Why do we focus on tear-out only with smoothers

[Tyler Keniston]

So perhaps this isn't even true, but I get the sense that when we talk about taming tear out with hand planes, we are generally referring to the last finishing step, i.e. smoothing. This is where focus on super tight plane set-up and fine shavings seems to be.
But are not the previous planing steps (not across grain of course) as likely to cause tear out, and even more so if we're not taking those whispery fine shavings we often take with smoothers?

I ask because I feel like I treat every planing operation (e.g. even when jointing) as if I'm smoothing; taking fine shavings as to avoid tear out. I actually don't own a smoother, though I'm looking to change that.

If the grain is perfect, perhaps its a moot point. And if its horrendous, it'll probably be tough no matter what and again moot. I'm thinking here about the mid range hardwood with some mild reversing grain and the like. Isn't every operation other than roughing across the grain going to be treated the same? If we can't take a thick shaving, we can't. It we can, we can. It seems like every operation would need to be treated with the same slew of anti tear out measures we use for smoothing.

So what I'm wondering is: what differentiates the operations at all? I think I want to buy a smoother, but why? I already feel like I am smoothing when I use my #7. Am I using the 7 wrong?

[Mike Cherry]

Was it Klausz who used a number 7 for everything just about? David Charlesworth uses a 5 1/2 for almost all operations. There isn't a right and wrong. There's a what works for you and what works for me.

Tear at out can mean a couple things. If your talking about a spot where the grain switched back and forth and you can feel a not so smooth surface, then you can worry about that when you finish plane it. If we're talking a big ol gouge that came out then we have other problems, namely sharpness of the blade. I'm not sure what your level of experience with hand tools is, but for me, I get less and less tear out the more experienced I get. I think it's because I have sharper tools than when I started and I understand grain a bit better now.

In the Schwarz protocol of course, medium, and fine, the jointer should be taking a shaving three or four thou. Maybe a bit more. But again, if you like your number 7 and things are working for ya, don't change just cause convention says to.

[Shawn Pixley]

It really depends upon the piece of wood.

If I am flattening a panel, I am going to be taking much thicker shavings than I would with my smoother. I don't obsess with tear out as there will be many more passes with the plane before it is flat and smooth. I use jack, jointer, and smoother. Jack will be a thick shaving. Jointer will be thinner shaving and no major tear out. I don't obsess here as I leave tracks (no camber on my #7). The smoother will take out the tracks and any minor tear-out. If I approached some of these panels concerned with no tear-out ever, it would take forever taking smoother thickness shavings on twisted panel.

If I am prepping highly figured wood or one that tears out deeply (>1/16"), I'll take thinner shavings as one small mistake can lead to a lot more work.

In theory, the smoother is the last plane (or planing operation) to touch the wood, so tear-out is essential here. Thus, this is why we obsess with the smoother. The others, less so. You can do all the operations with a single plane or use different planes for the various operations. Pick a method that works for you.

[nima hadavi]

I have used a #6 for all operations.....Even though i have planes of all shapes and sizes, I still prefer my 6 to all others. It works for me, and to change what I know would take years of refining. Do what is best for you. Forget all the nonsense.

A plane is an extension of the body; use it as such, and one has the ability to create what one wishes.

[Jim Koepke]

I have used a #6 for all operations.....Even though i have planes of all shapes and sizes, I still prefer my 6 to all others. It works for me, and to change what I know would take years of refining. Do what is best for you. Forget all the nonsense.

A plane is an extension of the body; use it as such, and one has the ability to create what one wishes.

Almost forgot, Howdy Nima and welcome to the Creek.

My #6 is also used often.

Tear out can be controlled to some degree even on thicker shavings. But if I am removing a bad edge I am not as worried about an acceptable amount of tear out before getting a piece flat or smooth. That is where adjusting on the fly comes into use.

If there is an area with reversing grain, I am often able to use a fine set smoother and take one or two shavings going against the majority of the grain and clean up the trouble spot. Each board may have its own special needs. With the blade as sharp as possible and the chip breaker set a super thin shaving can help to clean up a troubled area.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

So perhaps this isn't even true, but I get the sense that when we talk about taming tear out with hand planes, we are generally referring to the last finishing step, i.e. smoothing. This is where focus on super tight plane set-up and fine shavings seems to be.
But are not the previous planing steps (not across grain of course) as likely to cause tear out, and even more so if we're not taking those whispery fine shavings we often take with smoothers?

