Apart from the Sacrilege

[Kees Heiden]

Well, mr. Schwarz's investigation method is a bit dubious, but the question still remains. Are the new LN and LV planes really better then the vintage planes? And in what respect are they better?

I can't compare, because I don't have new benchplanes. But I have another example. I like to use both my Stanley #4 and my wooden coffin plane. The Stanley is certainly easier to use, quicker to adjust, not warping over the year, quicker to sharpen with its thinner blade. But the woody is lighter, has less friction, feels better in the hand. All in all, when the going gets tough, I tend to reach for the Stanley. Both are as perfectly tuned as possible for me.

At the other hand, I have a Chinese Quengsheng blockplane and a Stanley #18. Both are prefectly allright and I have no favorite.

[Brian Holcombe]

You're certainly in the mood to stir the pot.

I have little basis for comparison, because I only own LN planes. That being said one of the woodworkers nearest to me (in proximity), who is also my reliable source of information outside of SMC, owns vintage planes, wooden planes and LV planes. I know from speaking with him that he considers his LV planes among his favorites.

[Joe Bailey]

This much is clear -- no one (much less Mr S.) with the most basic understanding of survey methodology would claim that Mr Schwarz's students represent an adequate sampling population.
Notice he takes pains to call it simply "an observation."

And at the end of the day, that is all that it is -- one man reporting what he has seen while teaching the craft to relative or absolute newcomers.

[David Weaver]

(interchange LN and LV as necessary, except where chipbreaker comes up)

If you set it up as a parameterized thing, I'd grade it as follows:
* flatter - LN (flatter is good)
* easier to grind (stock stanley) - easier is good
* longer edge holding - LN - longer is good
* easier to sharpen - depends on the stones, they are the same with really aggressive stones. With anything else, the stanleys are easier to sharpen
* heavier - LN - heavier than stock stanley, to me, is not good. Lighter than stock stanley can also be not good
* prettier - that's an opinion. I think a clean stanley plane looks nicer (one with good rosewood), I think the cherry on LNs looks cheap and their choice of knurling on the knob looks cheap. Otherwise the LNs are pretty attractive - they looked nice with cocobolo
* cap iron design - stanley is better. It might be cheaper to make but it's still a better design. LN had some trouble even figuring out where to locate the holes so you could use them
* adjusters - stanley more coarse, LN more fine. Probably beginners will prefer the LN fineness, but someone who isn't a beginner won't care. The whole backlash argument doesn't amount to anything in real time at the bench, and the biggest offenders are probably the millers falls planes with the stamped yokes - I still like them

The balance of "quality" measures would point toward the LNs. You can drop them, the tolerances are tighter, they're generally newer and they haven't had an era where they made "cheap ones"

The modern irons on LN planes are definitely harder, and if taking a million 1 thousandth shavings is your objective, the hardness and wear resistance probably points toward them being preferable.

If, however, you're dimensioning wood from rough where the bulk of shavings will be heavy, a super hard iron really isn't any advantage. It makes the plane a bit more of a nuisance to grind and sharpen, especially if it's harder and thicker at the same time.

Harder on a smoother is a nice quality, though, but it doesn't amount to a lot if the balance of sharpening time vs. planing isn't any better (it's similar between a stock stanley and an LN if you sharpen them the right way, though it might lean just a bit in favor of LN if you hone a smoother with two diamond grits).

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why LN thinks that their new chipbreaker design is improved. It is not better at breaking chips, and it has lost most of that lovely spring that the hump on a stanley chipbreaker provides under lever cap tension.

