Suggestions how to make this 23" krenov plane more usable/comfortable to hold?

[Fitzhugh Freeman]

Edit: the image is not showing for me except in the edit mode, so I'm linking to it at the bottom - might see both.
283701
I made this two foot* fore plane to flatten the tip of the bench I'm making. I've got very large hands but it is still to hard to use, I think mostly because my hands fatigue from squeezing it since it is too wide. I'd like to avoid a complete Frankenstein look since I'm attached to it (the tool itself, not the specific shape). It was the first real tool I've made and first thing made out of rough lumber, not s4s BORG maple.
... so I'm asking your suggestions for how to reshape it, add tote & knob, etc.

As you can see I chopped out a mockup out of a scrap of construction lumber so I can try a shape before committing but I'm not sure what to try, having never used any other planes larger than a no5.


On a good note, it works great. Pushing it isn't that hard, just keeping a grip on it. It does a great job of flattening the 3 x 13 x 66 inch Douglas for "scraps" I got from someone making a log cabin. I thought I'd screwed up somehow but twig again after taking a year off due to injury... Turns out the DF just wasn't near dry enough. Now it works!
Any suggestions would be great.
Thanks

*well, almost...

http://i62.tinypic.com/9adeg8.jpg

[Fitzhugh Freeman]

I should mention: the blade is 1 3/4 inch wide, but the plane is 2 3/4 inch wide. I made it a while ago and stopped noticing how much wall I have on each side until just now, when I went to measure the whole width. It is red oak and 2 1/8 inch tall at the mouth. One thing that would make a big difference is just thinning the plane. How thin do you think I can make the sides while remaining strong? I think it would still need other changes, but that would help.

[Gary Kman]

I'm looking at a cabinetmaker's notebook by Krenov. Small planes are shaped like yours. Large ones have what looks like the back of a horse's saddle sticking up behind the iron and the body is narrowed at this point and again at the fore. Imagine yours was made of clay and you held it in a normal position and squeezed and pushed forward. He also makes some checking where you grip.

Using a different approach, Stanley iron planes didn't develop into the shape they are by accident or aesthetics.

[Jeff Heath]

Here's what I do to my fore/try/jointer planes to make them more user friendly.

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab57/hawkfan9/Heath%20Toolworks%20planes/IMAG0178_zpsfcd905aa.jpg

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab57/hawkfan9/Heath%20Toolworks%20planes/IMAG0176_zps3c6180e3.jpg

I don't think you'll have much luck adding a tote to this style of plane. Build a "grip" into the plane, as pictured, or even checker the sides by your right hand behind the iron, as well as on the sides up front for your left hand (assuming you are planing right handed). Also, you can round over the front part of the plane in front of the iron to fit your hand better.

It's made of wood. Shape it to fit your hands, and make it more comfortable to use.

Otherwise, you can always make a more traditional style wooden plane with a tote and knob, all squared off and stuff........

[Matthew N. Masail]

you can go as thin as 1\4 inch on the wall thickness, done it many times.
I've made many krenov planes but I personally don't take to the krenov style planes in ergonomics, they are tricky.


I think that you could indeed add a tote, if you wanted to. take a look at the HNT A55 jointer http://www.hntgordon.com.au/prodcata55jointer.htm
however if you do the tote MUST be shaped well to make the plane comfortable.

another issue is that the plane is fairly light wight, so a low hand grip ala krenov
will make it feel more soild. I would try to make it comfortable before turning it into a plane with a tote.
there are also ways to add mass to this plane if you do choose to turn it into something more traditional, done that too and it works very well.

[george wilson]

Of course you can't get hold of a plane that has a completely slippery,streamlined shape.

[Fitzhugh Freeman]

Great, thank you both!
Gary, I've been meaning to order that through inter-library loan, now I will. I've seen so many smoothers and such modeled after his, but very few longer planes. Those I have have been shaped the way I did, at least at first glance. What you describe sounds just right. Also, what you said about Stanley planes is even more true about Krenov's own planes - I've read he focused on making them fit his hand, not looks at all, but doesn't seem to be that true about many that people make modeled after his. Like me, they seem to just copy what came before. I'm not at all wedded to a given shape - just didn't want to make it ugly (if there was an alternative - more important is that it works!)

Jeff, that is perfect - helps me picture what to try. A side benefit: it looks great.

Thank you!

[Brian Thornock]

I have a plane made by a fellow woodworker where he made a flat on the top of the back, glued on a nice contrasting piece of walnut, and shaped a grip sort of like on jeff's plane, but with more shape so that it is very easy and comfortable to hold.

[Jack Curtis]

Have you considered trying to carve/drill a "tote" out of the area behind the blade? A big hole? Then you could pull or push. Or maybe a big indent on each side?

[David Weaver]

How many people are using krenov planes to work lumber from rough, and by that I mean a significant amount of it?

If I had to use one, I would do what jeff has done so you could lighten up the grip pressure, but if I had to have a wood plane, there exists a multitude of inexpensive vintage double iron planes that would work circles around that type.

[Jack Curtis]

How many people are using krenov planes to work lumber from rough, and by that I mean a significant amount of it?

If I had to use one, I would do what jeff has done so you could lighten up the grip pressure, but if I had to have a wood plane, there exists a multitude of inexpensive vintage double iron planes that would work circles around that type.

Not a Krenov, but very long toted wood, such as ECE 24" or C&W/Old Street 30". The metal versions' weights are a lot of work.

[David Weaver]

The continental designs (like the ECE) are proven. I haven't used any of larry's planes, but I'm sure they are an example consistent with the fine english planes.

[Winton Applegate]

As far as better grip so you can relax your hands


I made this plane


http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/IMG_0812_zps06dc6fc3.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/IMG_0812_zps06dc6fc3.jpg.html)


and was going to sculpt it into a thing of beauty but only got as far as knocking the sharp corners off. I figured where ever it bit me I would take more off.
This plane is bigger than it looks. It is a BEAST (wide and heavy) and is the equivalent of a # 4-1/2. Takes the same blade and cap iron as my LN #7 jointer !
What I wound up doing almost immediately was the finger holds. Note the top part of the cut out has a sharpish edge to "HOOK' onto the tips of my fingers. THIS WORKS GREAT !
Some where I got the idea.
Maybe from this plane even though it has handles.

http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/IMG_2392_zps5d7affa1.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/IMG_2392_zps5d7affa1.jpg.html)

Also from the oval cut out areas on the LN block planes
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/block-planes/adjustable-mouth-block-planes/
which are ineffective due to not enough depth and no top edge to "hook" your fingers.


Lastly note that Krenov took a "riffler" file to the sides of his planes and made cross hatch rough grip areas. I like my hooks better.

[Winton Applegate]

These photos show the riffler cross hatch and also cut outs for better grip :


http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/IMG_2510_zps9f5690d9.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/IMG_2510_zps9f5690d9.jpg.html)


http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/IMG_2511_zpsac56bcd3.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/IMG_2511_zpsac56bcd3.jpg.html)


http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/IMG_2515_zpsa708218f.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/IMG_2515_zpsa708218f.jpg.html)


and take note of what he said about adding handles and his thoughts on crinkle shavings and the non micro setting of the chip breaker.
1/16 and 1/32 hardly in the thousandths. and he was Mister "I tune my planes as a musician tunes his violin".

