Yes, You Need a Jointer and a Jack

[Hilton Ralphs]

By: Christopher Schwarz


Extract

I’ve been asked a lot lately if one really needs a jack and a jointer plane. Several well-respected woodworkers and writers now teach that you can prepare all your stock for finishing with only one bench plane, a smoothing plane, if you use machine-prepared stock.

I suppose that’s true in the same way that I could write all my blog entries with a manual typewriter, scan them and then use optical character recognition to prepare them for the Internet. Yes, you can do it, but you will get a lot more done if you use the tool that was designed for what you are trying to accomplish.

Read the full blog here (http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/yes-you-need-a-jointer-and-a-jack?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+woodworkingmagazine+%28Woodwo rking+Magazine%29).

[Jim Koepke]

Someone mentions that it's possible to use a smoothing plane for jointing edges. Next thing you know someone is having trouble getting their edges square and wonders what the problem might be.

In my opinion, at a minimum one should have three bench planes a jointer, a jack and a smoother. The S4S lumber available in my area often needs to be planed to be usable for my projects.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

A lot of Paul Sellers fanboys will now be cancelling their subscriptions to Popular Woodworking and Lost Art Press. :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Tony Zaffuto]

I must be closer to correct than not! My most used planes on virtually every project are my LN BU jointer and jack (#9 on my shooting board though). Next in line are either my #3 Clifton or #4 LN w/haf. Further downhill are the block planes, shoulder planes and a myriad of others.

Some may question the bevel-up choice, but they work well for me and my choice of wood worked. The smoothers used are bevel-down and wouldn't have it any other way.

[John Schtrumpf]

"Yes, you can do it, but you will get a lot more done if you use the tool that was designed for what you are trying to accomplish." - By: Christopher Schwarz | June 18, 2016

Personally, I have a jointer sitting on a shelf collecting dust to remind me of that. And CS can sleep at night, as I only build small things. :)

[steven c newman]

I think I have at least two of each size in bench and block planes.....Seems that IF I am using one size too much, and it starts to act a bit ..dull, I can set it aside, and grab the next one in the line up, otherwise, why would I have 3 in the #7 size?

As for the "Fan Boy " crack......I take umbrence to that insult! Both he and Das Schwarz have their place. I learn a bit from each.....somethings Paul does that I don't, and some of CS stuff I'll read, then just shake me head....

Not sure why...but seems like there is always somebody who will chime in to one of these type of discussions with an "Ad" for the higher priced tools.....?

[Derek Cohen]

Steven, I was not insulting Paul Sellers (who I think is good in his way). I was teasing his followers - typically newbies who hang on his every word (read his blog for examples). This is a case where he and Chris Schwarz (who also has fan boys on his forum) offer opposite advice. So who is right? You can't follow both.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jason Lester]

I guess I disagree with him because of the machine-prepared caveat. I have a powered planer and jointer. I do all the prep work with them. I do have a #7, 2-#5's, and a #4. I rarely use anything other than the #5 that is set for a very thin shaving and the #4 to lightly level out panels.

[steven c newman]

I follow both, because I take each with a large grain of salt.

[Jim Koepke]

I follow both, because I take each with a large grain of salt.

I have found both to have some interesting ideas. I am more attuned to CS than PS. I have also found both to make fools of themselves at times.

jtk

[lowell holmes]

Having attended several classes conducted by Paul Sellers, I can tell you his methods work.

He has incredible skills, and he will endeavor to teach you his skills.

I appreciate Derek Cohan's work as well. I see no reason to disregard either man.

I attended his classes almost 20 years ago, so I'm not a newby.

[Jim Koepke]

Having attended several classes conducted by Paul Sellers, I can tell you his methods work.

He has incredible skills, and he will endeavor to teach you his skills.

I appreciate Derek Cohan's work as well. I see no reason to disregard either man.

I attended his classes almost 20 years ago, so I'm not a newby.

I am sure Paul Sellers is much more accomplished than I will ever be. The thing that turns me off to his videos is his insistent tone about things like only needing to sharpen plane blades up to 250 grit since that is were most sanding stops before finishing. Some will then become evangelical about what the 'expert' has proclaimed and arguments ensue.

