap iron but I also know happens when the fibers spring back after they're severed. How are you increasing the clearance angle?


The simple fact is that double iron planes took over.

Took over? Did you happen to notice single iron planes were still offered in the last catalog of the American wooden plane industry? I use planes in my work. I spent a large part of today planing and used eight or nine planes. Only one of those planes would even you equip with a double iron. I guess to some people every plane is a smooth plane and always will be.

[Hovey Moore]

Can we please let this stupid chip breaker war go? Some people like them, some don't, who cares? Yes, they work but so do other methods to reduce tear out. But more to the point, that thread got locked for a reason and this thread is (or at least was) about the economics of purchasing power through out history. Your behavior is what I would expect from facebook, not the professionalism I have come to expect from fellow Creekers.

[Kees Heiden]

A 250 year old fad? Who knows? In the meantime this fad doesn't cost you money. Instead it saves money, because you don't need to buy expensive planes. :)

But to continue the economic thing, I remembered another nice piece of history from 1833. I got this one also from Jeff Burk, as many of the other links too. It is a lawsuit! William Hovey invented a machine to shape the tapered plane irons, using tapered rollers. After welding the toolsteel to the iron backing, the red hot steel/iron blade would be passed through these rollers sideways to give it the tapered shape. Because Hovey needed money to explore his invention he had a contract with the Mill Dam Foundry in Boston. The Foundry would supply iron and steel, furnaces, and water powered machines. Hovey would do the work and pay for labor. Everything nice and fine, until a flood wasted the entire foundry. Hovey wanted to walk away from the contract, so it came to a lawsuit.

We can learn some interesting things from this lawsuit. In the first place, the number of irons to be produced in a year. 5000 dozen single iron and 5000 dozen double iron plane baldes, plus as much moulding plane irons as could be fit into the schedule. This means a production of 120.000 plane irons! And to make everyone on this forum happy, they clearly expected to sell the same number of single as double plane irons.

Another nice tidbit, for making the irons, the Mill Dam foundry would pay Hovey 54 cents for a dozen single plane irons and $1.32 for a dozen double plane irons. This is laborcosts plus profit for mr. Hovey, because the Foundry supplied all the raw materials and the working environment. One single iron would be 4.5 cents, a double iron would be 11 cents. This is mostly labor costs, indicating that making a double iron is a lot more work then a single iron. Because it also uses the double amount of iron, it is no wonder to see in the Arrowmammet catalog the double irons twice as expensive as the single plane irons.

Any way, it is clear that plane irong making was quite an industry in the 19th century. Nothing like the village blacksmith pounding out an iron or two.

Here is the text of the lawsuit:

Proprietors of the Mill Dam Foundery versus William Hovey said:

1. This indenture of two parts, made this day of April, A. D. eighteen hundred and thirty-three, between the Proprietors of the Mill Dam Foundery, on the one part, Mill Dam and William Hovey, on the other part, witnesseth, that William Hovey, in consideration hereinafter mentioned, binds and Hovey obligates himself to the Proprietors of the Mill Dam Foundery, to manufacture of the iron, steel, &c. now on hand, and such other, suitable for the purpose, as may be made or procured, (according to the process now in use,) five thousand dozen single, and five thousand dozen double plane-irons, both to be of assorted sizes as the market requires, and as many soft moulding irons as he can conveniently do without interfering with the other plane-iron business ; memorandum of sizes of irons to be hereunto affixed. The whole to be manufactured in a good and workmanlike manner, equal to samples to be furnished by the parties — to be packed, labelled, and fit for market, in one year from the first of July next. Said Hovey also agrees to keep in order all the tools used in said business during said time, all casualties and accidental breakages excepted ; it being understood that the breaking of shears, knives, tongs, and other small articles, are not intended to be excepted.

