Record #4 Smooth Plane - Refurbish or replace it?

[Joe Hollis]

Hello everyone-this is my first official post...

After spending a good hour trying to flatten the sole on a Record #4 plane, using 80 grit wet & dry sandpaper sheets on my small granite surface plate, I'm getting much closer to giving up and coughing up for a new LV or Lie-Nielsen replacement. Putting a machinist's straight edge across the sole on the diagonals, there's still a fair amount of light showing - I would estimate an .018"+ gap in the middle. I've already bought a replacement blade and cap iron from LV here in Vancouver ($72.00) with the intention of sprucing up this plane, but it appears that it may be more trouble than it's worth. I don't use the plane that much, but would likely do so if it worked better.

I know this isn't exactly a novel question on this forum, but given the mediocre overall quality of this Record plane, should I bother continuing to fix it, or stop now and get out the Visa card? At the current rate, I may end up spending half the cost of a new plane on W/D sandpaper.....

Thanks a lot for any advice,

Joe on the Left Coast

[Lee Schierer]

This would be a good question for the Neander forum, but I would continue unless you can recoup your $72 for the new parts. I have several old planes that I have tuned up and they are a joy to use. Unless you have money burning a hole in your pocket to by a new plane. I find that 220 grit removes metal faster than 80 grit when flattening soles. Another option would be to look for a similar plane at yard sales and flea markets.

[Moses Yoder]

If the area right in front of the mouth is flat and the heel is flat, you are good to go. I would sharpen the iron, install it, and see how the plane functions. Basically you want a straight edge to rest on the toe, right in front of the mouth, and the heel; if it bumps up in other areas of the sole the bumps need to be removed. Once the plane functions the way you want it too, no further flattening is needed. If you have the money and little time, buy the new plane that functions well out of the box and give up on learning how to tune a plane.

[David Weaver]

You don't want wet and dry (silicon carbide) paper to do the job you're doing. What you want is a flat surface and a psa stick down roll of 80 grit aluminum oxide paper. Something like Mirka gold on a roll. A 3 foot section would remove the trouble on your plane, and you'd have enough left on the roll to do 9 more like it.

For some reason, the cost of these rolls has gone up, they are now $21 a roll, but after flattening many planes on them, I'd say very well worth it. If you were local to me, I'd work the hollow out of that plane for you in about 15 minutes. I use a 42 inch run on a piece of glass shelving. It's shockingly fast, and the al-ox is the paper for the job - it does dull, but it doesn't break down nearly as fast (wet and dry fractures - it's harder, but more fragile). For coarse work, 80 grit is what I've found to be the best.

What we're doing with the paper is using it in a way it probably wasn't designed to be used - we're looking for it to do bulk work with high pressure at slow speed, something that doesn't happen much with the machines the rolls were designed to be used on.

[Tom M King]

I've never seen any plane with that much deviation. It must have been dropped, or run over. One poster on these forums machine grinds planes, but I'm not sure of the cost-probably less than the sandpaper it would take to flatten this one though.

[David Weaver]

The deviation sounds suspect to me, too. The total cost in PSA paper would probably be about $3, though....if one could stomach having 26 or 27 feet of mirka gold roll just sitting waiting for the next project after that. It could be stuck to a TS or Jointer, or a glass shelf from a glass shop (which would be about $20, but has a ton of uses once you have it).

[Frank Martin]

This is a function of how much more labor you want to invest in it. I am sure it can be done. I attempted in the past and failed. I am sure it was because I did not really know how what I was doing back then. I then sold all my vintage and some back then new Record planes and purchased LV BU planes. Yes, they do cost more, but for me they were (and still are) well worth the investment as I really prefer to use my limited time to do actual woodworking and I enjoy using well made tools.

[Fidel Fernandez]

I am in the same boat. I decided no more vintage tools. I have spent almost the same amount for 3 vintage planes No4, and shipment that I am close to the price of a new plane. I might get one combining all the parts, but it will never perform great.

One of the seller advertised the plane was flat. The sole was all twisted. It is beyond repair. He offered to take it back, but I have to pay the shipment.I will be close to the price of the plane just with the 2 shipments (original purchase and return it). I decided to keep it.

All the time that I have spent; plus the price, it is not worth it. Lie Nilsen or Lee Valley from now on.