I liked LNs better when I was a beginner (doing mostly smoothing), they're new, clean, you haven't figured out how to correct anything with stanley type planes that come used, etc. I like using stanley planes better now for a whole host of reasons, but still understand why beginners would like LN planes. They (beginners) have no concept of what they'll be doing as woodworkers, especially if they choose to go totally hand planes, it's easy to admire attributes that don't amount to anything when you don't know why they would or wouldn't be important. For some reason, and I think it's one of the things that you don't necessarily need to parameterized, over time, despite having a shelf full of LN and LV planes, I gravitated back toward the stanley planes to actually do work. And once I did that, I went to oilstones and natural stuff (like the jasper), and find that more satisfying, too. I'm sure I can get work done faster now than I did before I gravitated toward stanley planes, but that has to do more with familiarity with dimensioning by hand, and i'd guess that I'd work the same speed with either type.

The biggest flaw in the whole discussion about what beginners pick out of a bucket is that it actually implies you're accomplishing something more with the LN, and you really aren't. All of the old forum wisdom about stanley planes (the backlash is bad and it affects your ability to get work done, they are too out of flat, the cap iron is cheap and flimsy, the iron is cheap and flimsy) all of that is bunk.

[David Weaver]

This much is clear -- no one (much less Mr S.) with the most basic understanding of survey methodology would claim that Mr Schwarz's students represent an adequate sampling population.

Actually, he may teach enough students to have a credible count, but credible group size or not, it's sort of like taking the opinion of freshman pre-med students on who their favorite vendor of surgical tools is for dermatological excisions.

[Kees Heiden]

You're certainly in the mood to stir the pot.



Ha, that's what pots are made for, aren't they?

Actually I was reading a bit in the Seaton chest book this morning. One of their observations was that the tools mostly weren't very perfect. For example chisels were grinded on both surfaces but not very flat. People back then could make things with astonishing perfection (for example the sawplate thickness was very accurately tapered), but perfection was time consuming and costly, so they only cared for precision where it really counts. That's a different mindset then what we have in our machine perfect modern world. Using our handtools we can go back a little bit to that mindset, but we are fairly deeply engrained with the need for perfect everything. For example when I write that shooting boards are hardly neccessary in a handtool shop, I don't get much acclamation.

[Brian Holcombe]

Cheers!

I use shooting boards because I show end grain often times on my projects. My evolution into a mostly hand tool user was due in part to the fact that I found the product of machine tools to be mostly disappointing in lack or perfection or just ubiquity and without a human element. Using hand tools you have to constantly be up on what is what (checking for flatness, squareness, act), but with machine tools its often assumed that they're doing the job with perfection.

[Sean Hughto]

I disagree with you about the backlash. One of the great benefits of the BD Stanley design is that you can take a pass, lift the plane and make a minor adjustment of the depth wheel without even taking you hand off the tote, and take another swipe (lather, rinse, repeat). A responsive wheel is very nice to have as you adjust on the fly without making full turns and guessing when it engaged to make the desired tiny adjustment. Indeed, when rough dimensioning and flattening large panels and such I often need to gradually go from coarse to fine over the course of a planing effort as I go from knocking down high spots to close to smoothing type passes or from across the grain to with the grain, etc.

[Derek Cohen]

Well, mr. Schwarz's investigation method is a bit dubious, but the question still remains. Are the new LN and LV planes really better then the vintage planes? And in what respect are they better ....

Well Kees, today was the first day at the Perth Tool Event (I had the stand next to Terry Gordon - HNT Gordon Planes - and we had a great chat about hand plane design ...).

While my main focus was building a Shaker side table, I spent quite a bit of time discussing tools with the visitors. One demonstration involved showing how a variety of smoothers could perform on a piece of interlocked curly Jarrah. All planes had freshly sharpened blades, and I made sure that the chipbreakers used were also flat and ready to perform at their best.

I started with a Stanley #3 with the chipbreaker pulled back. The wood tore out quite noticeably.

The tearout was removed and replaced by a glassy surface by a 60 degree BD HNT Gordon smoother.

The LN #3 with a 55 degree frog took the glassy surface away and left a smooth but faintly rough finish behind.