In consideration of the above, the Proprietors of the Mill Dam Foundery bind and obligate themselves to the said Hovey, to furnish all the iron, steel and other materials used in and about said manufacture. The whole to be furnished as soon and as often as shall be reasonably required by said Hovey to enable him to carry on said manufacture to the best possible advantage. The said Proprietors also agree to furnish stock and materials for all such soft moulding irons as he shall be able to manufacture during said time, he furnishing said Proprietors with a memorandum of such stock as he may require for said irons.

The said Proprietors also agree to give the said Hovey, with the exception of the power conveyed to the boiler-house as now used, the exclusive use, or an equivalent thereto, of the south water-wheel, drums, gears, belts, &c. belonging thereto, during regular working hours while he is employed in making said plane and moulding irons, they to keep the same in good repair, and to furnish the said Hovey, and to give him the control of all the tools, machinery, room and furnaces now in use, or which may be added to the plane-iron establishment.

The said Proprietors also agree to make good all accidental breakages, except shears, knives, tongs and other small articles, already spoken of, that may happen to said tools and machinery, without delay.

Said proprietors further agree to advance to said Hovey such sums of money as shall enable him to settle with all such of his hands as conform to the rules and regulations of the proprietors aforesaid, on such terms as they settle with their own hands.

Said Hovey is to receive fifty-four cents for each and every dozen of single, and one dollar and thirty-two cents for each and every dozen of double plane-irons so manufactured by him, when ready for delivery ; and twenty-four cents for each and every dozen of soft moulding irons, assorted from one fourth of an inch to two and one eighth of an inch.

The proprietors shall reserve at all times a drawback for such sums as they shall have advanced in paying his workmen, &c. until all such advances shall have been reimbursed. " In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands. William Hovey (and seal). Robert Ralston, Jr., Treasurer for the Proprietors of the Mill Dam Foundery (and seal). Witness to signatures, Ambrose Farrell, D. H. Dickinson." The seals above mentioned consisted each of a wafer and a small bit of paper stamped with a common desk seal of a merchant. On the same paper was indorsed this memorandum, without date or seal, but in fact made in July, 1833 : —

2. In consideration of two hundred and fifty dollars, to be paid at the expiration of this contract by the Proprietors of the Mill Dam Foundery to William Hovey, the said Hovey agrees, at his own expense, to keep all the machinery and tools of every kind in good order, to hang all the grindstones which may be necessary in the business, to repair all breakages of every description or kind (excepting any accident to fly-wheel of rolling mill) in a good and workmanlike manner, to replace rolls, shears, stamps, &c, to find castings and all other materials for repairs at his own expense; it being understood that he will keep all the tools, instruments, &c. in full and ample repair, and return them to the said proprietors in equally good order as they are when he receives them, free of any further charge. Should the said proprietors wish to have some cut irons in lieu of any part of the irons in the above contract, said Hovey agrees to furnish them at the same price as other single irons. It is further understood, that the said Hovey shall be answerable to said proprietors for the board and lodging of such of his men as live on their premises.
William Hovey.

Robert Ralston, Jr., Treasurer for the Proprietors of the Mill Dam Foundery. Witness to signatures, Amb. Farrell, D. H. Dickinson." On the same paper was a further indorsement as follows : — 3. "It is understood and agreed to by the parties to the within agreement, that in consideration of certain obligations in said contract which were not performed on the part of the Proprietors of the Mill Dam Foundery, the said proprietors agree to allow to the within named William Hovey fifty dollars on account, as also to relinquish a claim on him for a certain lead-lap, and also agree to receive, when finished, all the moulding irons which have been cut through mistake as left handed irons instead of right, and pay for them as specified in the within contract. The said proprietors also agree to extend the term of the within contract, for the benefit of said Hovey, four months from the first of July, 1834. All other parts to remain the same, the said Hovey having no further claim on said proprietors for non-fulfilment of contract.
William Hovey.

[Adam Cherubini]

Just a reminder to all concerned:
Chip breakers adjusted close to an edge only work with irons ground straight across. If you have any camber to a plane iron, the super chip breaker thing doesn't work.