We recently had a thread requesting help with a problem of not being able to joint stock square. I didn't realize for a while the OP was using a #3 for jointing. If that is all one has and is working smaller stock, it might be easier to mount the plane in a vise and pass the work over the plane instead of passing the plane over the stock.

When Mr. Sellers shows the ability to make a mortise with a bench chisel, some start evangelizing about how mortise chisels are a waste of money.

Of course some will absorb the spoken words from 'the pillars of woodworking' and do as they are told without question.

I have always been a thorn in the side of those who profess "there is only my way."

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

I think that there are a couple big problems with both some of the posts to this thread and Schwartz' article.

The first is that a lot of people seem to be conflating "size" with "setup". Jack-sized planes are often set up with flat blades, tight mouths, and fine sets, such that they are optimized for fine work and functionally cease to be jacks in any meaningful sense. The 5-1/2 that Charlesworth uses or used for smoothing falls into this category. Conversely, plenty of people configure smoother-sized planes with heavily cambered blades and rank sets. Those planes are undeniably "jacks" in function, even if the casting happens to be embossed "#4".

The second is scale of work. Consider somebody who compulsively builds boxes, and never works a piece longer than 24". Any plane with sole length >=12" will work just fine for them for jointing, so a Jack-sized plane with a flat blade and medium set becomes a perfectly adequate "jointer". Likewise their "jack" might be a #4 set up as described in the preceding paragraph, and their primary smoother might be a #3.

IMO there's far too much dogmatism about which planes are suitable for what, and it mostly seems to be rooted in egocentric assumptions that the next guy must work on the same sorts of projects as you do. They probably don't, and their optimum is probably different than yours as a consequence. If you are one of those dogmatic folks, I have three words: Get over it.

EDIT: Two other remarks:

- Upon re-reading Chris does acknowledge the "size issue", but in a dismissive way. I think he's regressed, in the sense that his previous "coarse-medium-fine" columns provided a better and more universally valid exposition of the same basic idea.

- FWIW I'm pretty conventional - I have jointers, jacks, and smoothers. For the most part I use each for its nominal task, though I sometimes swap a flat blade into one of my jacks when jointing short pieces, etc.

[lowell holmes]

When Mr. Sellers shows the ability to make a mortise with a bench chisel, some start evangelizing about how mortise chisels are a waste of money.

jtk

I attended two rocking chair classes at Homestead Heritage. Each chair had numerous mortise and tenon joints. All of the mortises were chopped with bevel edge chisels. All the rocking chairs I've made have two 1" square mortises in the arms. If there is such a thing as 1" mortise chisel, I've never seen it. I've never seen a 1" firmer chisel either.

Having said that, I own several mortise chisels and enjoy using them. I do agree that if you need to make a mortise that you don't have a mortise chisel for, make it with a bevel edge chisel.
I'm glad you can do it with either chisel. The old saying is "The difference between a man and a boy is the price of his toys".

I recently had chair that because of a layout error, I needed 15/16" mortises. I filed an old 1" chisel to 15/16" and chopped the mortises.

I cant imagine anyone evanglizing against either type of chisel.

[Jim Koepke]

It all has to do with context. When someone asks for advice on what planes they should buy, most times the person is asked early in the thread what kind of work they plan to do or what project they have in mind.

For all around woodworking there is the basic starter set of a jointer, jack and smoother. For some, a #5 or even a #5-1/4 might be a good jointer, a #4 a good jack and a #2 or #3 set up to do the smoothing.

My choice is to have at least one of each. There are three sizes that are seldom used, but they do get used. There are also a few sizes that do the bulk of the work.

Many times my projects involve prepping surfaced boards longer than 4 or 5'. Sure the work could be done with a #3. I do have other things I would also like to do so a plane of a more appropriate size will be used.

One of my most used sizes is a #6. Patrick Leach says, "I've never found this size plane useful." At one time this proclamation had an effect on the pricing of #6 planes which was good for those who found "this size plane useful."

Just like when PS or CS rave about the greatness of a particular tool the prices often increase on that big auction site.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

If there is such a thing as 1" mortise chisel, I've never seen it. I've never seen a 1" firmer chisel either.