The Veritas SBUS (with a 62 degree cutting angle) replaced this with a glassy surface that was tearout free.

I had been saying to many how much the chipbreaker could aid in controlling tearout. So now I carefully adjusted the Veritas chipbreaker (with a 60 degree leading edge) on the Stanley #3 down to .4mm, and pushed it across the board. The result was a major anticlimax - the plane was hard to push and left a poor surface in it wake. Nice straight shavings, but terrible surface.

I do generally get a better finish on interlocked wood with a chipbreaker, but I find it is variable. The high angle planes are just more reliable.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

* cap iron design - stanley is better. It might be cheaper to make but it's still a better design. LN had some trouble even figuring out where to locate the holes so you could use them

David, I'd debate that with you. I find the Veritas and the LN more reliable than the Stanley. This has to do with the Stanley being so flexible. The leading edge with more forward as the screw is tightened. You could take this into account and then set it by tightening the screw to move it closer to the edge, but that is not the expected way. The solid LN and Veritas just go where you want them to go, and stay there.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Sean Hughto]

I'm imagining you in this scene - you call that a chipbreaker? ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vW54lAtldI

[Derek Cohen]

Heh Sean ... I was planing on my mini travelling bench. Anything on it would look Big!

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BenchInAWeekend_html_7a54bd14.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

I was not there, so it's too easy to critique. Probably I would have made a mess in front of a public. Anyway, 0.4 mm isn't quite close enough. I don't know if you measured it, and how you measured it? If it doesn't work well enough, push it a little closer. Indeed when you get tearout any plane feels hard to push, it's not smooth and smooth is good.

When I tested my plane with a 35 degree bevel on the capiron for the first time I was quite disappointed. Then I got the simple tip: "push it closer" and around 0.1 mm or so it worked very well. Should have thought about that myself. (I don't recommend that 35 degree bevel! It is too vulnerable).

[David Weaver]

David, I'd debate that with you. I find the Veritas and the LN more reliable than the Stanley. This has to do with the Stanley being so flexible. The leading edge with more forward as the screw is tightened. You could take this into account and then set it by tightening the screw to move it closer to the edge, but that is not the expected way. The solid LN and Veritas just go where you want them to go, and stay there.

Regards from Perth

Derek

What makes the stanley perfect isn't the flexibility, that's a feel issue and separate from the function of a chipbreaker. What makes it ideal is that it literally works right away. If there is a snag on the leading edge, then all you have to do is polish the profile if the cap iron as it is, and it works better. As warren has described, I've always had better service (slightly, but better) and better surfaces with curved leading edge on the cap iron, with the profile on the stanley being ideal. I came to that conclusion, however, before I ever saw warren mention it.

There is less finesse in setting it than you're implying, and I don't find one or the other type any easier (faster or more precise) to set. It is the benefit of experience, I guess, but presumably every woodworker will get to the point that they have "experience" as that's what most are lacking, not ease of tool use.

Lee Valley may have known how to set the cap iron when they sold their planes and designed their new cap iron, but I'd imagine LN did not, and their design likely has less to do with actually setting the cap iron for use than for some other reason. Why do I think that? Because for years, they made planes where the cap iron couldn't even be set close to the edge and they never once suggested using the cap iron for mitigating tearout.

[David Weaver]

- the plane was hard to push and left a poor surface in it wake.


You set the cap iron too close and your comparison isn't relevant, then. I admire that you're trying the cap iron in all of these instances, but it may not be for you. In the last 2+ years, I've had dozens of PMs from different people who have had no trouble getting a good surface with their cap iron and who were ecstatic with their results, nobody has mentioned a dull surface. Not once have I used a common pitch plane and ended up with a duller surface than a 55 degree plane would leave, bevel up or bevel down, it makes no difference. I could set the cap iron too close and smash the chip back into the wood and get it to occur, but I don't know why one would - the ideal surface is set back just a hair from that (either a hair thinner shaving, or a cap iron a hair further back).