If you believe all that is written here (and I do), double irons were designed/used for smoothing reversing or difficult grain. They won't work for heavily cambered jack plane irons. So why were they added to jack planes? They are just extra metal and help to clog the throats of these planes. I don't know the answer, but believe Larry if he says they were easier to fit.

I reserve one smoother with a straight iron and try to set the cap iron close to the edge. All my other bench planes have cambered irons. Only one (my jack) has a single iron. I wish they all did.

And just a comment: when we talk about planes and their performance, everybody starts talking about smoothing. Smoothing is a very small (but admittedly important) part of my work. If you are preparing your stock by hand as I do, single irons fitted in light weight low friction wooden planes are a significant advantage. Judging/designing/tuning all planes on their ability to smooth difficult grain is sophomoric in my opinion.

One more thing- given the choice between all double irons and all single irons, I'd choose the single irons. There are easier ways to handle difficult grain than with a normal hand plane. I have and use a toother. And a card scraper works for me as well. I don't like scraped finishes on long grain, but when I'm working a knot or something, it does alright.

[Charlie Stanford]

Chipbreakers can, and should be, shaped to match. Surprisingly easy to do on one's regular medium stone since the steel is not hardened. In fact, the chipbreaker is shaped FIRST and used as a pattern for the iron in subsequent honings and grindings.

[David Weaver]

David,
As I said earlier, I read the first Kato paper and watched the videos on Steve Elliot's site a number of years ago. Have I read all this stuff over the last months? No, I can be kinda slow but starting back with the cryogenic tempering fad I started figuring out how stupid it is to deal with all the magic bullets. I'd already been through a lot of rounds about how dovetailed and peened together brass and steel stuffed with googaboola wood imparts some magical properties to infill planes. You went down that road--guess it didn't work out all that well. Then there was low angle bevel-up planes, A-2 steel, the ruler trick, and don't forget the ever valuable magic of diamonds. So no, I haven't read much of it.

Larry, you might not like A2 irons, but again, they bury plain carbon steel if the object is actually to do planing and not to marvel at how easy the steel is to sharpen. You sharpen with oilstones, that's fine. If you didn't, and you were doing a lot of planing (like furniture planing, not small pieces), you might have a different viewpoint. I wouldn't trade any good A2 iron for W1 or O1, they just don't plane as many feet, and contrary to all of the popular fluff, they don't take any longer for someone with a grinder and modern stones to sharpen. Talk about all of the infills and other things you want to, I believe Warren won the planing competition at WIA with a stanley #4.


Really? Why? Tell me what's going on with the wood fibers at the cutting edge that makes the visco-elastic compression different when using a cap iron than when using a steep cutting angle. I've asked but gotten no response. Yeah, I can see where you can increase deflection of the fibers with a cap iron but I also know happens when the fibers spring back after they're severed. How are you increasing the clearance angle?

Plain and simple larry, the fibers are held down by the cap iron and severed more cleanly because the iron itself is making the cut at 45 degrees and not 55. I don't know why you have such trouble with this. I can put 20 degrees of clearance and get the same shiny surface as I do with 10. I haven't seen any springback that would challenge the loss of surface quality that you get on a medium hardwood with a 55 degree iron pitch. It still boils down to a brighter surface with any wood, the softer, the bigger the difference, and better tearout control without having to turn the plane or do any of that goofery. Part of the use of the cap iron that you never mastered is actually using it at a setting to hold the chip in place but without smashing it into the fibers of the wood so hard as to have all of the springback you're talking about.


Took over? Did you happen to notice single iron planes were still offered in the last catalog of the American wooden plane industry? I use planes in my work. I spent a large part of today planing and used eight or nine planes. Only one of those planes would even you equip with a double iron. I guess to some people every plane is a smooth plane and always will be.

These discussions have been about bench planes since the beginning. If people are dimensioning wood from rough, they will spend a lot of time using bench planes. People who use bench planes only for finished surfaces may never use anything but a smoother and a block plane, last time I looked, there were a lot more router bits selling than used and new moulding planes. Shifting the discussion to beading planes, rabbet planes or hollows and rounds is just firing shots while retreating.