I enjoy working on wood, not working on metal.
I really like the Stanley better for the weight, it is less metal to move. Too many problems with vintage planes, so I have to start lifting weight and get use of the new planes.

[ken hatch]

I am in the same boat. I decided no more vintage tools. I have spent almost the same amount for 3 vintage planes No4, and shipment that I am close to the price of a new plane. I might get one combining all the parts, but it will never perform great.

One of the seller advertised the plane was flat. The sole was all twisted. It is beyond repair. He offered to take it back, but I have to pay the shipment.I will be close to the price of the plane just with the 2 shipments (original purchase and return it). I decided to keep it.

All the time that I have spent; plus the price, it is not worth it. Lie Nilsen or Lee Valley from now on.

I enjoy working on wood, not working on metal.
I really like the Stanley better for the weight, it is less metal to move. Too many problems with vintage planes, so I have to start lifting weight and get use of the new planes.

I shouldn't laugh but.....preach it brother how true it is. I have a few old planes I've restored such as an almost complete set of type 9 Stanley's from the #3 to #8 and a bunch of duplicates up to type 13. To go with the old rust are Woodriver, LN, and Veritas planes from #3 to #8's many also duplicates that I use to work wood. Any time someone asks and sometimes when they don't ask I will try to guide folks to starting with a couple of Woodriver planes or if they can and want to spend a little more either LN or LV.

While there is nothing wrong with OEM iron in the old Stanleys if it has not been abused or is pitted, most planes I've gotten off eBay have needed the iron and chip breaker either replaced or require hours to have a working iron. By the time you replace the iron and chip breaker, pay for shipping, and deal with the eBay burn rate it is cheaper to buy a new Woodriver. With the Woodriver you have a plane that can be put to work with very little effort. Just check that a guerrilla didn't tighten the frog screws, get replacement posts if they were over tightened and hone the iron. That is about all that is needed to have a working plane.

While I enjoy hoarding and fixing rust, I enjoy working wood more and it is a quicker road to working wood to start with a new plane from a good maker.

ken

[steven c newman]

These three are Millers Falls #9s, about the same size as a Stanley #4. One was even "New in Box"
297518
They all needed maybe a day to get back to like new. Soles were a bit worn. A ride for abit on the beltsander did the job of flattening the sole. Had all the parts onboard, clamped down, but the edge was retracted. Maybe 10 minutes of cruising along..

Area ahead of the mouth, and the heel are inline with each other. Two have a very slight hollow right behind the mouth opening. But the edges of the soles are inline with the main areas. Normally, it takes maybe a day to get a new-to-me plane refurbbished up. Irons usually need the most of the work, as they are worn badly. Some are shaped like a wave ( ~) or worse. I restore the edge to square across, with a flat area the first 1/16" . No real need to do the entire back. I then can mate the chipbreaker to the iron. I check the face of the frog with the iron, looking for "bumps" that would make the iron rock. I make sure the frog will seat solidly. And square to the mouth opening.

Other than a general cleaning to make it look pretty, most of the work would be done in less than one day.

[David Weaver]

You guys have to be pulling our legs a little bit about the number of planes that can't be recovered, and the time it takes for the irons. If you're going to do more than one or two planes, it pays to get a long run of al-ox paper, or a granite slab and some norton 3x 80 or 100 grit.

One of the important things to look for in ebay planes is a full iron and a cap iron that appears to be undamaged. After that, I haven't ever thrown a plane away except for one kk 4, and one very modern stanley plane (that nobody would buy looking for vintage planes on ebay).

The average cost of the 4s that I've bought in the last 8 years (including millers falls 9s) is probably between $25 and $30, and I've never bought any at a flea market or gotten up at the crack of dawn to get them.

There's nothing wrong with the new planes, and if someone wants to buy them, that's fine. There is a little learning curve in picking and restoring the old ones, but I find them a little nicer to use in bone stock form than new planes, partially because they're a little lighter, and partially because they're not perfectly flat, so you don't get the plane sucking to the wood like you might get if you're comparing a vintage jointer to something like a lie nielsen jointer.

[Jim Belair]

I've got a 70's era #4 that wasn't good for much so I ground a good radius on the blade and use it as a scrub. Not optimum length for that I suppose but it has served me fine. That would be an option if you decide to pull the plug and go for a new smoother.