When I decided I would learn to use the cap iron without questioning it, it was less than a week before that was the case every single time, and perhaps a matter of a couple of days. the only thing that changed after that was that it took less time to set the cap iron the more I used it.

[Derek Cohen]

There is less finesse in setting it than you're implying, and I don't find one or the other type any easier (faster or more precise) to set. It is the benefit of experience, I guess, but presumably every woodworker will get to the point that they have "experience" as that's what most are lacking, not ease of tool use.

Lee Valley may have known how to set the cap iron when they sold their planes and designed their new cap iron, but I'd imagine LN did not, and their design likely has less to do with actually setting the cap iron for use than for some other reason. Why do I think that? Because for years, they made planes where the cap iron couldn't even be set close to the edge and they never once suggested using the cap iron for mitigating tearout.

David, One should not have to finesse the chipbreaker to set it. The Stanley requires more finesse to set up than the Veritas or LN (in my experience).

Further, the Veritas and LN chipbreakers are very similar in set up. The only difference is that the LN is longer, and the short Veritas is actually easier to set up as a result. (Not to forget that it has a better chipbreaker screw!! :) )



I was not there, so it's too easy to critique. Probably I would have made a mess in front of a public. Anyway, 0.4 mm isn't quite close enough. I don't know if you measured it, and how you measured it? If it doesn't work well enough, push it a little closer.

Kees, I did not measure the distance. I placed it as close as I could that looked to be .3 -.4 ... I am just calling it .4 ... that should be enough, especially with a 60 degree leading edge. I could feel the chip changing. The shavings straightened out. So the chipbreaker was "working" - it just was not doing enough.

Don't take this a a knock about chipbreakers in general. I am a supporter. But I also try to be impartial with such situations - these are just the results of one test that was as level a playing field as I could make.


You set the cap iron too close and your comparison isn't relevant, then.

Too close now ... it was too far with Kees ...

It is relevant to recognise that I did my best, and I have quite a bit of experience in this regard. And it did not work the way I expected it would. But the other planes did. That should say something.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Derek, I don't doubt that you've set a lot of cap irons, but I doubt they have been set properly in most cases given the results you've presented over the last two years.

I think you set it too close. If you didn't measure and you're guessing, I'd assume your guess at the distance is overestimated (I have not ever measured or found reason to measure the cap iron distance, it would be a threat to the edge of the iron).

Anyway, if the plane is difficult to push and the chip straightens out and the surface is bad, it's set too close for whatever the thickness of the shaving.

If you're not making a final pass (for the best surface), it doesn't matter too much if the chip straightens as long as the plane isn't too hard to push.

If you're making a final pass, you generally don't want the chip to straighten, esp. if it has any significant amount of thickness.

What the results should say is that you should probably use other types of planes. It hasn't been my experience that that should be a general rules for others, though, especially if others are doing more than just final smoothing. The divide between these other planes at 55-62 degrees vs. a common pitch plane with a cap iron is enormous when taking coarser shavings.

[Kees Heiden]

I see only one solution. Cut the board in half and send one part to David, and one part to me. ;)

[Derek Cohen]

Hi David


I think you set it too close. If you didn't measure and you're guessing, I'd assume your guess at the distance is overestimated (I have not ever measured or found reason to measure the cap iron distance, it would be a threat to the edge of the iron).

Do you measure the distance you set the distance you set the chipbreaker? I used to do so in the beginning - you may recall this from some of my reports a few years ago - but now I am, like you, able to do this pretty accurately by eye.


The divide between these other planes at 55-62 degrees vs. a common pitch plane with a cap iron is enormous when taking coarser shavings.

I think that both Terry Gordon and I would would happy show you the coarse shaving we made today with high cutting angles. "Enormous" is one of the exaggerations that have been abounding lately.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

I see only one solution. Cut the board in half and send one part to David, and one part to me. ;)

Kees, I'd love to do so. I looked into this with Charles when he was around. Shipping costs from Australia are prohibitive. Still, you never know.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jonas Baker]

*you can interchange LN and LV in my response as well.