And yes - took over, as in almost everything except budget planes that actually exists from that era is double iron planes. Premium planes or budget planes, people spent the extra money for the double iron. I do have some budget single-iron prison labor planes and late ohio tool planes, they are not fine woodworking tools. The last *good* single iron plane I have is from somewhere between 1820 and 1840. In reality, all of them are less capable than bailey planes. So, took over, superceded, replaced...

[David Weaver]

The cap iron can be used just fine on all but the most rank cuts (and might even have purpose there), but those cuts should be made with the grain, anyway.

On even a moderate camber, it's still fine to set the cap iron straight across, its projection from the edge of the iron will match the thickness of the chip on different parts of the iron and still provide benefit. I have never measured a shaving off of a fore plane, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is still benefit to the cap iron on whatever your interim plane may be - and without profiling chipbreakers or anything like that. If the plane is rank enough that the outside edges of a stanley style cap iron overlap the iron a tiny amount, that's fine, too, as that part of the iron will never project into the cut (it absolutely cannot unless you have some way to make the cap iron project through the mouth of the plane).

The cap iron is of super value in trying/flattening. It allows you more economy in planing. If I were only allowed to keep it for one thing, it would be for a mildly cambered try plane iron or in a panel plane or jointer.

[george wilson]

Larry,you can ignore all the old catalogs by being stubborn. How come the vast preponderance of the planes shown in them have double irons? This isn't a complicated issue. It stares you in the face. A FEW single iron planes are offered. The great majority are double irons,and it cannot be denied. As I mentioned,in some classes of work,like carpentry,using soft woods of non difficult grain,a single iron works quite well. That's why they were still offered.

It is amazing how,with a sweep of the hand,you can dismiss the facts about diamond abrasives,double irons,superior steels,etc.,etc.,etc.. The World really has moved on just a tad in the last 250 years.

[David Weaver]

Can we please let this stupid chip breaker war go? Some people like them, some don't, who cares? Yes, they work but so do other methods to reduce tear out. But more to the point, that thread got locked for a reason and this thread is (or at least was) about the economics of purchasing power through out history. Your behavior is what I would expect from facebook, not the professionalism I have come to expect from fellow Creekers.

I can't speak for everyone else, but these kinds of scorched earth discussions are where we learn the most. We have done a good job sticking to argument about the details, and I don't think that's unproductive. It might not be interesting for folks not involved, but it does prevent the crickets from chirping between the threads about sharpening.

( I hope, too, that the folks who don't want to delve into the minutiae, and who would rather read the threads that are a little lighter in critical examination wouldn't put themselves through reading things they don't like to see, especially if they don't violate the TOS. Not accusing anyone in this thread of this - but we have had an influx lately of folks who never read the forum or participate but who want to vote on the conditions discussion when they get steered here by someone else. It just smashes any discussion that really gets beyond the "who's going to WIA" or "I got some new stuff" threads )

[george wilson]

All threads are subject to changing directions. Even Kees,who started this thread,is participating in the direction it has taken.

I can't see that this thread has become uncivil,just spirited.

[Charlie Stanford]

Just a reminder to all concerned:
Chip breakers adjusted close to an edge only work with irons ground straight across. If you have any camber to a plane iron, the super chip breaker thing doesn't work.

If you believe all that is written here (and I do), double irons were designed/used for smoothing reversing or difficult grain. They won't work for heavily cambered jack plane irons. So why were they added to jack planes? They are just extra metal and help to clog the throats of these planes. I don't know the answer, but believe Larry if he says they were easier to fit.

I reserve one smoother with a straight iron and try to set the cap iron close to the edge. All my other bench planes have cambered irons. Only one (my jack) has a single iron. I wish they all did.

And just a comment: when we talk about planes and their performance, everybody starts talking about smoothing. Smoothing is a very small (but admittedly important) part of my work. If you are preparing your stock by hand as I do, single irons fitted in light weight low friction wooden planes are a significant advantage. Judging/designing/tuning all planes on their ability to smooth difficult grain is sophomoric in my opinion.