[Jim Koepke]

Joe,

Welcome to the Creek. I suspect your location is north of the border since the Vancouver near me doesn't have a Lee Valley store. At least not that I know about.

If your abrasive sheet isn't well anchored it may be buckling under the plane and not doing any good. Using a marker across the bottom can help determine if this is happening.

If this were my plane I might get a bit creative and try to map out the spots that needed more metal removed and then hold the plane so only those spots were on the abrasive. This would require a lot of stop and go for checking every few strokes.

I have two planes with similar problems that are waiting for me to be a little less busy to correct their problems.

Good luck,

jtk

[Curt Putnam]

As with several others, I prefer to spend my time working wood, not metal. I want to make furniture, not tools. If you haven't used them you can return the cap iron and iron back to LV as you buy a new plane.

[Adam Cruea]

Honestly, I think I've only touched 2 or 3 of my 12 or so planes, and it wasn't anything major.

Checking the bottom with a straight-edge is a little nuts and anal retentive. Hone the blade, slap it in, and take some shavings. Does it work and do what you want it to do? Yes? Then good. You're done.

Not being snarky by any means, but some of the planes I've seen restored were restored to collector-esque proportions, not user-esque proportions. You don't have to re-Japan the thing, the sole doesn't need to be completely dead-nuts, and the frog doesn't have to be dead-nuts either. Bode-ing a plane just gets suckers to pay $400 for a $100 plane.

As long as there are no cracks in the sole and the thing isn't deformed, put the iron in it and try taking a shaving. You might be surprised.

[Tony Zaffuto]

I've got dozens and dozens of old & new planes. I've taken a Stanley Handyman (cheap homeowner plane) in #4 size and made it sing. This was with the stock blade and chipbreaker.

In addition to much of what has been posted, make sure you are using paper with a sticky back or affix with some spray adhesive. If you still are unable to get this plane to work, check the classified sections on the various woodworking forums for someone who will grind the sole flat. I don't know if the guy is on SMC or where, but I believe his screen name is "Tablesaw Tom". His rates (if I remember correctly) were about $40.00 for a #4 size. I have ground a few planes and even with the stock blade/chipbreaker, the performance difference is remarkable. Learn to set the chipbreaker correctly on your Record, and you'll be astounding all your woodworking buddies!

[Jim Matthews]

I would sharpen the iron, install it, and see how the plane functions.

+1 on this.
How the plane cuts is what matters.

[Peter Pedisich]

I only have one complaint about this plane (Record #4, about 14 yo), the depth adjustment has lots of slop, just like my Craftsman No 6, you get used to it!

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-qRMZeOd96Jw/VCy5YGxEMzI/AAAAAAAAC-E/4rWyvJNwi9I/s800/Hand%2520Tools%2520013.JPG

[Joe Hollis]

Thanks to everyone for your feedback and suggestions. After some unexpected expenses, I elected to keep working on my Record plane and hold off on replacing it for a while. I could not get it perfectly flat, but with the new LV blade and cap iron, the plane is much nicer to use. There is certainly some sense of accomplishment in taking a basic tool like this and making it better. I'll likely have a go at my old standard Record block plane now, - at least I know how much sandpaper I'll likely be using.

Regards,

Joe.

[Jim Koepke]

...There is certainly some sense of accomplishment in taking a basic tool like this and making it better...

Regards,

Joe.

Making shavings with what was once a neglected pile of rust always makes me feel good.

Cheers on keeping the old thing doing its job.

jtk

[Mike Holbrook]

I bought 4 planes in resent months paying $10-$65 each. The $10 being a serviceable Sargent #5 with a front tote that may or may not need to be replaced. Turns out my spare LV tote is almost an exact match, with only a slight modification. The #4, #5 & #6 Stanelys, 1910-1930 manufacture, all have good Rosewood. The blades on the Stanleys were the only real problems requiring grinding new bevels. The bottoms even appear level after a cursory look with a square which is all I care about for planes I intended to use for rougher work. If I decide I like using the #4 it may get further tuning. I ran the #5 Sargent and the #6 Stanley through an Evapo-Rust soak, mostly to see how well the Evapo-Rust worked. All three Stanley planes have corrugated bottoms. Maybe the process of corrugating the bottoms adds a step in manufacture that reduces sole flatness issues?

