Question about finishing wood: hand planing vs sanding

[mark weathersbee]

The main electric tool in my shop is a sander and I'd like to use hand tools to finish the wood but I'm curious as to how well a scraping plane or smoothing plane can finish a project compared to sand paper.

General I use oil finishes but sometimes stain for contrast. Finishing is my weak area in overall knowledge and wanted to get others opinions on this subject.

[Tom M King]

No sandpaper can match the smoothness of a super sharp smoothing plane. For some finishes, you have to rough it up a little with sandpaper so it can take the finish.

[Allan Speers]

This is one of those "I'll make the popcorn" subjects.



A lot of picky & intelligent folks claim that once a finish is applied, there's basically no difference.

I have a feeling that could be true, but I refuse to believe it. :)

[Brian Holcombe]

This is a crotch section, done with a hand plane;

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c181/SpeedyGoomba/E18584B8-6539-405F-850E-5202ED9BF1F4_zpshvwwiz6l.jpg

[Jim Koepke]

If the surface will be finished with a heavy polyurethane, no one will be able to tell the difference.

If the surface will be finished with a light oil or wax, almost everyone will be able to see the difference.

All else lies somewhere in between.

With a plane it is not difficult to get the surface smooth enough to see a reflection of another object. I have not seen this done with an electric sander.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

This is one of those "I'll make the popcorn" subjects.

A lot of picky & intelligent folks claim that once a finish is applied, there's basically no difference.

I have a feeling that could be true, but I refuse to believe it. :)

I think it depends a lot on the finish. Obviously if you're going to do a 6-coat build of high-gloss poly varnish (with scuff-sanding between coats of course, because that's how they're designed to be used) then there will be no difference in the results.

At the other extreme I think I can tell the difference with "in the wood" finishes like oils, though the human capacity for self-delusion is not to be underestimated.

[Prashun Patel]

I beg to differ.

i cannot tell a difference between a properly sanded surface and a properly planed one. The issue is if you only sand up to 150 or 220. Like most people do. Then you can tell a differenc with your fingers and your eyes. But try sanding to higher grits like 600 or 1000 and tell me you can see or feel the difference with even the thinnest of oil finishes. I cant.

at the very least even if you can tell the difference, tell me the sanded finish is inferior. Again, we are talking about properly sanded.

for each of you in the other camp that sanding is inferior for inthewood finishes, lmk what sanding regimen you are comparing it to.

[mark weathersbee]

This is making me feel better. I was concerned that the plane finish would have a different appearance in a bad way.

I know traditionally one would have a smoothing plane and a scraper but is there a difference between the two?

Also just to make sure will a plane finish work with a stain or would it need to be sanded for proper absorbtion of the stain?

[mark weathersbee]

If the surface will be finished with a heavy polyurethane, no one will be able to tell the difference.

If the surface will be finished with a light oil or wax, almost everyone will be able to see the difference.

All else lies somewhere in between.

With a plane it is not difficult to get the surface smooth enough to see a reflection of another object. I have not seen this done with an electric sander.

jtk

Jim. Would the light oil wax appearance be bad? Scratch marks etc... or better?

[Patrick Chase]

We're not going to agree here (there are sound reasons why Allan was reaching for the popcorn) so I'll restrict myself to one observation: The chief difference between planed and sanded wood is not a matter of smoothness. It's a matter of structure.

If you look at each under high magnification you'll see that even with high-grit sandpaper such as you propose, the structure of the wood (pores, rays, fibers, etc) is invariably disarranged by abrasion, whereas cutting with a very sharp blade leaves it mostly intact. That's why wood recognition guides invariably insist that the end grain must be planed before examination. The Hoadley book has high-quality micrographs that demonstrate this IIRC.

IMO the properly formulated question is therefore: Do those demonstrable structural differences translate to a perceptible difference in the appearance of the finished piece, when viewed under reasonable conditions.

I *think* that with at least some woods and some finishes I can see differences in contrast and depth. I don't think I can see any difference in smoothness, though.

FWIW I don't hold similar opinions about amplifiers or speaker cables :-).

EDIT: The structural differences in question are within the resolution of the unassisted, normal-acuity human visible system. They're over the accepted 1 arc-minute limit when viewed from the near point.

[Mike Cherry]

This is making me feel better. I was concerned that the plane finish would have a different appearance in a bad way.