I've owned many vintage stanley's as well as many LN planes (and I've used many Lee Valley Planes), and I also use wooden planes. I've actually grown to prefer wooden planes for many uses, for aesthetic reasons, but that's another discussion. When I need to do precision work, I much prefer using LN. I've never used an old stanley plane that was as flat or as finely machined as a LN (or LV). I know a lot of people believe having a flat plane is overrated, and for coarse work, you certainly don't need a flat plane, but for finer work and smoothing, the flatness is an asset to me.

One example of a place where a flat plane comes in handy for me is when joining long boards, or in my case joining guitar tops and backs, where the fit must be perfect. I'm sure you could do this with an older plane that's either been flattened, or even one that's not perfectly flat, but it is much more precise and easily repeatable for me with a plane that is both flat and milled flat on the sides as well.

So in terms of precision and flattness, they are "better" if that is what you prefer. Anyway, besides all of this, this precision machining and flatness leaves me with the feeling that the planes are more solid and "better" to me than the old ones. My version of better may be different from yours.

That being said, I love a tool that shows the wear of years of hard use, but still works well. And for me, getting an old stanley or an old wooden plane takes a bit of work to get them to work as well as they can.

Best,

Jonas

[David Weaver]

Hi David



Do you measure the distance you set the distance you set the chipbreaker? I used to do so in the beginning - you may recall this from some of my reports a few years ago - but now I am, like you, able to do this pretty accurately by eye.



I think that both Terry Gordon and I would would happy show you the coarse shaving we made today with high cutting angles. "Enormous" is one of the exaggerations that have been abounding lately.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Substantial, enormous, material. All of them are relative. There is a very large difference between the surface from a common pitch plane and a high angle plane, one that only becomes minimal in very very hard woods.

[Shawn Pixley]

With all of these recent threads, I cannot help but see a Hong Kong film analogy. "My kung fu is better than your kung fu."

[Sean Hughto]

Forget "better". Lets just focus on empirical truths about relative merits and the implications of those truths for making great furniture.

[David Weaver]

One example of a place where a flat plane comes in handy for me is when joining long boards, or in my case joining guitar tops and backs, where the fit must be perfect. I'm sure you could do this with an older plane that's either been flattened, or even one that's not perfectly flat, but it is much more precise and easily repeatable for me with a plane that is both flat and milled flat on the sides as well.



With a reasonably square vintage 7, I doubt you'd be able to tell a guitar joined by on vs. the other. You're right about the jointers, I have always lapped every jointer I've gotten. Doing so on a long glass shelf just makes them ever so slightly convex so that getting a long straight edge is easy.

I've had some stanley jointers that have been very far out of flat, including concave, which isn't a situation that can be left as is, but it's easily fixed with a $20 glass shelf and a few bucks worth of 80 grit psa.

I also had a LN 8 that was exactly at spec (1.5 thousandths) concave, which was incredibly annoying on a 4 foot long board, because it would have to take several passes on a board before it would take a through shaving, and then the effect was doubled when match jointing two boards. But then there is a dilemma with the LN, do you lap it? It makes it a lot less marketable - it's still in spec. I sold it.

LN does get you where you want to be without modification 9 times out of 10, though.

[Brian Holcombe]

That last part is the trick for me, I have so little interest in modifying tools right off the bat since I feel like I may regret the modification later on. I sharpen the blade and go to work.

[Frank Martin]

I started the hobby 12 years ago and have very little time for woodworking. So, in general I always prefer to invest more in the ready to use / better performing tool out of the box than refurbishing old tools to maximize work on wood rather than the tools. When I first started I purchased some new Records planes and also got some old Stanleys from ebay. Could never get them to working properly, which I am sure was limited by my knowledge and skills. When I purchased new LV planes and their power sharpening system, I was amazed how well the planes started working. So, I say there is room for both new and old. I also really appreciate what LV, LN and other small makers has done for the hobby and don't mind supporting them in the process.