Here are a couple of chisels I use for 1" mortise work:

339455

One is likely a timber framing chisel and the other is a square edge chisel. Not sure if there is any modern makers of a 1" mortise chisel.

I have also made mortises with bevel edge and square edge chisels. I find using a mortise chisel is less work overall.

jtk

[Simon MacGowen]

Steven, I was not insulting Paul Sellers (who I think is good in his way). I was teasing his followers - typically newbies who hang on his every word (read his blog for examples). This is a case where he and Chris Schwarz (who also has fan boys on his forum) offer opposite advice. So who is right? You can't follow both.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Fan boys, which may not be an acceptable term to some or an accurate term, sure exist not just for Sellers. You can find them for Schwarz, Cosman, Klausz, Underhill, etc. If you care to read some of the comments by the regulars in Schwarz's blog, you would shake your head that almost everything Schwarz puts out there would get unquestioned endorsements and agreements. If Schwarz mentions a new tool or gadget, you sure will see someone saying they can't wait to get it. Of course, the same can be said of Sellers' posts.

Schwarz and Sellers are no God, guys. You don't have to agree with them on everything to show your support. And then some even refer to Underhill affectionately as Saint! I am not saying these great woodworkers and teachers don't deserve our respects and support, but idolizing is another thing.

This is woodworking and not show business. Perhaps, some players in the industry (publishing, tool makers, etc.) do want to promote and present these people as celebrities -- which is good for business -- and any idolizing is more than welcome.

Simon

[lowell holmes]

I have also made mortises with bevel edge and square edge chisels. I find using a mortise chisel is less work overall.

jtk


I have a 1 1/2" square sided chisel that I think is a framing chisel. It has "BUCK" on it. I also have a thick 2" chisel with beveled edges. It is definitely a framing chisel.
It belonged to a chair builder out of Hoboken. He was there during the early 20th century. I've made new handles for them. The 2" chisel had no handle. I had to grind the beat up edges on the socket.

I have chopped mortises with both chisels while making gate posts with headers in the 4X4 posts. I've also made arbors for SWMBO's garden. Both chisels are razor sharp.
It's a pleasure to work with them.

Aren't we supposed to be talking a planes in the string?

[steven c newman]

You mean these things?
339471
And, depending on what I am doing, all might get used....

[Glen Canaday]

Every one of them (and probably a few here) has fanboys. Even Richard Maguire has them.

I think the "St. Roy" euphemism arises because of what he's done over the years to help prevent the death of hand tool craftsmanship. By that extention we should also have "St. Paul," "St. Rick," and "St. Schwarz," but the most of them need a few more years in the public eye before they earn the honorific.

It was Paul Sellers who showed me that I could really do it, Schwarz who gave another view and thus counterpoint, and Richard whom I identify the most with and would probably sit for far too long with in the pub.

I personally believe we all need to take "St. Schwarz's" advice to disobey. Else, how will we ever get our next role models?

[Josh Nelson]

I like Sellers. In fact, I respect the skills and insight the man brings to the table. I also appreciate him in much the same way that I appreciate Undershill and Schwarz namely in that they are all doing their parts to bring our past to the present with as much zeal and enthusiasm as they can muster. That said, I've always thought Sellers was bonkers in his insistence of using the lower end of the Stanley number scale for almost everything (and those hard to find 1/2 size blades!). Heck, I'm weird though, I tend to use my No. 6 and No. 7 for most of my work. Sure the Jack and the Smoother get used but often I can (with the right size material of course) get from a No. 7 to a cabinet scraper.

Point being, we all have our "method."

[Nick Stokes]

I'm fairly certain that PS is so adamant in saying "a #4 can do it all" simply because he wants people to jump in and create stuff. He doesn't want there to be barriers and excused why you can't get a job done. That is all.

I'm clearly a PS Fanboy, and I've wanted hours and hours of his private site, and built many of the projects. There have been times where he was jointing an edge, or tapering a table leg, and he reaches over for his #5 or larger plane... He takes a few strokes then says "oops, I don't want to mislead you, you can do this with a #4 if you need to", and he puts it back down and grabs the smoother.

It's simply for instruction... he doesn't actually believe that smoother joints better than a jointer...