I know traditionally one would have a smoothing plane and a scraper but is there a difference between the two?

Also just to make sure will a plane finish work with a stain or would it need to be sanded for proper absorbtion of the stain?
I understand why you have reservations about the differences in finish. In my relatively little experience, I can easily see a difference in the project before a finish is applied between sanded and planed surfaces. I have a hard time telling after the finish goes on. Because of this, my sander sits on a shelf and I have a square of 220 grit that gets whipped out every now and again.

I made a bookshelf for my daughter out of poplar and stained it walnut color. With a hand planed surface, it had no trouble accepting the stain. Keep in mind, all species have little differences here and there. I recommend you test out some finishing experiments for yourself and draw some of your own conclusions. So many ways to get fulfillment in this hobby/craft.

[Chris Fournier]

You can always tell the difference between planed and abraded surfaces if you know what to look for. Okay, bury something under multiple coats of a ghastly plastic finish and all bets are off.

My favourite projects are finished with a plane and then the thinnest of finishes. Corners and edges are crisp and your fingers can tell with your eyes closed that something is different.

If you want finish to take uniformly (this includes colour) then abrading is king.

[Brian Ashton]

Having read the responses... My thought are that the look and feel you get with both is quite different and therefore you're desired end result is what will drive you're methods. A modern minimalist project probably won't lend itself well to leaving tool marks in the finished product whereas a reproduction shaker project will more than lend itself well to leaving tool marks visible. YMMV

[Allan Speers]

We're not going to agree here (there are sound reasons why Allan was reaching for the popcorn) so I'll restrict myself to one observation: The chief difference between planed and sanded wood is not a matter of smoothness. It's a matter of structure.

If you look at each under high magnification you'll see that even with high-grit sandpaper such as you propose, the structure of the wood (pores, rays, fibers, etc) is invariably disarranged by abrasion, whereas cutting with a very sharp blade leaves it mostly intact..........

And yet, to play Devil's advocate, most woodworkers would agree that the finest, most glass-like finish possible comes from french polishing.

What is the french polish method if not abrasion? (pumice) It makes you think ....

--------------

Anyway, I don't have a horse in this race. I use planes most of the time, for two simple reasons:

1: I like hand planes. They're so cute. :)

2: I hate sawdust. - And that's the main reason I would recommend any power-tool user to consider hand planes. It's much better for your lungs.

[Derek Cohen]

The main electric tool in my shop is a sander and I'd like to use hand tools to finish the wood but I'm curious as to how well a scraping plane or smoothing plane can finish a project compared to sand paper.

General I use oil finishes but sometimes stain for contrast. Finishing is my weak area in overall knowledge and wanted to get others opinions on this subject.

Hi Mark

I posted something on this recently in my chest build.

Here is a surface hand sanded with Abranet on a Mirka handsander (not a machine) through grits 120/22/400, and then I began using a finely set card scraper. You can see the difference in the surface.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/FinishingTheDrawers_html_7f541cdc.jpg

A smoother should take that up another notch in clarity/transparency.

In this case, the sander was used to refine a curved surface (bow drawer face with highly interlocked grain). I generally use a smoother.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Prashun Patel]

Alan, a French polish is a film finish. These guys are taking about oil/varnish and oil finishes that have no build.

Chris and Patrick, have you wet sanded finishes and use fine abrasives to burnish your surfaces? In theory there is a difference between the abraded and cut surface, but in practice I cannot tell the difference and I know what to look for. There is just a point where I believe your naked eye cannot tell a difference.

And I am talking about depth, clarity, chatoyance, whatever you want to call it.

There is a difference between sanding and sanding, burnishing, polishing. The application of the finish is as much a science and art as is the surface prep.

There are multiple ways to get to the perfect inthewood finish.

Tell you what, pm me your address and I will send you a sample with each side prepped differently and will challenge any takers to spot the difference with naked eye. Just as you will trust me not to cheat I will trust you to vote by naked eye before using a loupe.

[Brian Holcombe]

Hardness of the wood makes a difference as well. Prashun, give it a try with a softwood as well, something like pine, fir, or cypress.

[Patrick Chase]

And yet, to play Devil's advocate, most woodworkers would agree that the finest, most glass-like finish possible comes from french polishing.

What is the french polish method if not abrasion? (pumice) It makes you think ....

gloss/glass != depth.