Partly why I never considered needing to set the chip breaker to such close to the edge extremes.


http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/IMG_2512_zps187e3fe0.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/IMG_2512_zps187e3fe0.jpg.html)


http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/IMG_2513_zpscf795a28.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/IMG_2513_zpscf795a28.jpg.html)


http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/IMG_2514_zps1fefb9b2.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/IMG_2514_zps1fefb9b2.jpg.html)

[Kees Heiden]

Well, it is obvious that mr. Krenov didn't understand the chipbreaker. That's not critique from my part. Many people back then didn't understand the chipbreaker anymore. To learn to understand something about handplane you must go back much earlier in time, when the handplane was critical for the daily existance of the woodworker. They put "fancy" handles on their planes, and they knew how to use the chipbreaker.

Not wanting to learn about the correct way of using the chipbreaker, beacuse mr. Krenov told you so, is counterproductive in my view.

[george wilson]

I do not care for any of the Krenov planes. They would quickly wear out my hands and give me cramps. there is no way to get what I would call a decent hold on them. Handles existed hundreds of years before Krenov came along. We all have quirks and foibles,and I regard his planes as a foible of his.

[Jim Matthews]

I've got the same problem with my Gordon Jointer.
It's designed to be driven with a dowel through the body, where you hook your thumbs.

It's excruciating, and aggravates my tennis elbow.
I pull the plane, when I tire - hooking my fingers into the mouth of the plane.

I think a better solution to this problem was devised by Yeung Chan, and it's popular enough
that William Ng offers a class in building from the same template.

It's much like the "saddle" found on the back of ECE planes, behind the blade.

283749 283750

It sounds awful, but the Jack plane I favor has what feels like a doorknob perched on the front.
It allows me to lean into the plane with my front hand registered to the body.

When I tire, I can pull easily with the drawing hand wrapped over the top.
It's not sleek, but it works.

283751 283752 (From the HNT website)

[george wilson]

I do not care for any of Krenov's planes. They all would quickly tire my old hands out or give them cramps. Handles existed on planes for hundreds of years before he came along. We all have quirks and foibles,and I think his planes are just his. Long planes need handles,especially. But,even the smoothers should not be so rounded over that excessive grip and pressure is needed to push them effectively.

I know I'll get flak from Krenov devotees for this, but I stand by my statement. His cabinet work also leaves me cold. That is of course my opinion,but an educated one.

[Pat Barry]

Well, it is obvious that mr. Krenov didn't understand the chipbreaker. That's not critique from my part. Many people back then didn't understand the chipbreaker anymore. To learn to understand something about handplane you must go back much earlier in time, when the handplane was critical for the daily existance of the woodworker. They put "fancy" handles on their planes, and they knew how to use the chipbreaker.

Not wanting to learn about the correct way of using the chipbreaker, beacuse mr. Krenov told you so, is counterproductive in my view.
I highly doubt that Krenov didn't understand the chipbreaker. That statement might be a bit off considering he discusses the use of the chipbreaker in the article excerpt provided by Winton.

[Steve Voigt]

and take note of what he said about adding handles and his thoughts on crinkle shavings and the non micro setting of the chip breaker.




Years ago, I fell for all that malarkey about not needing handles. My belief lasted as long as it took to make a Krenov jointer and use it for a single hard session.

[Pat Barry]

and take note of what he said about adding handles and his thoughts on crinkle shavings and the non micro setting of the chip breaker.
1/16 and 1/32 hardly in the thousandths. and he was Mister "I tune my planes as a musician tunes his violin".

Partly why I never considered needing to set the chip breaker to such close to the edge extremes.
http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/IMG_2513_zpscf795a28.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/IMG_2513_zpscf795a28.jpg.html)


http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/IMG_2514_zps1fefb9b2.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/IMG_2514_zps1fefb9b2.jpg.html)

Winton, by the way, could you please cite the source of the publication you excerpted these images and quotes from? I might want to get a copy if I can find one.

[Kees Heiden]

I highly doubt that Krenov didn't understand the chipbreaker. That statement might be a bit off considering he discusses the use of the chipbreaker in the article excerpt provided by Winton.


Well, if you set the cb 1/32" from the edge, then it sure won't do anything usefull for you, except supporting the blade a bit.
He is right about the crumbly shavings, that sounds like a problem down there.

Fitz, sorry I can't help you with a solution to yor problem. I am not much of a krenov plane fan myself.

[Derek Cohen]

If the smoother I received from Jim Krenov is anything to go by, then he did not use the chipbreaker. The plane was used before I received it. Indeed it arrived full of shavings ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/The%20James%20Krenov%20Smoother_html_12f10216.jpg

JK used a Hock blade and chipbreaker, and the latter was set 1/16" from the edge of the honed blade. That does not suggest using the chipbreaker.

Article: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/The%20James%20Krenov%20Smoother.html

Back to the jointer ...

I suggest the same as George - add a traditional handle. A heavier plane will benefit from one.

You may consider reshaping the rear and creating a razee - which looks the opposite of what you have. However, with a handle, the lowered body has a lower centre of effort and you will find more power and control. Here is a 15" jack ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/Jack%20Plane%20in%20Mesquite/Newtote4.jpg

... and a 28" jointer ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/My%20planes/Jointer%2028/Jointer4.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Ron Kellison]

Tom Fidgen used the Krenov laminated approach and Hock blade/cap iron to build a razee bench plane. I see no reason why you couldn't use the same approach to build a jointer plane. I pulled this photo off his website but there's quite detailed information in his new book "Unplugged Workshop".

http://www.theunpluggedwoodshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DSCN3681-1024x768.jpg

Best regards,

Ron

[george wilson]

Razee is the term also for a wooden war ship that has had the top deck cut away. They had to do this to King Charle's "Soverign of the Seas",because it was too top heavy(Too much top hamper). He was razeed too,by having his head cut off.

[Winton Applegate]

. To learn to understand something about hand plane you must go back much earlier in time, when the hand plane was critical for the daily existence of the woodworker.


Not wanting to learn about the correct way of using the chip breaker, because mr. Krenov told you so, is counterproductive in my view.


"to [begin] to understand SOMETHING . . . and NOT want to learn "

Well that is a little strong. I learned about the micro setting or I wouldn't be referring to it. It isn't hard in it's self as far as I can see: put the chip breaker on the blade, push the edge lightly into a wood surface, tighten the chip breaker screw, put the pair in the plane.

The last year or so is the first I have ever heard of it.

All I was really saying was I had never heard of it before.
I sighted one of MY main sources for info in that regard.
That's all.