I ask because I feel like I treat every planing operation (e.g. even when jointing) as if I'm smoothing; taking fine shavings as to avoid tear out. I actually don't own a smoother, though I'm looking to change that.

If the grain is perfect, perhaps its a moot point. And if its horrendous, it'll probably be tough no matter what and again moot. I'm thinking here about the mid range hardwood with some mild reversing grain and the like. Isn't every operation other than roughing across the grain going to be treated the same? If we can't take a thick shaving, we can't. It we can, we can. It seems like every operation would need to be treated with the same slew of anti tear out measures we use for smoothing.

So what I'm wondering is: what differentiates the operations at all? I think I want to buy a smoother, but why? I already feel like I am smoothing when I use my #7. Am I using the 7 wrong?

A couple thoughts:

1. Deeper cuts leave more and deeper tearout

2. Getting the wood to acceptable flatness and finish in reasonable time often requires deeper cuts than you can achieve without causing tearout. Obviously if you're willing to rough a mil at a time that won't be a problem, but you won't be productive that way.

The solution that people have arrived at is the so-called "coarse, medium, fine" sequence. You first do bulk removal while taking thick cuts (roughing, "coarse"), then true the surface while taking medium cuts (jointing, "medium"), then finish the surface while taking very shallow shavings (smoothing, "fine").

The key to making this work is that each successive step must clean up any damage left by the previous one. In other words, then depth of any tearout from roughing should be no more than a couple/few jointing passes, and the depth of tearout from jointing should be no more than a couple/few smoothing passes. There should be no tearout left after smoothing.

That last bit is why a lot of people implicitly or explicitly focus on smoothing when they talk about tearout, but you'll also see a lot of people talking about using close-set cap irons etc on jointers as well, because smoothing becomes very slow if the jointer leaves overly deep tearout.

You can (and people do) use the same plane with different cut depths for all 3 purposes.

[paul cottingham]

I believe I read that Alan Peters used a no.7 pretty much exclusively. A pretty strong endorsement.

[steven c newman]

I "size" the planes used to the size of the boards being worked on. Have a few of each size, mostly set up as smoothers ( #3 to a #7), and a few that are cambered, as well. 6 hour work day pushing around #6s and #7s, gets a bit rough...As I go along, I will "down-size" a bit. maybe go from a #6c down to a #11 Junior Jack. No need to drag out a 22" long smoother, if the panel is only...12" on each side...IF the #4 or #3 will work, it will get used. If I spread the work around a bit between all the planes, it saves a bit of wear&tear on just a select few. I have been known to even fire up a block plane...or two, for the smaller stuff. About the only time I ever use a "Bevel Up" plane, anyway.

[Patrick Chase]

I "size" the planes used to the size of the boards being worked on. Have a few of each size, mostly set up as smoothers ( #3 to a #7), and a few that are cambered, as well. 6 hour work day pushing around #6s and #7s, gets a bit rough...As I go along, I will "down-size" a bit. maybe go from a #6c down to a #11 Junior Jack. No need to drag out a 22" long smoother, if the panel is only...12" on each side...IF the #4 or #3 will work, it will get used. If I spread the work around a bit between all the planes, it saves a bit of wear&tear on just a select few. I have been known to even fire up a block plane...or two, for the smaller stuff. About the only time I ever use a "Bevel Up" plane, anyway.

I realize this makes me a bit of a kook, but I like the Veritas 5-1/4W for jointing small-to-medium boards...

[Kees Heiden]

On small stuff I also often use a single #4 from the roughing stage all the way to smoothing. No fine mouth allowed of course to pull a trick like that!

A reasonably close set capiron has a cushioning effect on the amount of tearout in thick shavings. You might still get some tearing but not the heavy deep gouging. This works better with a capiron then with a steep cutting angle. Steep cutting angles are not a great idea for thick shavings anyway.

A jack plane with a serious camber doesn't allow to set the capiron close enough, naturally. Keeping the capiron out of harms way when roughing, also saves a bunch on planing resistance, you don't get tired too quickly. So, first a jack plane with as thick a shaving as you can comforatbly push to get rid of cup, bow, twist and for thicknessing. Then a tryplane with a reasonably tight set capiron to get the board really straight and to size. And finally a smoother to remove all small damage, layout lines, rough feeling spots, dents etc, just before you assemble the piece. And after assembly the smoother again to level joints, repair assembly damage etc. Or a scraper of course.