French polishing goes beyond abrasion in that you actually push the abraded debris into the pores to level the surface. It's basically a high-class ancestor of "6 coats of PU", and is not at all what I was referring to when I said that the difference is most visible in "an in-the-wood finish".

Derek's photo earlier in this thread is a good example, and it shouldn't be hard to imagine what that would look like with a couple coats of oil.

[Marty Schlosser]

Tom, it appears I've had different experience than you regarding sandpaper's ability to produce very smooth surfaces in preparation for finishing. Here's my thoughts: 1) a well sharpened and properly set up smoothing plane will get the surface ready for finishing in far less time and with much less effort than sanding through the various grits; and, 2) the sandpaper available on today's marketplace, by such companies as Mirka, has to be used to be appreciated as far as a finish is concerned. Their Abralon (http://www.mirka.com/en-CA/ca/product/#/8A0/ABRALON) goes as fine as P4000.

At a symposium I'd organized two years ago which focussed solely on finishing, I had Jacques Breau (http://endgrain.ca/) prepare a piece of cherry for finishing, using his handplane. A few swipes and voila, it was done. Kinda daunting the level of experience he has! Then, I took a piece of cherry from the other end of the same board and "crawled through" the various grits with my 6" Metabo random orbit sander, from 80 all the way to P4,000. When I got to P1,000, I had someone from the front row of the audience check the surface of the two boards to see which was the smoothest. Of course he selected Jacques' board. So I continued and again at P2,000, P3,000 and finally, P4,000 did the same thing. In the end, the P4,000 was judget the smoothest of the two. But what Jacques had done in less than 30 seconds, I had taken 10 minutes to accomplish.

Can most woodworkers achieve that same level of surface using only a smoothie? Perhaps not, but they can get the piece to a good enough level where the final two or so grits of sandpaper work can finish it off.

My two bits.



No sandpaper can match the smoothness of a super sharp smoothing plane. For some finishes, you have to rough it up a little with sandpaper so it can take the finish.

[Phil Mueller]

Hi Prashun,
Could you send me multiple pieces to the exact specs of an end table I have in mind...oh, and a little glue?
:)

[Warren Mickley]

I beg to differ.

i cannot tell a difference between a properly sanded surface and a properly planed one.



I stopped sanding in 1978. I could see the difference. I am not familiar with the term "properly planed" surface. I am suspicious that you have a poorly planed surface or that you are abrading the surface after planing.

[glenn bradley]

Fine Woodworking Magazine did a piece on this a while back. Although the surface prep changed the color of the material (cherry and mahogany) when each finish was applied (BLO, shellac and Watco) in the end they stated that one could not tell how the material had been prepared.

I notice a lot of folks show a sanded versus planed or scraped surface in pictures without vacuuming or blowing out the pores of the sanded sample. This certainly gives a skewed visual example.

A planed surface is like glass right off the blade where sanding requires stepping through the grits (just like sharpening) in order to achieve a similar result. Lets not forget all the other tools we use to prep surfaces either. It is good that similar results can be achieved since there are certainly areas where you cannot plane and get the result I am after.

For flat areas, edges and convex curves I reach for a hand plane, scraper or a shave. For intricate or detail areas I reach for chisels, gouges, files or abrasives. Unless you're making lots of things with nothing but flat surfaces you will want a variety of surface prep tools.

[Warren Mickley]

If you read the Fine Woodworking article carefully, with each finish he put on just a light coat finish as a "sealer" and then sanded the surface. So all of the surfaces were sanded and it is no wonder that they all looked the same. When I criticised the method on another forum, one of the author's acquaintances wrote in that I should not be so hard on him because he was a young guy without much experience.

[Robert Engel]

Having read the responses... My thought are that the look and feel you get with both is quite different and therefore you're desired end result is what will drive you're methods. A modern minimalist project probably won't lend itself well to leaving tool marks in the finished product whereas a reproduction shaker project will more than lend itself well to leaving tool marks visible. YMMVI think if doing reproduction furniture this would be the biggest factor keeping in mind an exquisitely tuned, flat iron plane won't work if going for the "old masters" effect.

I find as my plane skills improve, I use less and less sandpaper. IMO you can tell the diff but it depends on the wood and going to 400 grit.

[Prashun Patel]

Warren-
I say this with due respect; I wouldn't normally come out of my corner with respect to your experience or advice.