[Kees Heiden]

Kees, I'd love to do so. I looked into this with Charles when he was around. Shipping costs from Australia are prohibitive. Still, you never know.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Yes that wold be rediculous. Next month there is a meeting at the workshop from a guy who specialises in "special" kinds of wood. I'll see what he has, just for fun. Until now the most extrordinary stuff I have planed was jatoba, teak and lignum vitae.

[jamie shard]

I really enjoy these conversations, but it is maddening that they are actually solvable and yet we are not reaching a conclusion. I want to put forward the idea again that a test board gets cut into a few pieces, it gets mailed to a few people, and they show their results via video... and then we can really see the distance to chip breaker, the nature of the chip, the sound, and the surface in raking light. Why not really document this and really share experiences?

I'm willing to put in $20 to make this happen. I can't be the only one. I spend that much on woodworking videos anyway.

[Jim Matthews]

That last part is the trick for me, I have so little interest in modifying tools right off the bat since I feel like I may regret the modification later on. I sharpen the blade and go to work.

A perfectly valid approach for those of us the value time more than money.
The contention is that the novice has no point of comparison, other than what a tool seller might say.

The difference in quality between the top makers and less expensive versions is analogous
to the difference between a scratch golfer and those playing professionally.

It is my contention that novices get the best results from the finest tools
and the most skilled practitioners can manage passable results with any old thing.

It was said that Charlie Parker could get people to listen to him playing a garden hose...

[Jim Matthews]

I liked LNs better when I was a beginner (doing mostly smoothing), they're new, clean, you haven't figured out how to correct anything with stanley type planes that come used, etc.

I think this is the crux of the anecdote; when starting out - these examples are precisely tuned so that the tool is transparent;
the user doesn't need to accomodate the tool to get good results.

I had the same experience with beginners and their saxophone choices.
Some of these kids could play circles around me with my horn,
but theirs were so badly made, or poorly set up that they struggled.

To paraphrase FactCheck.org "The plural of anecdote is not data."

[Jim Matthews]

Well Kees, today was the first day at the Perth Tool Event (I had the stand next to Terry Gordon - HNT Gordon Planes - and we had a great chat about hand plane design ...).

While my main focus was building a Shaker side table, I spent quite a bit of time discussing tools with the visitors. One demonstration involved showing how a variety of smoothers could perform on a piece of interlocked curly Jarrah. All planes had freshly sharpened blades, and I made sure that the chipbreakers used were also flat and ready to perform at their best.

If you see Mr. Gordon in person, please convey my admiration for his product line.
His original Aussie Jack plane (with front knob, no handle) is my daily user.

It does nearly everything I could ask in American Cherry.

It's the right size, balance and heft for extended use.

It's also immune to the damp conditions that plague my cast iron planes.

[Jim Matthews]

It's a good idea, with too many variables to manage.

Unless everyone starts with the same board, tool steel and sharpening regimen -
it will be without conclusion.

Given that I sand every surface prior to finishing, I'm not sure what it might tell a hack like me...

[Brian Holcombe]

My obvious break in this trend being the dovetail plane, lol.

In working under a master machinist in my youth I noticed that he would take the path of least resistance when it came to tools. If he could built it easily he would, otherwise he would buy it. The goal was always the same, a better result. The place was constantly evolving as a combination of new tools continuously mixed with tools up to a century old, all of which will kept in good repair. He was earning a living along the way, so it was hardly ever possible to sink a day's effort or more into a tool that could be bought.

[Derek Cohen]

If you see Mr. Gordon in person, please convey my admiration for his product line.
His original Aussie Jack plane (with front knob, no handle) is my daily user.