[Patrick Chase]

A jack plane with a serious camber doesn't allow to set the capiron close enough, naturally. Keeping the capiron out of harms way when roughing, also saves a bunch on planing resistance, you don't get tired too quickly. So, first a jack plane with as thick a shaving as you can comforatbly push to get rid of cup, bow, twist and for thicknessing.

IMO planing along the diagonals helps with tearout when roughing. It leaves a pretty rough surface, but that's easily fixed when jointing.

[Kees Heiden]

Sure, just don't spelch the far end!

[Pat Barry]

The thing I've learned, and have to keep in mind for glued up panels, is to take the time to not only worry about figure, color, and grain pattern matching, but make sure that all the boards (if possible) are oriented in the same way to minimize the risk of tearout. Planing left to right for example where two adjacent boards have the grain going opposite each other makes a very difficult planing task. Obviously when smoothing this issue is lessened because of the minimal cutting depth.

[Daniel Rode]

I'm concerned about tear-out at all stages. As Pat mentioned, one strategy is to orient the grain in my favor whenever possible. However, that's 3rd on the list. Alternating the bark sides is useful to help minimize cupping. Often, my chief concern is orienting them in the most attractive way. So I need other ways to deal with tear-out

Being a hybrid woodworker, my planes are generally set to take thinner shavings and with a more closely set chip breaker. The machines do the grunt work, I use planes to make things flat and straight, to smooth out machine marks and to fit and finesse things. I size the distance for the chip breaker based on the size shaving I want to take. My #5 "scrub" has the chip breaker set back at least 1/16" My #6 and #7 and around 1/32" in general with the #7 set somewhat closer. Another #5 is setup like a smoother as is my #4. Even within this, I sometimes alter the chip breaker. I'm still working to dial in exactly where the chip breaker needs to be to reduce tear-out but still cut without clogging. I think I'm on the right track in sizing the gap to match the shaving I want.

The last tools in my tear-out arsenal are scrapers. I have several card scrapers and a #80 scraper plane. Scrapers are simply indispensable. The #80 is a game changer. It's not that it take a superior shaving. It's that using a card scraper on a large area to remove deeper tear-out is painful. My fingers are on fire, my hands cramp. The #80 lets me do this easily.

I think the reason we focus on tear-out more for smoothers is that it's the final step. If previous steps created tear-out, when we go to smooth, we are trying to perfect the surface.

[Prashun Patel]

Smoothing is a function - not a plane. It is prepping the surface for finish. It's the step of removing all marks including tear out. So, yes, taming tearout is a specific PRIORITY for the smoothing step.

Smoothing isn't a plane. People like to use #4's or #3's for it, because that's how big they are and their work is. If you smooth with a #7, power to you.

You flatten, thickness, then smooth. The first two steps can be labor intensive and can require removing a lot of material. Taking whispies during this time can be inefficient. Even if you are backing off the cut and closing the mouth of your jointer, if you're doing it AFTER you've brought the piece into flat and proper thickness, then you're doing it during the smoothing phase.

Without meaning to sound glib:

If you *think* you need a #4, then you don't need one. Wait until your hands and instinct tell you that you want something lighter for that phase.

Even better, buy a Lie Nielsen #4, use it, and if you decide you don't like it, pm me, and sell it to me...cheap :)

[Derek Cohen]

I believe I read that Alan Peters used a no.7 pretty much exclusively. A pretty strong endorsement.

I think that is folk lore ... not quite true. If you read his book, he predominantly used machinery, however he was equally adept with hand tools, and had a wide range of planes. If he used the #7 as much as reputed, it was for the mass rather than the length, and his boards were already pretty flat.


So what I'm wondering is: what differentiates the operations at all? I
think I want to buy a smoother, but why? I already feel like I am smoothing when I use my #7. Am I using the 7 wrong?

Why do we focus on tearout with smoothers? Well, I can only speak for myself. I want to remove as much thickness as possible as efficiently as I can, but I am mindful that there is a limit how far I can go before the show side becomes damaged. Below is a scrub plane roughing out a bow draw. The wood is figured Jarrah, which is interlocked and brittle. There is about 1/8" to remove after shaping on the bandsaw. The scrub has a narrow, deeply curved blade, and cut is narrow but deeper than a jack or smoother. The blade is very sharp but there is tearout. However, I am not fussed as long as the tearout is within the safe range.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Furniture/Linergrie%20Chest/Drawers/Bow-top1_zpss6gy1g25.jpg

I reduce the damage with a toothed blade. This works quickly and flattens the surface in preparation for a smoother. The grain is reversing along this board, and I would not trust another plane to remove the deeper scallops that remain after the scrub. A smoother would take too long, and a jack would cause further tear out.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Furniture/Linergrie%20Chest/Drawers/Bow-top2_zpspvcu8gy7.jpg

Finally, the surface is ready to smooth, and a #3 is used to finish ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Furniture/Linergrie%20Chest/Drawers/18a-planing-the-ouside_zpsijbiuyov.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Prashun Patel]

(off topic alert): Thanks for Y.A.B.T.T., Derek!