I respect all of these folks, no doubt. PS, Richard, Rob, I love them all and soak up as much youtube or private content as I can find. Can't get enough, and love the different viewpoints.

[John Kananis]

I think Nick Stokes nailed it. Sellers main concern is (IMHO) to get new people woodworking. Many new folks taking up the craft find the initial investment (dictated by others) a bit financially daunting. Paul Sellers focuses on the absolute necessary items you need to get started. He's mentioned in many of his videos that he has and uses the larger numbered planes but if you need to, you can get by with the most inexpensive model #4 Stanley available (he also recommends other brands for further savings).

The man is obviously very talented and the fact that he can use a number 4 to do almost all his planing should be admired as I'm sure in his own shop away from a camera, he would use the appropriate plane for the task (as any master craftsman would do).

We all know that if you get into woodworking, chopping mortises with bevel edge chisels, you're going to eventually get a bug up your butt to get a mortising chisel - I'm sure Paul knows this also but again, I believe he's simply doing his best to introduce new folks to the art with minimal investment.

[Stewie Simpson]

Its also important to bear in mind that the terms of reference still used today can be traced back to the early days of wooden planes. Wooden planes have at least 1/2 the weight of a steel bodied plane in relation to length of sole; weights a very important factor when focusing on reducing body fatigue. If you take into account the early stages of flattening the face of a board, your primarily focused on eliminated the high areas that come result from cupping and wind in order to work the entire board surface down to a common height; this is commonly done by traversing the planes direction of travel at 45* to the long grain; a no. 4 size steel plane is ideally suited to this task for 2 main reasons; its lighter weight; and its sole length allows better access to those areas between 2 high points that a longer soled plane would commonly miss. After the traversing work has been completed, and the surface of the board is within close proximity of common height, the planes directional stroke changes to one that's more parallel aligned to the direction of long grain; that is where the longer soled planes serve their role extremely well.

[Patrick Chase]

Here are a couple of chisels I use for 1" mortise work:

One is likely a timber framing chisel and the other is a square edge chisel. Not sure if there is any modern makers of a 1" mortise chisel.

I have also made mortises with bevel edge and square edge chisels. I find using a mortise chisel is less work overall.

jtk

The usual way of doing a 1" mortise with pigstickers is to cut a pair of parallel mortises, each less than 1/2" wide, and then chop out the center as a final step.

[Patrick Chase]

Its also important to bear in mind that the terms of reference still used today can be traced back to the early days of wooden planes. Wooden planes have at least 1/2 the weight of a steel bodied plane in relation to length of sole; weights a very important factor when focusing on reducing body fatigue..

This is maybe true for taking a fine shaving with low cutting forces as in smoothing. For roughing the cutting forces are so high that they absolutely swamp any contribution from the plane. It simply does not matter at that point.

[Derek Cohen]

I'm fairly certain that PS is so adamant in saying "a #4 can do it all" simply because he wants people to jump in and create stuff. He doesn't want there to be barriers and excused why you can't get a job done.

This is my view as well, and one of the qualities I appreciate in Paul. However, his followers are all in the main newbies, and they take his suggestions quite literally. The fact is that Paul is extremely skilled, and he can make do with anything. There are other planes, such as the jointer, which do not get mentioned, and therefore do not enter the world of those learning from him. The same must be said for his views on mortice chisels. You can chop with anything, but a proper mortice chisel does a better job, and more easily. All these techniques are very valid and valuable, but they are not all that is needed. My reference to "fanboys" was aimed at those who follow blindly and constantly refer in discussions to Paul for correct technique (the emphasis here is follow blindly. Plus the post was originally meant in jest - not a wise idea, since it gets taken out-of-context by some). It was not a comment about Paul.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

However, his followers are all in the main newbies, and they take his suggestions quite literally.

Some will even get argumentative if someone suggests a longer plane. After all they learned from a professional teaching woodworker.

jtk

[Stanley Covington]

I read Mr. Schwarz's post with interest. And depending on what kind of work you do, I can only agree with him.

There are centuries of documented history, and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of craftsmen already gone to the big woodpile in the sky that worked using this combination of tools, and bought jack, jointer, and smoother, during times when tools were much more expensive than they are today.