One more thing- given the choice between all double irons and all single irons, I'd choose the single irons. There are easier ways to handle difficult grain than with a normal hand plane. I have and use a toother. And a card scraper works for me as well. I don't like scraped finishes on long grain, but when I'm working a knot or something, it does alright.

One can take the chipbreaker completely out of the equation by simply moving it back far enough. Or move it close. Flexibility. Options. Never bad.

[Dave Anderson NH]

While this thread has not yet become uncivil, the antagonistic tones are right on the border.

As in all threads on SMC disagreement and controversy is both allowed and encouraged as long as it generates light and the level of heat is kept moderate. Those not interested in the minutae and the discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are invited to avoid revisiting those types of threads. SMC does and will not censor folks about content with the following exceptions:

1. Profanity, sexual inuendo, implied profanity.
2. Accusations against sellers, makers, or others UNSUPPORTED by factual information
3. Unauthorized use of copywrited material (piracy)
4. Personal attacks against anyone

For a full explanation of prohibited behavior refer to the TOS (Terms of Service) located on the lower right hand corner of each page of this website.

[Hovey Moore]

First I want to say that I meant no personal attack against anyone, I'm all for discussing chip breakers or most anything else tool related. There have been quite a few good points made my many people.

So here are my thoughts on the subject: Yes they do work IF placed very close to the edge (~0.004"), farther back and I think they produce a negligible effect. Others have confirmed this by testing, watch the video if you haven't yet. There are plenty of other ways to handle tear out though such as: a tighter mouth, lighter cuts, toothed irons, scraping, higher angled irons, wetting the grain, and sanding. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. Pick one that works for you. Chip breakers also don't work terribly well with cambered irons unless you grind the iron to match the profile. Easy enough to do if one is so inclined. They can also can cause the mouth to clog, have shavings get underneath, slip, and annoy one in a host of possible, but preventable ways.

Personally, I don't use them much anymore as I cant hold a #4 Stanley for any length of time do to a combination or large hands and an injury. I had to go bevel up planes just so I could grip a hand plane as my hand needs the extra clearance. But I do still have a #3 (sentimental reasons), a #6, and #27 (used more like a scrub) that have chip breakers. As course tools with lots of camber I really don't see a point to a double iron on them. Actually, the 27 is set so course it would definitely be a lot better without a double iron. On a smoothing plane, yes, there is some point. For the rest of my planes, I don't miss the extra step of removing it before sharpening. I don't miss having to adjust a chip breaker close to the cutting edge after I sharpen. And I don't miss the rare oops moment when it slides past the edge and dulls a blade. And I haven't missed it when planing curly maple or any other wood.

And all of this was taught to me back in the 80's long before this or any other web site existed. All common knowledge at one point in the not so distant past.

[Kees Heiden]

Hovey this is funny. Did you read my last post about the lawsuit in 1833? You have the same name, but yours is the first name and William Hovey used it as a last name.
Is this a very usual name in the US?

BTW, don't forget, you can set the chipbreaker TOO close to the edge. 0.004 is in most cases too close. Planing becomes difficult, very hard pushing. I get much better results at 8 to 12 tou. Planing is suddenly a lot lighter, and the chipbreaker is still in full effective range. Especially when you blunt the front end of the chipbreaker a bit. Of course, I am stupid enough to actually meassure the distance sometimes for posterities sake. Most people just eyeball it.

David explained how it also works for lightly cambered blades. It's an ideal technique for a jointer to prevent accidental deep tearout.

And not to forget, be happy with your other planes and have fun.

[David Weaver]

It's not a common name here, but gotta give Hovey credit on the coincidence given his registration date.

The BU planes are very nice, the new crop of them that is. They're nearly indestructible and very smooth.

I've never measured the distance on my planes, but I would guess they're in the range that Kees states, maybe on the short side of it. There's no great reason to measure, though, you can tell by the resistance to planing if the cap iron is too close, and by the complete lack of work on a thick chip if it's too far away. I've got no clue what the effective angle on a stanley chipbreaker is, but whatever it is, it works well.