So . . . keeping in mind that Krenov (http://www.crfinefurniture.com/1pages/shopinfo/jkobit.html) was "nothing more" than a know nothing 60's hippy that started an artist commune (http://crfinefurniture.com/james-krenov/) some where in a place called Fort Brag. It is still going by the way. (Old bad habits die hard I suppose). Oh and he made some wooden boats before that, what do those guys know right ? They can't even make a straight board. All of them come out all swoopy.
And
he admitted in his books he couldn't really make a living from his woodworking (not his fault from what I have seen of American furniture buying habits). He just couldn't get the hang of satisfying contemporary American fine furniture tastes . . . you know . . . press board and plastic veneer and staples oh I suppose the really good stuff uses those mini bed bolts . . .

Maybe you could help me

I have more home work to do.

In a spirit of general hand tool camaraderie and to emphasize there is no argumentative intent coming from my end . . .

micro setting of the chip breaker, and some minor dare I say FETTLING, CUTS ALL THE HARD TO PLANE DIFFICULT GRAIN easily and cleanly . . .

. . . I know that is a big change from my usual trajectory . . .

Where can I study the ways of the

earlier in time, when the handplane was critical for the daily existance of the woodworker.

When I was (first) studying hand tool woodworking Krenov was one source that was "old school" euro trained.
Frank Klausz and Tage Frid were other prominent euro dudes.
Frank being, what, third or fourth generation in a consistent line ?
oops almost went off on a tangent there . . .
admittedly he didn't include blasphemy in his books concerning bevel up planes.
Back on the rails . . .
Where do I look ?
I am going to admit the big one, since my reputation here is irreparably shot it doesn't matter too much right ? . . .
I havent studied Roubu.
There I said it.
Do you have him in mind ?
I was thinking he was earlier than you mean.
Kind of comes across TO ME, what I have seen of his bench and the crook stop end smasher as kind of a rough farm yard carpentry set up.
So . . .
where do I look ?

[David Dalzell]

I make and use mostly Krenov style planes. My largest is an 18 1/2" purpleheart jointer with a 1 1/2" blade. The body is 2 1/16" wide. It is shaped similar to that shown above by Jeff Heath. A hump just behing the blade/wedge opening and with finger grooves near the front. It is very comfortable for me and is my go to plane when jointing a board. However I have never tried to us it to flatten a bench top. Just boards. Having made many Krenov style planes (about 15) I have experimented with shapes and have found general shapes for larger/heavier plane and smaller/lighter planes that are comfortable for me. Remember, it doesn't have to be pretty, it has to be comfortable and usefull. Experiment with shaping it. A little here and a little there. You will find the sweet spot.
An aside about Krenov and chipbreaker setting: I never met the man. I went to his school (College of the Redwoods in Ft Bragg Ca.) but he was no longer alive. I have, however read all his books and have seen and handled some of his wood work which they had at the school. In his writings he advocates using what he calls a polishing plane (aka finely set smoother, finely as in make very wispy shavings) for final wood finishing and then applying very thinned shellac as finish. He avoided sandpaper whenever possible. His pieces that I saw and touched, if done as he advocated, are extraordinarilly well finished. They have a visual depth and tactile feel that I envy. Whatever he did with blade/chipbreaker setting worked. You may or may not like the ergonomics of his plane style, you may not agree with his blade/chipbreaker settings, but you cannot refute the results.

[Kees Heiden]

Sorry if I stepped on some toes ;)

When you take a shaving fine enough, and you have a very sharp blade, you won't need a chipbreaker nor a high angle plane. You might have to go to half a thou or even thinner, but almost all wood can be smoothed like that. There are some practical disadvantages to such an aproach though. Sharp blades don't stay sharp for ever, in fact they dull pretty quickly. And working with just whisper light shavings is too slow. Especially in a handtool only workshop. Learning to use the chipbreaker accelerates the work and makes everything much more efficient. Maybe you can do the same with high angle planes, I don't know because I don't have any.

When you look further back, say to Nicholson in the mid 19th century or even a bit further back to Salivet, you will see that they perfectly understood what a chipbreaker can do and how to use it. I don't know why Frid or Klaus or Krenov didn't. Most 20th century English woodworking authors seem to know about it, allthough their description of how to use the chipbreaker is usually very terse. Even Leonard Lee (if I remember correctly) has a sentence like that in his book: set the chipbreaker at 1/64" or closer.
Oh, and don't forget Holzapffel (how ever you write his name). He advices 1/50th of an inch which isn't quite cutting it yet.

Apologies for derailing the thread.

[Fitzhugh Freeman]

Wow, got a lot of helpful replies to digest. I'm happy to sit back and learn from the debates. The photos you all shared are a huge help. I'd been bothered by this plane since I made it (pre long injury induced pause). I kept meaning to post this question, glad I finally did.

I love the look of razee planes and was thinking of cutting this down if I needed a tote on it. I also kinda figured adding a "doorknob" to the front was most likely change to help. I figure I can try a few shapes in the 4x4 scraps from the neighbor's deck project before chopping up the real one. I had a hard time finding the wood for the real plane, my economy is stunted, and I don't want to screw up the real one if I can help it. I'll try w/out adding anything first, then try handles if needed. Next time I think I will try razee.

I tried the krenov style mainly because I find the Stanley no.5 I have to be awful, awkward and painful to use. Note, however, it has a plastic handle and the soul of a happy meal toy. Found it with a "FREE!" post-it on the curb. That's neither a large enough nor appropriate enough sample. I have liked the few non-handled planes I have (block plane, thanks to member who I believe didn't want to be named, small Japanese plane, and an 18" stick sharing the Japanese blade, made for flattening the sole of the one discussed here). None were heavy, though.

I found the pages posted above to be a great help, thanks! Monday I go to the library to order it. I also want to get the Figden book, looks good.

Speaking of which, I just got a copy of "Making Wood Tools" by John Wilson and it is wonderful. He presents a range of ways of doing things and shows that it is possible.

I used a Hock blade in the plane in question here and love it. For the same cost I got a 4 foot long piece of 3/16 x 2 inch 1084 carbon steel to make tool blades, so far that's a shoulder plane blade and a joinery float and a couple small forged knives from the scraps from the shoulder plane (if by forging you mean heating and smashing with a hammer until it completely surrenders and ends up smooshed flattish, followed by files etc. but they aren't half bad in the end). I've got a lot left, a two brick forge, and now a proper anvil (if by anvil you mean a big old sledgehammer head stuck in a stump). The home heat treating was easy and seems to have worked very well. Managed not to warp the float by coating in clay. Should have started with a planemakers side float - much much easier to file!

Are my results as good as Hock's? Of course not. Will I buy more of his stuff? Of course. But the ability to shape and heat treat metal for tool blades opens a lot of doors I never knew could even peek through. I admit I'm happy making tools I need and learning to use them, no doubt only to remake them later when I know more, and fine with not being able to just go out and buy whatever I want new.

I want to say how great it is to get advise from you people who have been inspiring me. I've been intrigued by your toolmaking examples, advise proffered on threads here, etc.