I will say it took me a minimum of a couple months of looking\studying to find planes with little in the way of issues at those prices.

[Doug Trembath]

Fellows, I just lost a well reasoned response to this thread, and ended up somewhere in LALA land in the ether, and lost it. At the risk of my sanity, I decided to try again, because the message deserved it. (I HATE Windows 8!)

That being said, I recently purchased another economy box of abrasives from Klingspor, because I find many uses for it in my shop. During the discussion with one of their reps, on a weekend, by the way, I shared my frustration with getting plane soles flat. Man, it takes FOREVER!

I had been working on completing my collection of flat sided Bedrocks, just because I wanted to, and some of the planes I got needed significant attention. I am not anal about it, but I wanted them flat, and sides true to the soles. So sue me, I want them true, OK?

When I received the box of belt remnants, on top I found a note, which called my attention to some blue colored 80 grit Ceramic belt material the rep had thrown in to the box. He asked me to evaluate the abrasive and get back to him.

Fellas, I was amazed! That stuff cut like a cutting torch! Truly, a plane sole I had already spent long, long times trying to remove the concavity on, took seconds to get truly flat. I had to be careful not to go too far!

Face it, any one of you who have tried to flatten a sole has gotten bummed out after repeated attempts to get one flat, I know this. I have many on my own resume.

So, I wrote a glowing response, and let him know it was the best abrasive I have ever encountered. It works, guys. I have no affiliation, etc, etc, etc. Man, it cuts cast iron like butter. If you need to flatten something, it will do it quickly and efficiently. Do NOT press too hard!

Each of my bedrocks, with stock irons, will take sub thou shavings, and laugh at 8 to 10 thou, effortlessly, with absolutely no hunting for the sweet spot. All are flat, true, and a truly a joy to work with, all because I spent a little time working them into shape. I have no LN planes, with the exception of their 60 1/2 block (which I think is the best new production plane anywhere), and I don't need them.

Sorry for the rant, just wanted to share some really effective materials with my friends...

Doug Trembath

[Tom Bussey]

Nice looking plane. I read all of the advise on how to flatten a plane, but after working with steel for 50 years, and that includes a 4 year apprenticeship, I wouldn't bother.

[David Weaver]

Nice looking plane. I read all of the advise on how to flatten a plane, but after working with steel for 50 years, and that includes a 4 year apprenticeship, I wouldn't bother.

That sounds like something someone who doesn't actually use planes much would say. There is literally no function in woodworking that a hand lapped plane can't complete, and they are functionally superior in action to a plane that has been ground.

That is, they come out slightly convex and present less friction in use, and the difference is significant. It's even more significant if you compare waxed planes, as a ground plane will lose all of the wax on the sole much more quickly.

We don't hear anything about that because the market is driven by beginners who don't have the experience to know otherwise, and they're being directed by people (especially bloggers and tool show vendors) who also don't have the experience to know otherwise. People who describe how good a plane is with a straight edge or a dial indicator rather than use.

People who get their planes ground flat are wasting their money. The only excuse to apply machinist logic to planes is if someone has the desire to square a plane that is significantly out of square and they don't want to or can't learn to work the side of the plane to reasonably square. That is significantly more difficult than lapping a sole to practical usability.

For 8 years now I have seen various people on these forums claim that a plane needs to be machined and that nothing can be done by hand, and not a single one of them was a materially competent woodworker who has used planes heavily for more than trimming joints and removing planer chatter. The strawman that's used is the "ruined plane" or the "plane that was done by hand that still doesn't work". It costs $20 for an appropriate piece of glass and about $1-$3 per plane for the PSA abrasive needed to get them in good working order. Anyone claiming that doesn't make a suitable plane is full of it. I have literally done several dozen that way, maybe 50, and have never failed to end up with a good working plane, and without creating a whole bunch of unnecessary rust-magnet surfaces.

[Adam Cruea]

That sounds like something someone who doesn't actually use planes much would say. There is literally no function in woodworking that a hand lapped plane can't complete, and they are functionally superior in action to a plane that has been ground.

That is, they come out slightly convex and present less friction in use, and the difference is significant. It's even more significant if you compare waxed planes, as a ground plane will lose all of the wax on the sole much more quickly.