[Hovey Moore]

Yes I have been following along and I was aware of the similar names, also William is my middle name to further the strangeness. Hovey is an English surname, but its actually of Scandinavian origin (not all of them were Viking raiders and some of them settled in England). However, Hovey is a very uncommon first name. Not really sure why I got that name, but maybe my parents were drunk and got confused? Just kidding, they don't drink. I really have no idea.

I would never recommend buying an older BU plane. If you are really a collector you would know all about them already, and if not then don't buy one. They cost as much as a modern LV or LN and weren't made as well. This is one case where modern materials and construction are superior to the old iron. Not sure I would say indestructible as the handles are still made of wood...maybe if we can get Rob Lee to try out a new composite handle on the next production run.

I should have clarified my gap preference a little, for a smoother taking very thin shavings, I like around 0.004-0.006" for a angled chip breaker and a little farther back for a blunted one. That would be too close for a jointer that should be taking slightly thicker shavings and WAY too close for a fore plane.

If you listen carefully, a happy plane will sing.

[Mark Wyatt]

Just a piece of information to add to the general discussion, my circa 1904-1907 Vonnegut Hardware catalog contains wood body planes, unlabeled but likely Sandusky or Ohio:

Single Bit Smooth Plane = $0.70
Double Bit Smooth Plane = $0.90

Single Bit Jack Plane = $0.85
Double Bit Jack Plane = $1.00

Larger sizes were not offered as single bit. By way of comparison, a Stanley #4 was $2.20 and a Bedrock #604 was $2.50.

The bargain among planes? Perhaps the Stanley #9 for $3.75, but I would vote for the complete set of hollow and rounds for $9.45.

[Steve Elliott]

For those not aware of Indianapolis history, it may be of interest that the writer Kurt Vonnegut worked for a time at his family's business, Vonnegut Hardware. He wrote about his family history in his book, Palm Sunday.

[Derek Cohen]

I've been travelling a bit, so have not contributed to his thread since it started. While flying back to Oz yesterday I was listening to the audiobook version of The Jointer and Cabinetmaker (edited and published by Chris Schwarz about two years ago) recently narrated by Roy Underhill ... he does an excellent job .. such fun ...

The original book was published in 1839.

Lots of interesting information, and one bit specific to double iron planed smoothers. The narrater notes that the chip breaker is placed as close to the edge of the blade for use with Mahogany having much interlocked/reversing grain. There is a little bit of discussion about this technique for planing, and it is clear that a differentiation is made between straight grained and interlocked woods, and that moving the chip breaker up is a common technique used to deal with the latter.

Regards from Sydney (where it is Hot)

Derek

[Rick Whitehead]

I'm late to this discussion, as usual, but I've been following it with great interest.I think it's great! Where else would you get a passionate discussion by people who are considered heavyweights in the historic hand tool world? Not only have they thoroughly researched their material, but they have extensive experience using the tools they are discussing.I love a good debate, especially between scholars!
Regarding single-iron planes, I have less experience with them than with double-iron ones. I have had experience with one of Larry Williams' single-iron planes. I tried it out at a tool collector's meeting where Larry was set up. I tried it on a piece of birch that he had lying on is bench.I planed the face of it in with the grain and got a smooth surface without tear-out. I then reversed the piece of wood and planed against the grain, expecting the usual tear-out. I didn't get any. The surface was as smooth as the other face. That really impressed me!
That convinced me that Larry was right about a cap iron being unnecessary for a finish-planed surface.On the other hand, I also appreciate the recent articles about how close to set the cap iron on a double-iron plane. I've been setting it too far away for years.
Keep up the good work, guys!
Rick

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Rick

To re-iterate one of your points, here is a modified copy of a reply I made elsewhere. I think that it is important to maintain a balanced view ..

I was asked to comment on the results of the testing I completed a while back on chip breakers and bedding angles.

"The context of this was within the posting/discussions/and experimentation of several others on the role of the chip breaker, initiated by the Japanese research.