[David Weaver]

And
he admitted in his books he couldn't really make a living from his woodworking (not his fault from what I have seen of American furniture buying habits). He just couldn't get the hang of satisfying contemporary American fine furniture tastes . . . you know . . . press board and plastic veneer and staples oh I suppose the really good stuff uses those mini bed bolts . . .


No worries, winton...we actually do have a member on here who has made a living with hand tools, and he's an ardent supporter of the double iron.

[David Weaver]

you may not agree with his blade/chipbreaker settings, but you cannot refute the results.

It is the part of the process before the wispy shavings that the cap iron is most useful for - to get the wood to the point that you can take the wispy shavings if you so desire to finish (instead of scraping, sanding, etc).

You can get to that point very slowly if you've got no other reservations on your time, or you can use a double iron and take a wide shaving not too far below a hundredth thick in those passes.

[Kees Heiden]

How about putting some really fancy handles on you rplane, like in plate 13 from Roubo? http://www.toolemera.com/bkpdf/roubomichaudBK.pdf

I am not sure if that is going to improve the ergonomics though.

[Jeff Heath]

Using wooden planes is a terrific way to get great feedback through the 'feel and feedback' you receive when working wood. In my opinion, you don't get the same feedback from working wood with metal planes.

One of the great attributes of making your own planes from wood, or having someone else make them for you, is that you can shape them anyway you like. Traditionalists often feel that a woodworking plane has to "look the part", and stay true to form. For me, that just isn't so. I shape the planes I make and use to fit my hands, which are very large. I find using the Krenov-style planes to be quite comfortable, and I have had long, hard sessions using them. I flattened the 8' long and 24" wide bench I recently built out of maple with, in part, the plane posted earlier in this thread. I also used these.....a maple jack and a bubinga smoother.

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab57/hawkfan9/Heath%20Toolworks%20planes/IMAG0173_zps30907e9b.jpg

As to the chipbreaker part of the discussion......I made two smoothers just for fun to try this out. I used hock irons in both, but removed the chipbreaker from one, just to see which would work better. The bubinga plane in the above ^^^ photo has no chipbreaker, and here it is smoothing curly flame birch against the grain. No problem. Here's another picture of the other bubinga smoother I made using the same style hock iron, this time with the chipbreaker, and note the maple wedge. That's how I know which is which......

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab57/hawkfan9/Heath%20Toolworks%20planes/Bubingasmoother_zpsde430580.jpg

For the woods I work, which are predominantly North American Hardwoods.....often with plenty of birdseye, curl, flame, crotch, and all the other adjectives you can use for somewhat more gnarly grain.....either plane works very, very well. Both are bedded at 50°.

Here's a maple jack plane taming and flattening the curly cherry top of a recent media cabinet I built last year. Piece of cake, and this plane is bedded at 45° with the same hock iron/chipbreaker combo.

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab57/hawkfan9/Cherry%20Media%20Cabinet/flatteningpanel_zps1fa237d1.jpg

My point is, you can shape these planes to fit YOUR hands, and they are no less comfortable to use for lengthy sessions than a toted and knobbed plane. However, if a tote and knob are your thing, then by all means, add them. If it means you'll work more efficiently, then go for it. Before doing that, though, I would try shaping your plane a little more to fit your hand.

The first jointer plane I made had no "grip" behind the iron, as in my jointer plane that I showed originally. It was not as easy to grip for long sessions, and I found my right hand slipping after a while. Especially as I worked up a good sweat. Adding the "humpback", as I call it, gives the place between my thumb and pointer on my hand a place to register to, and it became a whole lot easier to use for longer periods of time.

Give it a try.

I'm also dabbling with making planes more in the traditionally shaped styles, like this coffin-style smoother in maple

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab57/hawkfan9/IMAG0368_zpse124b04b.jpg

I actually like this plane a lot, but I need to round the rear of the plane a little more to make it a little more comfortable to use. I also recently made a 22" long try/joiner plane that is one piece, will be toted (I made it yesterday, but it's not installed yet) and have a strike button......just like a traditional plane. This will be my first chance to see which style plane, if any, is easier to use for extended sessions. I made it out of honey locust......a very hard and dense wood

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab57/hawkfan9/Heath%20Toolworks%20planes/IMAG0379_zpseca57c55.jpg

A long winded post indeed, but I wanted to make the point that the only thing that matters is that you're working wood. If you want to use hand tools, I personally think that's awesome. It's the reason why we all hang out in the Neander section. But, there's no reason why you can't think a little out of the box and do what works for you. Shape that plane up to your liking. It's a good idea that you are shaping the construction grade lumber first, to find out what feels good for you, before tearing into your finished plane.

That's all I got for now.....

[Brian Holcombe]

practicing my reading and comprehension skills today.

[Kees Heiden]

Winton, when you want to know all the nitty gritty about chipbreakers, you'll have to read Steve Elliotts website. He has collected quite a bit of the Japanese research papers.

http://planetuning.infillplane.com/index.html

[Jim Matthews]

You're not alone in this sentiment.

I think his approach is lasting.
His design sense? Not my speed.

Still, some amazing stuff followed...283876
I can't imagine Gere Osgood or the studio furniture movement
getting traction in the marketplace of ideas before Krenov.

[Jim Matthews]

Your stuff is like clever song writing;
it's always a good deal better than it must be.

The fit and finish of your tools carries into the furniture you've shown.

* I'm going downstairs to bang nails into my sideboard, now *

* sigh *

[James Conrad]

Krenov sculpted his planes to his liking and use, I would hazard to say he would expect others to do the same. Just because you’re making a plane using Krenov style construction does not mean you have to copy his designs. When he made a plane for someone, you got it unfinished in terms of final shaping. Like any tool, it has to be comfortable in your hand or you are not going to use it. So, add a horn or traditional tote if that works for you. Krenov took his cues in making his planes, if I remember correctly, from period German style planes and then put his own twist on them to suit his needs, you should do the same, some great suggestions have been given earlier in this thread. I’m sure you will find something that will suit your needs an as long as it keeps you woodworking by all means go for it. I enjoy wood using wood planes, especially for smoothing, and for green woodworking they are a must for sure.


Krenov respected wood and believed each piece should be made the most of. The majority of his case construction was veneer work due to that philosophy, so there was not much need for wasting large amounts of wood, and the scale of his projects were much smaller as well. He put forth a lasting design style that is unique pulling from Scandinavian, Eurpoean and Asian influences that stands on its own, collected by Museums around the world, and he had a strong desire to pass along his knowledge of woodworking. He wasn’t paid by an employer to build things, he was a successful craftsman on his own, with his own style and woodworking philosophy, which is difficult for any artist to accomplish. Whether you like Krenov’s planes or his furniture design style, is certainly up for debate, his influence on the history of woodworking, not so much.

[David Weaver]

The design could be made more adapatable to the whole range of cuts in woodworking if it was given a razee handle and possibly some fixture on the front (the back handle being more important, even if it was the rear saddle like a continental smoothing plane has, though that might be problematic with the short irons that are usually installed in them).