We don't hear anything about that because the market is driven by beginners who don't have the experience to know otherwise, and they're being directed by people (especially bloggers and tool show vendors) who also don't have the experience to know otherwise. People who describe how good a plane is with a straight edge or a dial indicator rather than use.

People who get their planes ground flat are wasting their money. The only excuse to apply machinist logic to planes is if someone has the desire to square a plane that is significantly out of square and they don't want to or can't learn to work the side of the plane to reasonably square. That is significantly more difficult than lapping a sole to practical usability.

For 8 years now I have seen various people on these forums claim that a plane needs to be machined and that nothing can be done by hand, and not a single one of them was a materially competent woodworker who has used planes heavily for more than trimming joints and removing planer chatter. The strawman that's used is the "ruined plane" or the "plane that was done by hand that still doesn't work". It costs $20 for an appropriate piece of glass and about $1-$3 per plane for the PSA abrasive needed to get them in good working order. Anyone claiming that doesn't make a suitable plane is full of it. I have literally done several dozen that way, maybe 50, and have never failed to end up with a good working plane, and without creating a whole bunch of unnecessary rust-magnet surfaces.

Are you sure he's just not referring to not wanting to touch steel again instead of implying that it needs machined? Maybe Tom just prefers machining it flat since it's just easier to do.

I'll admit it. . .I've rarely hand-lapped planes. I'm of the mind "if it ain't broke, don't mess with it". Literally, if there aren't any hairline cracks and it doesn't cut poorly and cause your planed surfaces to be out-of-flat, don't touch it. The effort is far outweighed by the benefit.

With that said, if I found a plane to be giving me fits and found out that it was seriously out of flat, I'd get it machined, not hand-lap it. Why? It probably has something to do with that whole "work smart, not hard" mantra. I'd much rather be playing Diablo III than standing at my bench making a bunch of metal dust that will end up irritating my skin if it accidentally gets into my pores.

Just a thought. Tom may have the same view, I dunno.

On a side note, don't you mean concave, not convex? Concave, to me, would imply the toe and heel are in the same plane with the middle not touching the work surface, whereas convex is the opposite.

[David Weaver]

I have seen tom, among others, cite before that lapping can't produce a flat plane (which is true in general), but others have suggested the same thing. Or that they see gobs of planes that were ruined by hand lapping (which is possible if a complete ham hander turns a plane into a banana through hours of unnecessary labor).

I've never seen, though, a #4 plane that cannot be lapped in 20 minutes on my lap (which is just a piece of glass 3 1/2 feet long with 80 grit psa roll on it) - it is usually more like 5 minutes or less. Surely there are some that exist that are so far out that it would take more lapping than that, but it is literally more time for me to box a plane and take it to the post office than it is to correct it. It's possible that the problem of this plane isn't the sole, though.

I stand by my comment that an experienced user will much prefer a plane that is slightly convex on the bottom, as a hand lapping will provide, to one that is ground perfectly dead flat. The more serious the user and the heavier the use, the more they will prefer a plane prepared by hand - due to the issue of friction.

it's one of the reasons that I've come to prefer refurbished stanley planes to premium planes for day to day use. The difference exists in long grain (the friction difference that is), but is more pronounced yet when planing end grain, too.

there is perhaps one place where a brand new ground plane or a refurbished ground plane will be nicer to use, and that is in a contest with your neighbor to take shavings less than half of a thousandth thick. The premium planes are definitely better for that, their adjusters are much finer in that range, and the irons are harder so they hold the edge of the envelope sharpness a little longer. In practical use, though, which is to be using a plane with some quickness and to be taking a shaving that's heavier, there is no advantage to a ground plane and you're still stuck with the additional friction, which is an uninvited guest once you've been moving a plane around for more than a couple of minutes.

[Adam Cruea]

Fair enough.

Do you have a particular brand of material you use? I use a similar setup, actually, but perhaps I'm using the wrong cutting medium (I think I use 120 grit, no-clog sandpaper). Maybe the difference between 80 grit and 120 grit is bigger than I thought.

Also. . .please clarify convex vs. concave here. For some reason, I'm seeing convex as able to roll the plane from toe to heel, and that's just not making sense at all.

[David Weaver]

Convex several thousandths is what you'll end up with hand lapping a plane. Probably find the mouth 5 thousandths lower than the front end and back end of the plane on a long plane like a jointer. That actually makes for a very nice plane to use, even if the plane is metal. it doesn't cause any problems on long joints, either.