In short, my results indicated that moving the chip breaker close to the edge (about 0.4 mm) changed the nature of a shaving and enabled the plane to mimic a higher angled bed. My estimate at quantifying this was about 10 degrees up. So a 45 degree BD plane acted like one planing at 55 degrees (and a 55 degree BD plane acted like one planing at 65 degrees this became evident when a LN #3 with a 55 degree frog was able to reverse the results and out perform a LV BUS with a 62 degree cutting angle after the chip breaker was moved up).


It must be understood that this technique takes some practice to get right. Too close to the edge and you can dub the blade and/or cause the plane to choke (even with an open mouth - incidentally, that the mouth size now became irrelevant simply supports the impression that we are dealing with a change in chip formation). The reason I used specific numbers was simply to record what I was doing and for others to reproduce what I had done. Many others were doing their own research at the same time. Much of the conclusions reached supported one another. Mine was a tiny contribution compared to others here and on WoodCentral, such as David, Kees, and Warren.


There is a danger in throwing out the baby with the bathwater when something new comes along. In this case, the old stuff include high angle single-iron and BU planes. I think that this would be impulsive and inappropriate. Both can make for equally superior set ups. Indeed, everything is a compromise, and there are advantages and disadvantages with all plane types.


All things equal ...


The disadvantage of a BD/double iron plane is that it can be finicky to set up. Too far back, and the "chip breaker effect" does not take place. Further, it is not simply placement of the chip breaker; it is also that there is a chip breaker to place. Off-line chip breakers make it harder to set a square blade.

One of the compelling arguments for a fine set chip breaker on a common angle plane (over a high cutting angle) was that the lower angle will leave a smoother, clearer surface. In theory I agree, but my practical experience is that this is wood dependent. I have also recently been present at a repeat of a planing experiment using mechanical feeds and different cutting angles. Some very glossy finishes on hard Maple were coming off a plane with a half pitch cutting angle. If there were an effect, I doubt that you could tell the difference, especially after a finish. On the hardwoods I use you would not.


There will always be those who prefer the ease of set up and use of a high cutting angle in either a single iron plane or a BU plane.


So, on the one hand I am convinced about the effect of chip breakers in that they can mimic a higher cutting angle, and that this increases the range of the Bailey-pattern type plane. At the same time high angle BU (LV and LN) and single-bevel planes (e.g. HNT Gordon, Old Street) continue to offer quality performances, as they always did.


It is your choice which you wish to use.

Regards from Sydney

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Completely agree with you Derek. For me it's simple, I don't have anything other then vintage Stanley's and wooden plane. So learning to use the chipbreaker has been a major improvement.

Mark, thanks a lot for the catalog scan. Your post made me think a lot the other day. In researching a bit the economics of planemaking in the 19th century I completely forgot about that other "minor" development, the invention of the Bailey plane in the 1860's :D. I don't really know a whole lot about the Stanley and Bailey history. I do know they became quite a succes. It kind of crowns the development from the small scale, mostly handmade, planemaking business, early in the century to the big factories with loads of machinery in the end. It is also funny to see that the metal planes didn't catch on very soon in Central Europe. in The Netherlands the company Nooitgedagt started abouth the same time as Bailey. In Germany you also find new factories around that time, making wooden planes like Ott (Ulmia) in Ulm, 1877.

The last quarter of the 19th century also saw the rise of the Britisch infill plane. These were produced on a much smaller scale than the Stanley planes. Clearly targeted at the high end user, the cabinet makers, the joiners doing top nothed stuff. Expensive planes. They were a further devellopment from th eiron mitre planes. i have seen these mitre planes described in older german books from the 18th century, basically a wooden bevel up plane with an iron sole. They got more and more metal and less wood over the years. These were not only used for mitering purposes, but also for planing difficult kinds of wood. Holtzapffel describes them too.

Well, enough for me to delve into. Interesting stuff.

Edit: Funny to see, the Stanley Bailey #4 was priced around the top of the line Boxwood smoothers, at the start of the 20th century.