One thing that I don't particularly follow is that when someone doesn't favor the style of a given woodworker, it's always extrapolated into the accusation that they are claiming such a person has no influence on woodworking or design or whatever. If there was no influence, nobody would say that they don't like someone's designs. I've never seen anything that krenov made that I have found much favor in, tools or furniture, but that doesn't change the fact that every single power tool woodworker who I've ever come across has mentioned james krenov at some point figuring that I must be a disciple. In most cases, they have read his books (they are novel to those folks), but I personally have not.

I don't consider myself a traditionalist, either, though - at least not any further than for guidance on what will work the best when someone is actually working on normal cabinetmaking type things or furniture with just hand tools. As in, not veneering or studio pieces, I don't live in a studio. I get the sense that looking to the eras when people made those types of things (furniture and cabinets not designed for studios) in numbers would be a better indicator of what to do.

There's a whole list of things I don't find favorable - especially stuff like nakashima tables - I'm baffled by that kind of thing - slab some wood, remove the dirt, put a few doodads on it and charge a lot. Really, I can't make sense of much of anything that wasn't designed for utility at least to some extent. I would much rather see a secretary, chest of drawers (that's practical), a side table etc.

I don't for a second doubt the influence of the newer stuff, though. i have heard more about any single "new" woodworker than all of the stuff I like combined.

[Brian Holcombe]

There's a whole list of things I don't find favorable - especially stuff like nakashima tables - I'm baffled by that kind of thing - slab some wood, remove the dirt, put a few doodads on it and charge a lot. Really, I can't make sense of much of anything that wasn't designed for utility at least to some extent. I would much rather see a secretary, chest of drawers (that's practical), a side table etc.

I don't for a second doubt the influence of the newer stuff, though. i have heard more about any single "new" woodworker than all of the stuff I like combined.

I'm baffled by this, I understand that you don't like nakashima stuff, but it's practically nothing but utility. An architectural base and heavy wood top...

[David Weaver]

I suppose the smaller stuff makes some sense, but at what cost? I don't know, maybe it's the cost that I find more offensive, and if the average person wanted to just put down a slab table with a slab that cost a few hundred bucks, that'd make more sense to me.

The bigger stuff becomes an unexpandable very heavy object with no ability for variation (drawers, shelves, ...I recognize that there are a few pieces of furniture that I've seen - and I don't know if they are nakashima, or just nakashima-esque - that have a shelf or drawer or two - but most don't).

[James Conrad]

David, my post has nothing to do with making any extrapolations or accusations concerning someones design likes or dislikes, never mentioned whether I like his design or not either. The intent was more for general consumption as I always find when Krenov is mentioned it becomes some heated discussion in some terms, almost like Clearvue devotes, but few people know much about him, or how he worked. It's almost like calling Sam Maloof a one trick pony, as you always here about his rocking chair and little else. Would enjoy discussing that statement, but we are starting to hijack a thread... That is funny that you found power tool folks that know about him, my experience is the complete opposite. I think I am with you on the nakashima tables... If I were to recommend a Krenov book, it would A Cabinet Makers Notebook, but read it more for his thoughts on woodworking than anything else.

[David Weaver]

I agree with you, the impact that krenov has had on the woodworking world (and it extends well beyond the handtool lunkheads like me) is undeniable.

I have seen the same accusations of maloof. I have never been a fan of any one particular woodworker (but that doesn't make me an anti-fan, I just operate at the "thing" level more than the person), but I wouldn't guess that any of these guys would be restricted in what they make.

I'll bet sam made mostly chairs because people wanted sam to make them chairs, and sam made chairs for pay. If someone paid me good money to make planes, I'd do nothing but make planes, and it wouldn't much matter that I could make any number of other things.

Woodworking for hobby vs. woodworking for pay. I don't doubt that krenov could've made just about anything he wanted to make. I'm guessing he made what moved him.

I am so glad we don't have dust collection arguments down here!!

[Tony Shea]

I am so glad we don't have dust collection arguments down here!!

Great quote David.

So David, this is way off topic but am curious what your inspiration is in terms of planes and plane makers. I assume this is what most interests you in the woodworking side of things. I have to admit that as far as furniture and cabinet making Krenov has been a huge inspiration in my work at least in terms of how think about working wood.

[Brian Holcombe]

I find the current cost a bit ridiculous, but mainly because they were reasonable at the time when they were being produced for the clients originally commissioning his work. The current, auction prices are insane and the price of pieces made in his style are proportionally expensive because they are the alternative to incredible auction prices.

I've seen plenty of his stuff with drawers, shelves, leaves, ect.

I don't particularly like 'live-edge', so most I'm sure would find it strange that what I appreciate about nakashima is the japanese joinery and handmade aspect. This was a man finishing with a plane and cutting things by hand when the bulk of the industry was moving in the direction of cheap and fast.

[David Weaver]

Well, for sure nakashima's furniture is more nicely finished than most of the live edge stuff.

And his reach is also undeniable. I have been asked by more people about nakashima's stuff than any other woodworker. People tell you about nakashima as if you may not have heard of him, and they'd like to give you a tip. I've never heard about krenov from non-woodworkers, but my mother (who is not a woodworker) has twice attempted to tell me about nakashima.

[Brian Holcombe]

I do find that part of it to be annoying, one of the more grating comments I've received was someone suggesting I might be trying to 'be like nakashima'. I admire the man's work, but I do not build live edge so it's only possible to draw that conclusion if one is not aware of any other woodworkers.

That being said, it hasn't deterred me from admiring his work on my own.

[george wilson]

I don't HATE Nakashima,but I am not crazy about his work either. Years ago,someone returned a favor by giving me the Nakashima book!! I have not opened it yet. Been over 30 years by now.

I have never been a fan of Scando designs. Just to "cool" looking to me. By cool,I mean no passion. Cold. I want to see warmth. That's my taste,not a criticism.

I think those who write books collect a lot of followers by default. And those followers often think their authors are infallible in what they teach. Some because they do not know any better themselves. I'm not referring to anyone by saying this. I just think that is the way it is. I could have written a book,and gotten it published free,too,by the museum. But then,they keep all the profits. The curatorial bunch called themselves the "publish or perish" crowd. Probably quite true. They constantly wrote books just to keep their names in circulation,letting the museum pay the costs and keep the profits.

[Mel Fulks]

Yeah. I don't like any work done by people whose work "philosophy " is a big deal. It's like if you don't like it "you just don't understand his philosophy".

[Steve Voigt]

To me, Nakashima and Maloof are extremely important figures. I'd also throw Wegner, Esherick, and a few others in there.
But to appreciate them, one really needs to get out of the woodworker's ghetto. These guys are important in the history of design much more than woodworking. They represent an evolution of early 20th c. high modernism: a softer, more organic, and also more practical modernism, that finds a way around the "it looks cool but I can't sit/live in it" of Mies or Wright.
When I lived in NYC, I got to examine pieces by maloof and nakashima up close. No surprise, the joinery, wood selection, finish is impeccable. But that's not what it's about. It's about fresh, original designs that work, are organic and functional without any unnecessary ornamentation. It's a plus that they're also extremely well made, but that's not the main point. Woodworkers focus on the technical complexity of Maloof's chairs, for example, but they're not in the Smithsonian because of that. They're historically important for the design; the technical difficulty of making the chairs is incidental to everyone except us woodworkers.
As for Nakashima: David, it's not fair to describe it as "slab some wood, charge a lot." On many of the pieces (especially desks and chairs), the joinery is quite intricate and extremely well done. In fact, I think Alan Caro (hope I have that name right) recently had a post on here, expounding on some of the rather mind-blowing geometry on a nakashima settee. But you don't notice it; again, it's not the point.