Mirka gold 80. You want a paper as aggressive as you can find. 80 seems to me to be the sweet spot where the abrasive particles are far enough apart to dig in, but close enough together that you don't get a rasping type of feel.

I didn't have the same luck as mentioned above with ceramics, but I used a 3M belt and it may not have been the best thing. I find that all of them (abrasives) don't love low speed and high pressure, it breaks the abrasive down pretty quickly, but on 4 and 5 size planes, they still work pretty fast even when broken down some. With jointers, the paper really needs to be fresh.

Less is more, and if the 80 breaks down a little in use, there's really no need to do anything else with the bottom of the plane other than maybe run some high grit paper over it lightly by hand to take away some of the bite of the fresh grooves.

The longest I ever spent on abrasive paper was 4 hours with a newly made 18 inch panel plane made of mild steel (which is a far different experience than hand lapping cast iron, and that plane had some dovetails left that needed to be lapped off before the work proceeded to the sole, too). I think I may have spent a similar amount of time on an 8 that should've been thrown away about 8 years ago, but that, too, came out to be a nice-to-use plane. Since then, I've moved on with way-out jointers to finding the high spots with a marking fluid and removing them with a hardwood block holding coarse paper. It works far faster than lapping the whole plane, and once you get the high spots off, you can finish lap the entire plane to make sure everything is good to go. I could do that same 8 now in an hour, but in reality, I wouldn't buy that plane now - it should've been thrown away to start because the sole wasn't its only issue.

The biggest problem I've seen with people lapping planes is doing too much or trying to be too fine and remove every cosmetic blip they can see anywhere on the sole, and making the plane way too convex by doing that.

[Adam Cruea]

Really? This doesn't cause the plane to rock front-to-back at all?

Do you have any references you can point me to that I can digest to understand *why* you want this?

Thanks. Learn something new every day.

[David Weaver]

5 thousandths cause the plane to rock? No. If I gave you the plane to use and told you it was flat and didn't allow you to have a straight edge to check that comment, you'd never know it wasn't flat.

You want the lowest point on the sole to be the contact around the mouth, everything else can be a tiny bit higher.

In terms of preference, set yourself up a pile of wood that has just been hit with the jack or fore plane, and with edges that need to be jointed. Take a premium plane like a Lie Nielsen 7 and do half an hour's straight work with each of the two planes. Guaranteed the plane that has been lapped by hand will be less tiring and you can literally do more work with it. Both due to the weight and due to the flatness.

What you absolutely don't want is a plane that is concave where the mouth is above the front and back. You don't even want something like that within LN's flatness tolerance, because even on something like a #8 that may be 1.5 thousandth or two 8 hollow, you will literally have a cut or two at every jointed board before you can get a through shaving, and then you will have an impossible time making a mildly sprung joint.

Usually when you fit a long joint together to see if you have high or low spots, the trouble is at the ends or far too much taken out of the middle due to a heavy shaving, but the problems are not due to having a 5 thousandths error in the sole of the plane.

It never occurred to me specifically until recently, using a plane that is dead flat, how quickly the wax is gone from it and how substantial the friction is once the wax is gone. The premium planes *do* feel more solid in test cuts, but in the context of work, they take more effort vs. the planes I've prepared. It would be interesting to see if the premium plane makers could creatively solve this. I don't think most customers of planes ever use them heavily, though, nor do most people run a plane across the end of a panel to plane to a marked line - but the amount of friction and skip a plane that's dead flat will have on end grain vs. something that's not as dead flat is substantial.

[David Weaver]

In fairness to tom and the other folks machining planes, it is nice to have at least one plane that has cheeks square to the sole (for a shoot board), and getting a plane there by hand isn't as easy as lapping one. Of the vintage planes I have, none of them are square out of the box, and though it's not absolutely necessary for a plane to be perfectly square (you can skew the iron), it's nicer too have a square plane for the work.

And if someone wants to have their plane ground just for cosmetic purposes, or because they don't want to do the actual lapping work, that's fine, too. It's just not a necessity to get a good working plane.

[Adam Cruea]

5 thousandths cause the plane to rock? No. If I gave you the plane to use and told you it was flat and didn't allow you to have a straight edge to check that comment, you'd never know it wasn't flat.