By properly planed, I mean with a sharp blade and a surface with no tear out or track marks or chatter or any other imperfections that the skilled may take for granted.

By properly sanded, I mean sanded up to 600 or even 1000 grit, taking care at each step to inspect and remove swirls by hand sanding. Then vaccuming the dust off.

While I sometimes do wetsand the finish, I'm talking here about strictly stopping any abrasion or cutting after 'proper prep' and then only applying the finish with a soft rag, wiping off to achieve no build.

Look, at the end of the day, I cannot argue with Warren; his experience trumps mine a couple lifetimes over. So, to all internet readers, take my one data point with a tablespoon of salt. All I am saying - as I say often on the Finishing Forum - is test it for yourself and make your determination. You may find - as I have - that there is no (let's call it) PRACTICAL difference in perception.

Warren, can I send you test, though?

I take Brian H's point about hard vs soft woods. I'm talking about the hardwoods I've tested; I can't vouch for cypress or pine.

For my part, I too despise sanding at lower grits. I think it is inefficient and leaves an uneven surface (which DEFINITELY affects finish quality). A planed or shaved surface on curves at the low grits results in flat and fair surfaces. That greatly affects the look and feel. But I am not yet at the ability to smooth plane large surfaces to perfection. For that, I still often rely on 220-1000 grit. It goes fast and is easier than hoping each stroke of my plane (unlike Brian or Warren) doesn't betray me with tear out.

There have been times when I've planed a top and started finishing it, and then found minor tearout, and then sanded JUST that spot, and then vaccuumed, and then spot refinished, feathering out, and I cannot tell the difference.

[Dan T Jones]

May a complete newbie to this idea of not using sand paper ask something? First of all I would look at sanding at a lower risk approach than a steel edge to the finishing process.

My question is, are you all saying that you would plane a table top or drawer face and not sand? Don't you get some plane marks on the surface - lines where the blade edge dragged a little or something like that??

To get the entire surface smooth and without defect is hard for me to imagine but I must say I like the idea if it is possible.

Dan

[William Adams]

The card scraper is for that final effacing of the slightest of plane tracks.

FWIW, I'd liefer sharpen a plane or a scraper than pay for and use sandpaper.

[Prashun Patel]

Dan-
It's possible to get a flawless finish right off the plane. It takes some practice, but it's possible.

[Warren Mickley]

Sharpening is an art, planing is an art, staining and finishing are arts. Probably sanding is an art also. This not a matter of meeting some standard. When we practice these arts over a long time, we make subtle changes in technique that affect the outcome. And the judging of a finished surface is an art also.

We just don't pick a man off the street and ask him to judge two wines. And we just don't read directions for growing grapes and making wine and then suggest we can produce a standard wine.

If somebody likes the sanded look better, fine. There are a lot of other things, stock selection, proportion, color and color variation, mouldings, and more, that contribute to a fine look.

[Jerry Olexa]

If your plane is tuned and properly sharpened, generally it will be equal or better than a sanded finish IMHO...

[Dan T Jones]

Wow. It is a new challenge. I would say a very attractive alternative to sanding. Woodworking is like that.

Thanks for the help.

Dan

[Jim Koepke]

If your plane is tuned and properly sharpened, generally it will be equal or better than a sanded finish IMHO...

With a lot less work and sneezing.

jtk

[Brian Holcombe]

Everyone thinks of table tops and case sides, but really when considering how to finish a product when you consider all of the parts involved, a finishing process which retains a true surface will make the process flow easier and with more assured results.

For me it is much more a matter of practicality. When I make a part, I'm planing it to size and leaving a slight bit to finish plane off, I then cut joinery, detail and finally finish plane to complete the part. If I sand, it effects the joinery fit beyond that which will be absorbed in compression between to mating surfaces, or for a critical situation I can finish plane prior to the joinery and I'm right on.

[Stewie Simpson]

With respect to those that recommend applying a finish directly over a planed surface; am I the only person who uses wax to lubricate the sole of my hand planes. Wax contaminants are considered an impediment barrier to most wood finishing products. I have a preference to lightly scrape or sand the planed surface before I apply a finish.

If you think earlier craftsmen did it any differently; keep in mind it was common practice to use mutton fat (tallow) to lubricate the soles of their hand planes.

[Brian Holcombe]

On the woodies, once a great while. Not because I don't like to, I do, I just don't think to do it that often.