[Stewie Simpson]

I will stick with what works for me; high angle approaches. If there's still some remaining tear out to remove, out comes the toothing plane and scraper cards.

[Brian Holcombe]

Minimizing tearout is critical, you don't want wild tear outs at the thicknessing stage because you want to be able to thickness close to the mark. I thickness with a wooden jack plane and I like to get right down very close to the mark, close enough that by the time the try plane has removed the ripples I'm there. With the try plane, or 'medium' plane, it's very critical not to have tearout because that will help to maintain a minimum of smoothing work.

In an ideal situation the smoother applies a nice gloss to the surface and removes plane tracks.....in a normal situation it would be slightly more than that but not much.

[Chris Fournier]

I am concerned about tearout in all dimensioning and finishing operations in my shop.

I think that the OP's question stems from a "toolcentric" approach to woodworking (I understand that the OP is getting his feet wet and learning this craft - no slight intended). The Neader forum is full of toolcentricity! Shifting your focus to the craft of woodworking will help you put tools in their proper place. They are subject to the task at hand as determined by the woodworker.

I tend to work as neatly as possible and believe in garbage in garbage out so I make an effort at every step in a project to eliminate defect and optimise perfection. Tearout is on my mind from the start to the finish of a project not just when I am holding my #3 or #4. Some wood really makes a point of trying to make me look bad from start to finish!

[Prashun Patel]

During thicknessing and flattening I am not concerned with tearout, but frankly, planing against the grain with a less than sharp blade is darn HARD and inefficient. Forget about the tear out, it just doesn't work well.

OP, I wouldn't be too concerned with it. Do whatever your instinct tells you, and you will happen upon the right order of steps and appropriate level of OCD for each step. But don't feel like you need a new tool to do things properly.

I wish someone had given me this tip early on:

Whenever you're tempted to buy a new tool because you don't quite get the results you want, spend a little time "honing" your sharpening skills and practicing a little more.

[Frank Drew]

The best I've used with wild grains have been well-tuned Japanese planes. And the best touch-up tuning was done by the Japanese carpenters I was working with (when my efforts just weren't quite getting it.)

I've used my jack plane a great deal as I find it very comfortable in my hands, but for final finishing I find it hard to beat my Spiers panel plane, about the same length as a Record jack but ever so much heavier and thick-bladed.

[Robert Hazelwood]

I think smoothing just gets the most attention because it leaves the finished surface- more photogenic, etc. Also, a lot of people that use handplanes only use them for removing machine marks, not dimensioning from rough.

But thicknessing and flattening are probably the planing tasks that benefit most from using a close-set cap iron on a bevel down plane. It works pretty well on my old Stanleys. Tight mouths and high effective cutting angles don't permit as thick shavings.

[Patrick Chase]

Sure, just don't spelch the far end!

Everything's a tradeoff...

[Allan Speers]

Where I worry the most about tearout is with something like a 778 or a dado plane. - Thin blade, no breaker, and a fairy wide mouth.

Of course, there isn't much that can be done, hence not a lot of threads about it.

[Tyler Keniston]

Wow, great thoughts. Exactly the type of stuff I was looking for.


The key to making this work is that each successive step must clean up any damage left by the previous one. and
It really depends upon the piece of wood
I think these really are the key for me. If the tear out is deep, how on earth can we expect what is supposed to be a finishing process clean it up. It would mess with the dimensions of the stock in some scenarios. In my head, maybe, I was actually thinking more of instances where tougher grain (or crappy plane set-up) has left some deeper tear out than I would like to manage with the smoothing phase. I take light passes because I'm simultaneously paranoid about throwing my pieces out of dimension, and about causing tear out. I am a 'hybrid' wood worker, and only on occasion do I undertake major thicknessing/flattening operations. Perhaps a major reason I tend to view all my planing as smoothing.