[Steve Voigt]

...

I tried the krenov style mainly because I find the Stanley no.5 I have to be awful, awkward and painful to use. Note, however, it has a plastic handle and the soul of a happy meal toy. Found it with a "FREE!" post-it on the curb. That's neither a large enough nor appropriate enough sample. I have liked the few non-handled planes I have (block plane, thanks to member who I believe didn't want to be named, small Japanese plane, and an 18" stick sharing the Japanese blade, made for flattening the sole of the one discussed here). None were heavy, though.

...

I used a Hock blade in the plane in question here and love it. For the same cost I got a 4 foot long piece of 3/16 x 2 inch 1084 carbon steel to make tool blades, so far that's a shoulder plane blade and a joinery float and a couple small forged knives from the scraps from the shoulder plane (if by forging you mean heating and smashing with a hammer until it completely surrenders and ends up smooshed flattish, followed by files etc. but they aren't half bad in the end). I've got a lot left, a two brick forge, and now a proper anvil (if by anvil you mean a big old sledgehammer head stuck in a stump). The home heat treating was easy and seems to have worked very well. Managed not to warp the float by coating in clay. Should have started with a planemakers side float - much much easier to file!

Are my results as good as Hock's? Of course not. Will I buy more of his stuff? Of course. But the ability to shape and heat treat metal for tool blades opens a lot of doors I never knew could even peek through. I admit I'm happy making tools I need and learning to use them, no doubt only to remake them later when I know more, and fine with not being able to just go out and buy whatever I want new.


Fitz, I really admire the spirit of this post. Especially your willingness to go for it and tackle tool making in its most elemental forms, right down to forging your own steel. I also am very sympathetic to your ultra-low budget approach, presumably out of necessity. I have been woodworking on a shoestring (well, a used piece of dental floss, really) since college. It really can be done without dropping five figures at LN/LV. I have never owned a tool from either of those makers.
The one piece of advice I have, totally unsolicited, is to not get discouraged if your early efforts aren't spectacular. It's hard to make tools that work great; that's why people charge a lot for them. You made a very nice looking Krenov plane. I understand that it's not very ergonomic, but you'll fix it, or you'll make a better one later (or both). Either way, it's just the start of the journey.

- Steve

[James Conrad]

I think the problem with the Nakashima form, specifically the live edge slab tables, is that many have poorly copied the concept. That is what I find disdain for. Looking at the body of work that George Nakashima produced provides the real picture, you quickly recognize the Danish, English and American influences in much of his work.

George, if you still have it in you, please pursue your book. Woodworking needs quality content.

[Jeff Heath]

Fitz, I really admire the spirit of this post. Especially your willingness to go for it and tackle tool making in its most elemental forms, right down to forging your own steel. I also am very sympathetic to your ultra-low budget approach, presumably out of necessity. I have been woodworking on a shoestring (well, a used piece of dental floss, really) since college. It really can be done without dropping five figures at LN/LV. I have never owned a tool from either of those makers.
The one piece of advice I have, totally unsolicited, is to not get discouraged if your early efforts aren't spectacular. It's hard to make tools that work great; that's why people charge a lot for them. You made a very nice looking Krenov plane. I understand that it's not very ergonomic, but you'll fix it, or you'll make a better one later (or both). Either way, it's just the start of the journey.

- Steve

Steve,

These are very wise words of advice. I read your post 3 times before responding. I kept the first plane I ever made, because it was the first plane I ever made. The mouth is all wrong, the 'wear' (ware.....whatever) doesn't exist, and it has other flaws, too, that make it a lousy user. But it was my first, so I kept it. The 2nd, 5th, 6th went right into the burn pile. We all learn from doing, and everything almost always gets better with experience and learning. I seem to keep my mistakes and fix them, when possible, and use them myself. The really good ones move on to other woodworkers, and it was quite a while before I felt comfortable allowing that.

In the end, as you stated so eloquently, it's just the start of the journey. Words that I live my life by, and have been for quite some time. Seeing you put it in writing struck a chord.....

Regards.

[Fitzhugh Freeman]

Thank you all for the help. Somehow I didn't get notifications that there were responses - will check that setting after posting. I can't reply to all the posts, or even most, but as I said before they all help.

I spent a few hours yesterday playing with forms for the plane (on scrap lumber), then got distracted by playing around with the plane on the 3 by 13 by 66 inch slab that is half the bench top. Only then I got into it and didn't stop until it was flat - not precision flat but flat to a first approximation with no obvious gap using my loosely defined straightedge. This took way into the night since the piece had two long waves over a 1/4 inch tall and a twist of about 1/2 and inch, being the "scraps" from someone testing the used sawmill they bought to make a log cabin.

I did most of the heavy work with the no5 I turned into a scrub plane, then switched back and forth between a 19" long 1" wide ugly stick I made from scrap to flatten the big one, and the big one itself. I hadn't gotten around to shaping it yet but I have to say it was a LOT easier to use this time around. I realized as I worked that the bench top is now on a white melamine or something hand-me-down desk (made rigid by nailing some boards across the legs). When I worked on the other piece over a year back - paused for unrelated injury - it was on a different base that was a couple inches taller. What a difference! I was able to use my body this time, not just my arms. Of course I didn't do ANY planing today. You know that pain you get when you work muscles really hard that have not had to do a thing for, I don't know, maybe ever? yeah, that is my back and neck today.

Instead I started the draw knife I will use to shape the plane. I wanted to make one anyhow so when I had trouble shaping the mockup because I didn't have the right tools I decided to try. I just got John Wilson's wonderful "How to Make Wood Tools" (as mentioned above), and so I followed his design. It needs more filing and then heat treating, handles, sharpening, etc. but it at least looks like a draw knife blade now :) In making it I reminded myself why I love hand tools. I used an angle grinder for the first time to cut off the chunk of steel needed. I mean, I like sparks and all, they're pretty, but man was it LOUD and hungry for fingers. I cut the rest out with a hacksaw instead.

Side note: I learned on the knife forums when trying to learn about steel for plane blades that 1084 is the best starter steel. A great steel, perhaps not as perfect as some if you have a pro heat treat it, but for the amateur at home it is almost trivial to heat treat right and get surprisingly great results. Thought I'd pass that on since it helped me.