[Jim Koepke]

With respect to those that recommend applying a finish directly over a planed surface; am I the only person who uses wax to lubricate the sole of my hand planes. Wax contaminants are considered an impediment barrier to most wood finishing products. I have a preference to lightly scrape or sand the planed surface before I apply a finish.

This reminds me of folks at the farmers market when using mineral oil (a laxative/lubricant) is mentioned as a good way to care for wooden kitchen utensils. They are often afraid that putting a little mineral oil on their cooking spoon is going to send them to the toilet post haste.

There is an extremely small amount of mineral oil in the food after using a wooden utensil treated with mineral oil. Likewise by the time the planing is done there is likely not enough wax for the best forensics labs to find left on the surface of the wood. Of course there is likely someone who melts a half dozen candles and then dips their plane to fill the corrugations with wax. That would be the exception to the rule.

I rub a bit of wax on the bottom of my planes and have not had any problems with finishing.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

With respect to those that recommend applying a finish directly over a planed surface; am I the only person who uses wax to lubricate the sole of my hand planes. Wax contaminants are considered an impediment barrier to most wood finishing products. I have a preference to lightly scrape or sand the planed surface before I apply a finish.

If you think earlier craftsmen did it any differently; keep in mind it was common practice to use mutton fat (tallow) to lubricate the soles of their hand planes.

I use my Steely Dans (as one of our moderators has called them (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?242542-Try-this-on-for-size&p=2548882#post2548882)) without lubrication for this reason. What can I say, I like it rough.

(sorry Prashun, I couldn't resist going back to that well)

[Patrick Chase]

This reminds me of folks at the farmers market when using mineral oil (a laxative/lubricant) is mentioned as a good way to care for wooden kitchen utensils. They are often afraid that putting a little mineral oil on their cooking spoon is going to send them to the toilet post haste.

There is an extremely small amount of mineral oil in the food after using a wooden utensil treated with mineral oil. Likewise by the time the planing is done there is likely not enough wax for the best forensics labs to find left on the surface of the wood. Of course there is likely someone who melts a half dozen candles and then dips their plane to fill the corrugations with wax. That would be the exception to the rule.

I rub a bit of wax on the bottom of my planes and have not had any problems with finishing.

jtk

FWW actually tested this in their review of rust preventatives earlier this year. Their results were as you describe - no significant impact to finish or glue adhesion from most of the tested products, even when applied directly to the wood. Their adhesion tests included a water-based poly, and those aqueous varnish chemistries are notoriously finicky. I use CRC 3-36 for the most part, but I'm fairly careful to remove it from my smoother out of an abundance of caution.

[allen long]

I use a piece of paraffin block and run a squiggle (a technical term) along the sole of my metal plane. It makes pushing it so much easier. I have never had any splotching or other finishing issues. I tend to use thinned dewaxed shellac as my first coat.

[Jim Koepke]

I tend to use thinned dewaxed shellac as my first coat.

There you go, a wax deprived shellac is just dying to soak up what little wax might be left on the surface. :rolleyes:

jtk

[Warren Mickley]

If you think earlier craftsmen did it any differently; keep in mind it was common practice to use mutton fat (tallow) to lubricate the soles of their hand planes.

I cannot recall any documentation for what you call common practice. Do you know of any documentation from 200 years ago or so? Roubo illustrates a grease cup [figure 7, plate XI] and says it is used to lubricate tools, but says nothing about plane soles. I always was thinking more like saws, not planes. I have used wooden planes with clean hand planed soles since 1975, never sanded or greased. Here is Roubo [page 57]:

335651

[Stewie Simpson]

Hi Warren. The source of information was from my father. He received his traditional training as a Carpenter & Joiner during the 1950s in Scotland, under the tutelage of a Master Craftsman. Traditional tooling; no steel soled planes were allowed in the workshop. We chatted often about the training he received; the layout of the workshop; the types of trades employed within the workshop; etc.. He covered the use of the traditional grease pots, used to hold the mutton tallow, were always close at hand on each of the workbenches, to be applied to the soles of their wooden bench planes.

Stewie;

[Chris Fournier]

Alan, a French polish is a film finish. These guys are taking about oil/varnish and oil finishes that have no build.

Chris and Patrick, have you wet sanded finishes and use fine abrasives to burnish your surfaces? In theory there is a difference between the abraded and cut surface, but in practice I cannot tell the difference and I know what to look for. There is just a point where I believe your naked eye cannot tell a difference.