I reduce the damage with a toothed blade. This works quickly and flattens the surface in preparation for a smoother. The grain is reversing along this board, and I would not trust another plane to remove the deeper scallops that remain after the scrub. A smoother would take too long, and a jack would cause further tear out.
Derek, I found this use of the toothed blade a very interesting approach to dealing with the tough stuff that won't allow you to just go at it with a jack or the like...


Steep cutting angles are not a great idea for thick shavings anyway.
I've been wondering that. Perhaps another reason to have a dedicated smoother. If I do buy one, I am thinking about going with the 50* pitch.


I think that the OP's question stems from a "toolcentric" approach to woodworking
To some extent it was, since I was in part asking about buying a smoothing plane. But I perhaps also misspoke when I said 'smoother' instead of 'smoothing operation.' I am aware that smoothing is an operation and not necessarily just a plane. The key for me is understanding what really differentiates how we treat each STEP not necessarily each PLANE (although sometimes, of course, changing planes is part of the difference).


If you *think* you need a #4, then you don't need one. Wait until your hands and instinct tell you that you want something lighter for that phase.
Sound advice. To some extent, I asked that question rhetorically. The reason I want a smoother is to have a dedicated plane that can reliably produce a great finish without tear-out... and be of nice weight, ergonomics, etc to use repeatedly in this manner. The reason I said think is because I started asking myself, "wait, don't I want that for every stage of the game?" I guess I tend to use my jointer inefficiency at times because I am overly cautious of tear out. And since I am a hybrid wood worker, the reality for me is that most planing operations really are minor jointing/flattening operations, or smoothing operations. Time to become a smooth operator?
If I don't like the Lie-Nielsen, I'll hit you up :). I live in Maine so I think I will go the LN. I am leaning 4 1/2 though.

[Tyler Keniston]

I think I got the OCD at every step of the way pretty well covered:o

[david charlesworth]

Derek,

A quote from AP's book, page 45.

A number 7 jointer used for practically every hand planing operation, however short the timber. I keep 3 spare irons and only sharpen when all four are dull.

He certainly used machinery as much as possible. Not to would have been lunacy!

best wishes,
David

[Tom Vanzant]

As Jim Koepke said in post #5, when faced with a troublesome patch of reversing grain, a fine-set smoother against the grain can fix the problem, whereas a #6 or #7 will just span/skip over the problem area. That's the beauty of a small smoother...it will get into small areas.

[Jeff Keith]

...whereas a #6 or #7 will just span/skip over the problem area. That's the beauty of a small smoother...it will get into small areas.
Yes, and the feedback with a #3 or #4 when planing tough areas is much better as well, at least for me.

[Chuck Hart]

Thanks Stewie for bringing up the concept of scrapers. Like several others here I use my 6 to do most of my planing. A very sharp blade and a tight mouth and cap always helps in making those less than .001 size shavings that clear up tear out. If that doesn't work then I bring out the scrapers. Tyler try out different planes and find the one you like best. Eventually you will find a plane or combination of planes that works for you.

[Derek Cohen]

Derek,

A quote from AP's book, page 45.

A number 7 jointer used for practically every hand planing operation, however short the timber. I keep 3 spare irons and only sharpen when all four are dull.

He certainly used machinery as much as possible. Not to would have been lunacy!

best wishes,
David

Hi David

Thanks - I do recall in Alan's book photos of wooden smoothers as well. I know much was made of his #7.

What has not been mentioned here is that #7 (or even your infamous #5 1/2 :) ) is an inefficient plane, unless the surface is flat. If it is used to smooth surfaces that are flat off a machine, then further thickness loss is minimal, and one may use any length plane to good effect. However, if the board or surface is not flat, then a long plane will remove more thickness than a short plane, such as a #3 or #4. That is generally a big reason to use a smoother.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Tyler Keniston]

However, if the board or surface is not flat, then a long plane will remove more thickness than a short plane, such as a #3 or #4. That is generally a big reason to use a smoother.


That's an interesting point. I never thought of it that way, because I always assumed we would have created a flat board before smoothing. Certainly there are situations where a board we are smoothing is not perfectly flat, but I would have assumed that most of the time smoothing would be performed once the board has been trued (either by machine, or another plane). Perhaps I cling too strongly to certain ideals and hypotheticals that don't hold perfectly true in reality.

[Patrick Chase]

That's an interesting point. I never thought of it that way, because I always assumed we would have created a flat board before smoothing. Certainly there are situations where a board we are smoothing is not perfectly flat, but I would have assumed that most of the time smoothing would be performed once the board has been trued (either by machine, or another plane). Perhaps I cling too strongly to certain ideals and hypotheticals that don't hold perfectly true in reality.