Fitz, I really admire the spirit of this post. Especially your willingness to go for it and tackle tool making in its most elemental forms, right down to forging your own steel. I also am very sympathetic to your ultra-low budget approach, presumably out of necessity. I have been woodworking on a shoestring (well, a used piece of dental floss, really) since college. It really can be done without dropping five figures at LN/LV. I have never owned a tool from either of those makers.
The one piece of advice I have, totally unsolicited, is to not get discouraged if your early efforts aren't spectacular. It's hard to make tools that work great; that's why people charge a lot for them. You made a very nice looking Krenov plane. I understand that it's not very ergonomic, but you'll fix it, or you'll make a better one later (or both). Either way, it's just the start of the journey.

- Steve

Thank you, and Jeff for chiming in on that note. The shoestring started out as a budget thing but is now a prime motivation itself - not sure how to put it that to say I find it so empowering to realize I can make a tool, even if it just partially functional practice for making one right down the road. I also appreciate the advice about results, actually. This plane works well, mouth, blade etc. wise, but perhaps because I don't have a really good one to compare it to. Other things I've tried to make have not always worked as hoped. It is encouraging to hear you are pulling it off on a budget, though I don't wish that on you! I see so many articles, videos, etc. where the solution involves some tool I can't possibly afford. I'm learning to make my own and finding I enjoy it just as much as using the tools to make something else.

Oh, and what is "ware" on a plane?

[Kees Heiden]

The wear or ware is the surface just in front of the blade. The wall oposite of the edge so to speak. In traditional wooden planes this wall is slightly sloping backwards, usally at an angle of 70 to 80 degrees. This helps to keep the widening of the mouth in check when you have to flatten the sole from time to time. Of course, traditional planes had tapered irons, so the mouth widens anyway when the iron gets shorter.

I appreciate your efforts too. I am not into new tools either, restoring old ones instead.

[David Weaver]

But you don't notice it; again, it's not the point.

That could be, but I shouldn't have to look past the major visual attributes of a piece to view tiny details and call it great. That would be like having a very ugly house and boasting to people that it was timberframed by hand. Lots of people like it a lot, I don't contend anyone shouldn't, but the immediate visual of the wood strikes me as an unfinished piece.

I also don't really ascribe to the "plane it a lot by and and it's good" school of finishing. There is a lot of slab furniture that's created that way, and the fact that it's planed by hand is described as a major major attribute, and either legs are stuck in it or it's placed on a metal frame. It is not, to me, something that I would even think of buying as a woodworker.

I don't love mission style or G&G, and those seem to have a great following, too. I don't try to force myself to find technical attributes of things that are not visually pleasing to me to force a change of opinion about whether or not they are visually pleasing. And in terms of furniture, whether or not you find something visually pleasing is a big deal.

[David Weaver]

If budget really is a cocern, I would suggest tools like this rather than making your own. I literally can buy planes cheaper than I make them (I make planes sometimes, anyway, but do they turn out better than this plane functions? No).

I've bought three try planes in the last couple of weeks. They were $60, $20 (this one in the picture was $20) and $10 for another one that looks about the same as this one. And a decent double iron jointer missing a horn for $20 (which took about a half hour to add). If budget is a concern, it's hard to get much cheaper than that.

283949

Cheap planes like this have some cosmetic cracking sometimes, but this plane has a wrought iron backed cutting iron and cap iron, and forge welded carbon steel at the business end both in the cap iron and of course in the cutting iron.

the other point about planes of this type is if you are working mostly by hand, you'll be able to get your coarser work done much faster. They do take about an hour to get back in shape when you get them (grinding any pitting out of the iron, gluing the handle in if it's loose and cleaning them off, and planing or jointing the bottom flat).

[Jim Matthews]

To me, Nakashima and Maloof are extremely important figures. I'd also throw Wegner, Esherick, and a few others in there.

Esherick was a genius, and among the first to see the potential of sculpting wood.
Wharton blazed a completely new trail, and the studio furniture movement followed.

I think a good deal of his stuff is incomprehensible, but it's immediately recognizable.

No shortcuts in his way of building things.
Echoes of this approach can be seen in the output of Gere Osgood, Hank Gilpin and Jamie Robertson.

There's no easy way to make things like these - this leads to invention, and new methods merging with timeless techniques.

I'm surprised to find that I'm not the only one perplexed by live edge furniture, I just don't get the appeal.

(Like new furniture that's made to look old, or Shabby Chic that's really just shabby.)

* rant off *

[Jim Matthews]

I find the Stanley no.5 I have to be awful, awkward and painful to use. Note, however, it has a plastic handle and the soul of a happy meal toy. Found it with a "FREE!" post-it on the curb. I found the pages posted above to be a great help, thanks! Monday I go to the library to order it. I also want to get the Figden book, looks good.

Two things I would follow through on this - can you wrap the plastic handle with tape for hockey stick handles? A slick grip is worse than uncomfortable, it will induce uncertainty to a simple task.
Second - how high is your planing bench? I like to have my planes bear on the work surface between the height of my belt buckle and navel.

That's my "comfort zone".

I suspect that Japanese style wood planes would give your wrist and elbows some relief, as you can fully extend your arms and pull with larger muscles.

That said, I do 80% of my planing tasks with a #4 size plane. Mine is an HNT Gordon Jack plane, and it's a pleasure to use - I push it, and it has no handle at all.

A really sharp blade, set to less than 3 thousandths thickness just zips through the Cherry I most like to use.

[Jim Matthews]

There's something about the oval shape of the "Coffin" design that makes them easy to handle for extended periods.

Steve's "mini-smoother" sits up high enough that I don't need to drag the heel of my hand on boards to get a smooth finish.
Your coffin smoother shown is another admirable example of the form. Kudos.

I think Steve's innovation is the rounding of the back profile. If he'll lend you an example, you'll feel it right away.

[David Weaver]

(Like new furniture that's made to look old, or Shabby Chic that's really just shabby.)


Yeah, that's the worst. While I don't love nakashima or krenov's stuff, at least its bits are honest. Fake wear is just that...fake. And there seems to be no bottom to tasteless, like taking a single screw and banging it all over a cabinet or table with a hammer.

Poor people 150 years ago would've made fun of furniture (and the people buying it) that was new and then intentionally damaged.

[Steve Voigt]

Steve,

These are very wise words of advice. I read your post 3 times before responding. I kept the first plane I ever made, because it was the first plane I ever made. The mouth is all wrong, the 'wear' (ware.....whatever) doesn't exist, and it has other flaws, too, that make it a lousy user. But it was my first, so I kept it. The 2nd, 5th, 6th went right into the burn pile. We all learn from doing, and everything almost always gets better with experience and learning. I seem to keep my mistakes and fix them, when possible, and use them myself. The really good ones move on to other woodworkers, and it was quite a while before I felt comfortable allowing that.

In the end, as you stated so eloquently, it's just the start of the journey. Words that I live my life by, and have been for quite some time. Seeing you put it in writing struck a chord.....

Regards.

Jeff, thanks for the very kind words, I really appreciate it. I'm sure we've had some very similar experiences! My first plane was completely unusable. It was a while before I made something that broke into the starting lineup, so to speak.

[Jim Matthews]

There's real emphasis here on the finer end of the spectrum.