It does nearly everything I could ask in American Cherry.

It's the right size, balance and heft for extended use.

It's also immune to the damp conditions that plague my cast iron planes.

Hi Jim

Here's a photo of Terry for you. He had the stand alongside mine, which was great as we are old friends and caught up on tool design ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Furniture/Bedside%20table%20for%20Jamie/Table5_zps531bf9dd.jpg

For this thread ... he is rather cynical about chipbreakers - not that they do not work, but that they are finicky to set up. His planes are single iron, and one might therefore accuse him of being biased, nevertheless his planes made effortless, full width shavings in hard Jarrah. We attempted to replicate this with a 55 degree LN #3 and the Stanley #3 and set chipbreaker, but they could not match his 60 degree smoother.

I had set out with the grand plan to build two small side tables, one each day. The aim was to kill two birds with one stone - provide demos of morticing with chisels, sawing tenons, chiseling sliding dovetails, tapering legs (I used a scrub plane), draw-boring, and building a dovetailed drawer - and to supply my son with a new bedside table, which he has been nagging me for. Well I did not get close. In fact, with the amount of questions I fielded about tools in general and these joints, I got as far as completing the frame of one. At the end of the second day it was draw-bored and ready for final assembly, but the drawer was not begun (although the solid base was glued together ready for thicknessing).

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Furniture/Bedside%20table%20for%20Jamie/Table2_zps9b95965d.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Furniture/Bedside%20table%20for%20Jamie/Table1_zps08ba8db3.jpg

(The table behind is the one I build last Sunday - just dry joints so it could be pulled apart to demonstrate the parts).

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Furniture/Bedside%20table%20for%20Jamie/Table3_zps3080fa54.jpg

The Tool Event was fun, and it was great catching up with old friends.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Warren Mickley]

One need not be ashamed to lack the skill of using a double iron plane. But it is a serious skill and someone with very limited experience can not claim compare results.

[Jack Curtis]

...His planes are single iron, and one might therefore accuse him of being biased, nevertheless his planes made effortless, full width shavings in hard Jarrah. We attempted to replicate this with a 55 degree LN #3 and the Stanley #3 and set chipbreaker, but they could not match his 60 degree smoother...

We have several of Terry's planes, like them very much. Pam bought them as an intermediary between metal and Japanese; but it turns out we still use them often, especially his original try plane and smoothers, large and small. It's true they're single iron, but they do have very stiff (probably desert ironwood like the bodies) wedges, which in his case seem to obviate the need for double irons.

[Jim Matthews]

Lots of shavings, there.

Some people, this may be the only instruction they can afford.
Good onya.

I think Mr. Gordon is up against the juggernaut of large-scale advertising from power tool companies.
I kid you not, reading about his planes in your articles here was the first I knew of their existence.

His inset bench vise is a work of genius.

I often wonder what it must be like inside the minds of you clever people.

My mentor is like that; I'm reaching for a bigger hammer, and he's getting out a pencil -
to figure out a better way.

FYI - I use Terry's planes on basic American hardwoods, mainly Cherry and they're excellent.

[miguel bernardo]

out of focus of this thread, but my HNT Gordon modified jack (no handles) is hands down my favourite plane for planning rosewood and ebony at the moment. once i got confortable with adjusting the blade with a mallet, nothings gives me the combination of brute force (thick heavy iron, high angle), feedback (light weight, ergonomics) and awe (beauty of design and the looks of the Brazilian rosewood). it really is a pleasure to work with. but i´m a noob, so i could have got this al wrong, who knows.

regarding shooting guitar tops and backs (IIRC it was mentioned earlier): i have a fore, but my favorite size for it is the jack, although i´ve done it with a n. 4 with good results too. i´ve even saw my teacher shooting a rough sawn top with a stanley 9 1/2 in less than 2 minutes. i guess the most important part about this is a flat sole and a really sharp blade!