[Kees Heiden]

There are some very interesting catalogues on handplane.com: http://www.handplane.com/category/library-resources/catalog-reproductions/
Especially interesting is the Tyzak catalogue from 1908, because it contains wood planes, Stanleys and infill planes. Prices for smoothers are roughly:
Wooden smoother double iron = 4 shilling
Stanley #4 = 8 shilling
Infill smoother = 20 shilling

In the early 20th century 1 britisch pound is about 5 to 6 dollar. And there are 20 shillings in one pound.

[Kees Heiden]

I found some older data supporting my little theory that double iron planes were sold at a premium over the extra cost of the more expensive iron bits. In a thread from 2006 on woodcentral, Todd Hughes answers to claims that the double iron was a cost saving exercise for the planemaker. The thin 18th century irons were prone to chatter and needed more work in bedding the iron. The extra support of the double iron would be helpfull for the planemaker, while the extra iron costs would be just passed on to the buyer of the plane.

Todd Hughes:

As to cost the copy of Chistopher Gabriel day book, an 18th and early 19th century London tool merchant, page 72, 1800 inventory...17 doble iron jointers sold for 5.1.0 while 28 single iron jointers went for 5.1.6...many other examples scattered though it of how much cheaper single irons were.
Later examples...the book "Some 19th cent, English woodworking tools" page 113...Price List of 1824Sheffield edge tool....23/4 in. double irons sold for 20s a doz. single irons in the same size only 10s per doz...also on page 254 it has the price 1829 list of planes sold by the tool dealer J.wilks...Smooth planes....double iron 3.6 while single irons went for only 2.2....[hmmm smooth planes ain't that a cabinet workers tool?] all of the planes they sold had simular price differences with the double iron planes being more expensive


So, the double iron jointers in 1800 were almost twice as expensive as the single iron ones. 6 shilling for a double iron jointer versus 3 sh/8 pence for a single iron one. Sure, double irons were expensive, but not a whole single-iron-jointer-plane-expensive. So the buyers were prepared to pay a considerable premium for the privilige to buy a double iron plane. If reducing costs in planemaking was the sole purpose of the double iron, you would have expected a relatively lower price.

In the next sentences you find a similar deal. In 1824 single irons were 10 shilling a dozen, while double irons were 20 shilling a dozen. So the difference between 1 single and 1 double iron was 10 pence. When we look at the 1829 J. Wilks smoother prices we see a difference of 16 pence. So again, the buyer didn't share in any theoretical cost savings, but paid a premium instead.

So now I have 3 sources (Arrowmammet catalogue, and the two above) from the first half of the 18th century that double iron planes were not being produced to save costs, but were worth an extra high price. In the Britisch catalogues from the early 20th century I don't find this premium anymore, but single iron planes play a very secondary role in these catalogues anyway.

The cost saving theory was illogical in the first place. If it was so difficult to bed a thin single iron, the logical way to improve the situation would have been a thicker single iron. Not an expensive contraption like the double iron is.

The other argument mentioned that the planemaker saved on logistics because he didn't need to make and store four differently pitched planes for each and every type, doesn't hold either. In the first place I seriously doubt planemakers were making 45, 50, 55 AND 60 degree planes on a regular basis. In The Netherlands from the 16th century to halfway the 19th only 50 degree planes were made. Likewise you never see different pitches advertised in the catalogues from the 19th century, but you do see a bewildering assortment of planes. And in the second place, IF the planemakers had these storage problems, a rational course would have been to limit themselves to 45 and 55 degree planes for example (which would have suited 99.9% of the woodworkers), not to dive into the expensive double iron adventure.

So, I think we have now debunked the cost saving theory without any doubt. We allready debunked the theory that double irons weren't used to plane "curly and crossgrained woods". And today in our own workshops we prove that the chipbreaker is a valid and practical aproach to mittigate tearout.

But, of course, when you don't want to fiddle with chipbreakers I can understand that. I would suggest you just quit buying food for your children and spend the money on one of the "premium" planes available today. :)