Even if the board starts perfectly flat you may end up not wanting to keep it that way.

One way to deal with localized defects is additional smoothing of just the impacted area, which sacrifices O(mils) of flatness in exchange for not having to rework the entire piece. That's not so easy to do with a #7 (though of course you can always use a scraper instead of a smaller plane, and that brings yet another set of tradeoffs into play).

[Chuck Hart]

Silly me. When I thought we were talking about a smoother I ASSUMED we were talking about a FLAT board. Using a 6 on flat board to clear tear out is a reasonable effort

[paul cottingham]

I think that is folk lore ... not quite true. If you read his book, he predominantly used machinery, however he was equally adept with hand tools, and had a wide range of planes. If he used the #7 as much as reputed, it was for the mass rather than the length, and his boards were already pretty flat.


Yeah, I got that from an article written by Peters himself, where he talk about fitting hand made drawers. So I wasn't implying that he used it exclusively, just pretty much so when planing, whether smoothing, or jointing or whatever.

[Brian Ashton]

So perhaps this isn't even true, but I get the sense that when we talk about taming tear out with hand planes, we are generally referring to the last finishing step, i.e. smoothing. This is where focus on super tight plane set-up and fine shavings seems to be.
But are not the previous planing steps (not across grain of course) as likely to cause tear out, and even more so if we're not taking those whispery fine shavings we often take with smoothers?

I ask because I feel like I treat every planing operation (e.g. even when jointing) as if I'm smoothing; taking fine shavings as to avoid tear out. I actually don't own a smoother, though I'm looking to change that.

If the grain is perfect, perhaps its a moot point. And if its horrendous, it'll probably be tough no matter what and again moot. I'm thinking here about the mid range hardwood with some mild reversing grain and the like. Isn't every operation other than roughing across the grain going to be treated the same? If we can't take a thick shaving, we can't. It we can, we can. It seems like every operation would need to be treated with the same slew of anti tear out measures we use for smoothing.

So what I'm wondering is: what differentiates the operations at all? I think I want to buy a smoother, but why? I already feel like I am smoothing when I use my #7. Am I using the 7 wrong?

It probably has a bit to do with tradition and a bit to do with form and function.

When all you had to work with was hand planes you kept a couple to the side that were only for finishing up the work so they were in good shape and stayed nice and sharp. Back then you tended to do the heavy work with bigger planes and the blades would take a beating. So when it came to tidying up a piece, instead of pulling the blade and resharpening, you simply reached for the smoother that was nice and sharp and ready to go.

Smoothers, by comparison, are much more agile than a 7 or 6 and take much less effort to push. That also lends itself to the task as they're much easier to take skew cuts when having to adjust for planning a patch of difficult gain... They can also follow the subtle contours of a board better so taking really fine finishing cuts is better with them.

As you also said. If the planing is adequate right off the jointer plane why do anymore with any other plane. Unless you find it very therapeutic to make lots of shavings why waste the time and effort.

[Jim Koepke]

Unless you find it very therapeutic to make lots of shavings why waste the time and effort.

Brian, though I do agree pretty much with what you and others have posted the quote above plucked at my heartstrings. Some times watching a wispy, translucent shaving slowly fall to the floor can be quite therapeutic.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

A problem with using a #7 as a smoother, that a board that might have been very flat, isn't always remaining in that shape for ever. I don't finish my projects in a single afternoon, usually they take quite a bit longer! So, when the boards have been made flat, either by machine or with a handplane or both, they may be lying around for a while until I do the joinery, and then it takes even more time to get to the assembly. Smoothing is something to be done at the end, just before assembly, or after assembly when I can still work on them or after a sub assembly or whatever. They are rarely flat enough anymore at that point for a #7 to be efficient.

[Warren Mickley]

The trying plane is designed to true up a rough planed board, to make it flat and out of wind. A smoothing plane is designed to clean finished work, that is to remove scuffs, markings and such after joinery and just before glue up or finishing. A smoothing plane can be used for trying, but it is awkward. Likewise a trying plane can be used as a smoother, but it is clumsier. And when we reserve separate planes for these tasks we can set them up for their narrow range of work.

If the smoothing plane needs to take more than a superficial one or two shavings, the trying plane has not done its office. And if the smoothing plane does not take regular full length shavings, the surface will be of a lower grade.