And I am talking about depth, clarity, chatoyance, whatever you want to call it.

There is a difference between sanding and sanding, burnishing, polishing. The application of the finish is as much a science and art as is the surface prep.

There are multiple ways to get to the perfect inthewood finish.

Tell you what, pm me your address and I will send you a sample with each side prepped differently and will challenge any takers to spot the difference with naked eye. Just as you will trust me not to cheat I will trust you to vote by naked eye before using a loupe.

We are discussing far too many things with too many variables to answer your question Prashun. This thread is not focused enough to give answers to the questions asked in my opinion.

If we leave any notion of a finish layer out of this discussion I would suggest that you can certainly see a difference between a properly planed wood surface and a sanded one regardless of the grit used. Blind folded I think that our hands alone would also be able to determine the difference, we don't even need to consider the crisp edge/face intersection here as it is a give away.

Having made a lot of different things in my day that have been covered with wax, oil, shellac, paints, varnish, lacquers of all kinds, and god knows what evil stuff the finish chemists came up with in two part packs I can say that I see no point in sanding raw wood past 220 grit.

Finishes I have sanded using 2000 grit before they got polished.

I choose to plane or sand the raw wood based on my intended finish which includes colour work and topcoat choices.

I guess that this is my best answer...

[Prashun Patel]

I respect and agree with this, Chris. But the OP asked if handplaning or scraping or sanding affects the quality of the wood after finished with an oil. To THAT, I say, no. I still have no takers on my proposed test.

[Patrick Chase]

I respect and agree with this, Chris. But the OP asked if handplaning or scraping or sanding affects the quality of the wood after finished with an oil. To THAT, I say, no. I still have no takers on my proposed test.

In my case that's because of the issue Warren raised - we tend to get the best results with whatever we do most often.

Your posts make it clear that you've optimized your finishing workflow for sanding, so I expect you'll get the best results that way. That doesn't prove anything about whether you could have gotten better results by optimizing for planing though.

Now, if you and Warren each sent me a board prepared to the best of your abilities, that might prove something...

[Chris Fournier]

I respect and agree with this, Chris. But the OP asked if handplaning or scraping or sanding affects the quality of the wood after finished with an oil. To THAT, I say, no. I still have no takers on my proposed test.

Okay, a bit more on point then for the OP. If you are using any colour on your project I strongly recommend sanding as wood will take on colour (stain and dyes) more evenly if sanded rather than planed in my experience. My last sanding efforts before finish are usually a quick hand sand in the direction of the grain.

[Andy McKenzie]

This is making me feel better. I was concerned that the plane finish would have a different appearance in a bad way.

I know traditionally one would have a smoothing plane and a scraper but is there a difference between the two?

Also just to make sure will a plane finish work with a stain or would it need to be sanded for proper absorbtion of the stain?

I don't have much to add anywhere else, but I haven't seen a response to this yet.

From what I've read and my limited experience, a scraper is good for places where it's awkward to get a plane, or where the plane leaves a lot of tearout, such as around knots.

[glenn bradley]

If you read the Fine Woodworking article carefully, with each finish he put on just a light coat finish as a "sealer" and then sanded the surface. So all of the surfaces were sanded and it is no wonder that they all looked the same. When I criticised the method on another forum, one of the author's acquaintances wrote in that I should not be so hard on him because he was a young guy without much experience.

Thanks Warren. Good catch. I had glossed over that.

[Patrick Chase]

I don't have much to add anywhere else, but I haven't seen a response to this yet.

From what I've read and my limited experience, a scraper is good for places where it's awkward to get a plane, or where the plane leaves a lot of tearout, such as around knots.

Depends on how the scraper is set up.

A burr-less scraper abrades the surface somewhat, leading to an intermediate amount (between planing and sanding) of damage to the wood's structure.

A scraper with a sharp burr initially cuts the wood at an angle not all that much greater than a plane, and can leave a very nice surface in the right hands.

[Andy McKenzie]

Depends on how the scraper is set up.

I burr-less scraper abrades the surface somewhat, leading to an intermediate amount (between planing and sanding) of damage to the wood's structure.

A scraper with a sharp burr initially cuts the wood at an angle not all that much greater than a plane, and can leave a very nice surface in the right hands.

Fair. I was assuming with a sharp burr, since that's how I've always heard they ought to be used.