Sometimes I want to "hog off" a heavier shaving, and to do that I need something solid to hold.
If I'm pulling a plane, the workpiece is angled toward the ground so that gravity is my friend.

If I'm pushing a plane, it needs to be at about my belt line or I can't get my bulk engaged.

283976

In either case, heavy work needs to be done by larger muscles.
Finer work is done with finer shavings.

If every pass just takes off one half-thousandth, I would never finish most of my projects.
I'm slow enough, already.

[Pat Barry]

There's real emphasis here on the finer end of the spectrum.

Sometimes I want to "hog off" a heavier shaving, and to do that I need something solid to hold.
If I'm pulling a plane, the workpiece is angled toward the ground so that gravity is my friend.

If I'm pushing a plane, it needs to be at about my belt line or I can't get my bulk engaged.

283976

In either case, heavy work needs to be done by larger muscles.
Finer work is done with finer shavings.

If every pass just takes off one half-thousandth, I would never finish most of my projects.
I'm slow enough, already.
You enjoy reading that book Jim? I didn't realize you were so multi-faceted.

[Jim Matthews]

You enjoy reading that book Jim? I didn't realize you were so multi-faceted.

I like coloring the pictures.
No, I do not read NihonGo.

I was looking for a photo of (a very young) Toshio Odate demonstrating one.
I've had some decent results getting longer boards into shape, that way.

These days, I don't work with things much longer than 40".
I can handle that, right at my bench.

[Winton Applegate]

Pat,


What books did I pull from ?
Sorry to be so remiss. I just got around to looking into this thread again. I wish when I get a direct post to one of mine I would get a notice in my e-mail like FWW used to do.
Fume
. . . anyway there are three books by James Krenov worth at least checking out from the Library. I wore out the Library copies and wound up buying my own.
I can see both sides when it comes to Krenov now that I have more experience.
One thing I will say for the guy :
He sure knows how to romanticize woodcraft (all the while saying Don't romanticize this; it is hard work; you will starve; don't quit your day job !

WORTH READING just keep your feet on the ground; as he recommends.

OK I will stop blowing hot air and to the books :
http://www.amazon.com/Cabinetmakers-Notebook-Woodworkers-Library/dp/0941936597/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394090049&sr=1-1&keywords=james+krenov

http://www.amazon.com/Impractical-Cabinetmaker-Krenov-Composing-Detailing/dp/0941936511/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394090096&sr=1-3&keywords=james+krenov

http://www.amazon.com/Fine-Art-Cabinetmaking-James-Krenov/dp/1933502096/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394090276&sr=1-1&keywords=james+krenov+the+fine+art+of+cabinet+maki ng

there are one or two others but these talk about the how to.

[Winton Applegate]

Stanley no.5 I have to be awful, awkward and painful to use.

I couldn't get used to the weird tearing buzzing sound when taking heavy cuts with a highly cambered blade. Feels cheep and out of it's depth. I was practicing on bubinga flattening this mini table top before the big go on the dining table.

http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/794426c2-22a2-4c72-926a-eb17a41f6974_zps70c450f4.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/794426c2-22a2-4c72-926a-eb17a41f6974_zps70c450f4.jpg.html)

Blade dulled quick, the surface was rounded rather than flat because it was taking deeper cuts at the start than in the middle.

That was a plane I bought brand new back in 1976 or so and fettled best I could. It had wood handles, a Stanley. I had been hauling it around with me half my life. When I got into REAL wood working she got to sit on the shelf and watch.

I figured if I couldn't get this little thing flat I had no hope with the big table.

ALL THAT went away when I BUed.
Never looked back.

That was just for dimensionoing/flattening the top.
I had a similar experience with my LN #4 for smoothing the purple heart but to be fair I never set the chip breaker closer than probably a 1/100th inch

Back bevel got 'er going. BU LV made it a pleasure.
Then I discoverd the scrub plane and going cross grain and diagonal if that was tearing too much. No chip breaker there so I was happy.
:)
Back beveled him for the Bubinga big table.
Love that big thick blade. No buzzing and digging in at the start.
I can't imagine I will have as much fun with a bed rock jack plane cross grain ONCE I FIND THE SWEET SPOT. Hey something to explore right ?

[Winton Applegate]

got . .. carbon steel to make tool blades, . . .a two brick forge, and now a proper anvil (if by anvil you mean a big old sledgehammer head stuck in a stump). . .. home heat treating . . . seems to have worked very well

THERE YOU GO ! THERE YOU GO !
That's showing 'em.

[Winton Applegate]

Kees,

Steve Elliotts website
Bless you !
Thank you!

[Winton Applegate]

design style that is unique pulling from Scandinavian, Eurpoean and Asian influences that stands on its own, collected by Museums around the world,
thanks for saying that I couldn't quite get that together in words.


The majority of his case construction was veneer work
I would be a little careful there. I seem to remember he EXPLORED veneer but rejected it and went back to solid wood for most of his work.
Thick assed veneer like I used on the front of my bench but still.

Anyone want to elaborate on that one ?

Well he used dowels so what does HE know right ? The longer I am around the more I hate the idea of dowels. I almost bought the latest FWW for the desk gallery article. Nice piece over all but . . . you guessed it . . . lots of dowels.

Still WAY TOO MUCH "this is a hand plane" . . ." it cuts wood". What ever happened to FWW in FWW ?

I understand that the majority of the FWW reader ship may not build world class furniture but don't they still want to read about such and the people who make it ? And the people who buy it. I remember an article, in some magazine, about a guy who built a mansion then went off and found a team of dudes that specialize in world class american period furniture and hired them to fill his house.

NOW THAT IS A MAGAZINE ARTICLE.
I can read about basic dovetail cutting in a book,
many books,
many, many, many books. Why would I buy the latest top shelf woodworking magazine to read old news. More like no news.

[James Conrad]

I would be a little careful there. I seem to remember he EXPLORED veneer but rejected it and went back to solid wood for most of his work.
Thick assed veneer like I used on the front of my bench but still.

Anyone want to elaborate on that one ?

From the people I have talked with who worked directly with Krenov and/or studied under him, the casework of his popularized cabinets was indeed veneer work, and yes dowel construction. He made his own thick veneer and veneer core, but experimented with different substrates. The examples of his work that I have seen in person, his cabinets were veneered and these were completed late in his career, but one coopered door piece was of all solid wood construction. Not claiming to be an expert on Krenov, but I feel pretty confident in my original statement. It would be nice to see a book done by historians/museum on him, and his contemporaries who all passed right around his time.

[Brian Holcombe]

I built an outdoor table for my house using mostly dowel joinery, it was right after we moved in and we needed a couple things right away. It's in the worst possible conditions for dowels to survive in, ie tons of moisture or extreme cold/hot, often time I'll leave ice or snow on it for weeks. In fact this winter it's had 12" of snow on it for a couple weeks.

When it finally fails I'll rebuild it with more appropriate joinery, but for the time being I'm impressed with how well they've held up in real life, less than ideal, conditions.