You want the lowest point on the sole to be the contact around the mouth, everything else can be a tiny bit higher.

In terms of preference, set yourself up a pile of wood that has just been hit with the jack or fore plane, and with edges that need to be jointed. Take a premium plane like a Lie Nielsen 7 and do half an hour's straight work with each of the two planes. Guaranteed the plane that has been lapped by hand will be less tiring and you can literally do more work with it. Both due to the weight and due to the flatness.

What you absolutely don't want is a plane that is concave where the mouth is above the front and back. You don't even want something like that within LN's flatness tolerance, because even on something like a #8 that may be 1.5 thousandth or two 8 hollow, you will literally have a cut or two at every jointed board before you can get a through shaving, and then you will have an impossible time making a mildly sprung joint.

Usually when you fit a long joint together to see if you have high or low spots, the trouble is at the ends or far too much taken out of the middle due to a heavy shaving, but the problems are not due to having a 5 thousandths error in the sole of the plane.

It never occurred to me specifically until recently, using a plane that is dead flat, how quickly the wax is gone from it and how substantial the friction is once the wax is gone. The premium planes *do* feel more solid in test cuts, but in the context of work, they take more effort vs. the planes I've prepared. It would be interesting to see if the premium plane makers could creatively solve this. I don't think most customers of planes ever use them heavily, though, nor do most people run a plane across the end of a panel to plane to a marked line - but the amount of friction and skip a plane that's dead flat will have on end grain vs. something that's not as dead flat is substantial.

Oh, I got the friction understood really quick when I started working with my LN 4 1/2 @ 50*. I realized it was a ton of friction, and there's a reason I take a very fine shaving with that one. Anything over the width of fine hair (.002) starts to get too much for me to push. No way on this earth you could pay me to use a jointer that's milled dead flat. I'm a masochist, but even that's taking it too far for me. :D

I need to check my planes I guess and see if maybe I'm just thinking backwards. I could have sworn most of my soles were very slightly concave except for the toe, heel, and mouth being in the same plane. At least between the heel and mouth. I can make a sprung joint, so maybe not. :D

*has a psychotic break* I DUNNO MAN! I JUST KNOW I CUT WOOD AND MAKE PRETTY THINGS!

At least, according to my wife.

[Derek Cohen]

You cannot always skew the iron on a plane with sides that are out-of-square. It depends on the direction of the "lean". If towards the sidewall of the runway, then the blade will project further into it and cut it away. Leaning away from the sidewall requires extra blade projection. If a thin blade, it may flex.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Mouth, toe and heel in plane is fine. If the plane is concave between them, it's OK (but it's nicer if it's not, in case you end up using it on short pieces in a pinch).

When you hand lap a plane, the transition to several thousanths of clearance is slow at first and more pronounced at the end (which should make sense). When you're thinking too much about planes and not using them enough, in your mind you can convince yourself that a jointer prepared thus is less preferable than a dead flat #6, but in use that's just not the case in use.

I'm sure my wooden planes are less flat than that (I haven't checked them, though - most of the problems from not doing enough work to flatten the soles of a freshly made plane are immediately apparent, and not related to front to back flatness measured in a couple of thousandths).

[David Weaver]

You cannot always skew the iron on a plane with sides that are out-of-square. It depends on the direction of the "lean". If towards the sidewall of the runway, then the blade will project further into it and cut it away. Leaning away from the sidewall requires extra blade projection. If a thin blade, it may flex.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I agree. Even when it leans the right way, it's much nicer to just have a square plane. Someone who is "way out there" could also create a strip tilted toward the side of the shoot board. It wouldn't be difficult to do, and I'd be curious if that created a problem, but not curious enough to do it, for sure.

[Jim Koepke]

When you hand lap a plane, the transition to several thousanths of clearance is slow at first and more pronounced at the end (which should make sense). When you're thinking too much about planes and not using them enough, in your mind you can convince yourself that a jointer prepared thus is less preferable than a dead flat #6, but in use that's just not the case in use.

The only planes of mine that have been checked for flat are the ones that had some kind of problem. Then they get treated to correct the problem, not necessarily to make the sole perfectly flat and square to the sides.

The goal isn't in perfect numbers when the metal is measured. The goal is what how the wood turns out during the process.

Some of my planes have been lapped just to clean a bit of rust off of the sole.

jtk