Even if you own an electric jointer and planer, or thickness sander, the minute you work anything too wide, too long, or too thick for your equipment, then you will need to rely on planes. If the woodworking you do doesn't require three planes, lucky you.

The comment was made above, and quite correctly I think, that Mr. Sellers is focused on encouraging and training newbies. From this perspective, focusing on a single plane, the smoother, makes perfect sense. But if you watch his videos, he has hundreds of pounds worth of metal planes displayed in the cabinets behind his workbench. Are we to accept that they are only props? I suspect they all work, and that he uses some of those jacks and jointers when the task at hand calls for them.

I don't see any conflict between what Mr. Schwarz and Mr. Sellers are advocating.

The Elephant has a tail and a trunk, and neither is a drainpipe.

[Luke Dupont]

I'm fairly certain that PS is so adamant in saying "a #4 can do it all" simply because he wants people to jump in and create stuff. He doesn't want there to be barriers and excused why you can't get a job done.

This is my view as well, and one of the qualities I appreciate in Paul. However, his followers are all in the main newbies, and they take his suggestions quite literally. The fact is that Paul is extremely skilled, and he can make do with anything. There are other planes, such as the jointer, which do not get mentioned, and therefore do not enter the world of those learning from him. The same must be said for his views on mortice chisels. You can chop with anything, but a proper mortice chisel does a better job, and more easily. All these techniques are very valid and valuable, but they are not all that is needed. My reference to "fanboys" was derogatory to those who follow blindly, and constantly refer in discussions to Paul for correct technique. It is not a comment about Paul.

Regards from Perth

Derek

As one who probably comes off as a Paul Sellers fanboy (woops!) and tried using a #3 for jointing (hey, I did finally get good results!), and is indeed a newbie, I'm probably not one to talk, but:

I think there's a difference in philosophy, to some extent. I've always been one to enjoy learning how to do the most possible with the least available; to develop a flexible, fundamental skillset, rather than a specialized one. And to own just a few general purpose, flexible tools that, while they may not be the perfect tool for any particular job, will do a wide range of jobs quite well given that you have the skill to make them work. I've done this not just with woodworking, but with many of my other hobbies as well, such as programming; I find that most people are quick to adopt libraries and such, right from the get go, that work magic behind the scenes and take care of a lot of stuff for them. Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but I took the opposite approach; I built everything from the ground up as a beginner, because I wanted that experience and skillset. I can always adopt a more specialized tools at a later date as it is warranted, but as learning goes, I think it's a good experience to do things the simple, if less efficient way.

I learned quite a bit from jointing with a #3, I'm happy to say :D

There is some practical lines to my thinking as well, though, and I assume this to be the case for many people; not everyone has the luxury of all the best. I mean, it would be great to have a tool cabinet filled to the brim with every specialized tool I might ever need, to have an entire garage at my disposal to work in, and to have a huge, 600lbs Roubo bench to work on. But that would be impossible for my lifestyle. I mean, I'm in the process of moving as we speak, from one apartment to another. Space is extremely limited. I need a few, flexible tools and a lightweight bench that I can fold up and take with me. I'm not aiming to be a professional cabinet maker, or woodworker, but just a hobbyist adding one more interest and capability to an already rather large pool of hobbies and interests. Doing more with less, and adopting a very simple, minimalist approach makes sense for me, at this stage in my life and development of this hobby. That's why I'm so fond of Paul's approach. That said, I make an effort to stay open minded and grab from wherever I can, and see what works for me. I routinely try approaches that I don't think I'll be fond of, if it fits within my budget and space constraints and seems useful.

I think I see more on the reverse end of the spectrum, though, of people who always use the most specialized, perfect tools for the job, and are adamant that those tools and methods are the "best" way and that everyone should use them. That line of thinking doesn't really ring home to me, or fit my needs, and I think it discourages a lot of people from getting into a great hobby.

I do take que's from other sources as well. And, whilst I do plan on getting a jack plane, because I perceive the added convenience to warrant owning the tool, I am still of the impression that those who say you can do it all with a small plane aren't mistaken. Just take a look at Japanese woodworkers; whilst they do have nagadai kanna, most seem to use short planes for most, or all of their work, even long dai planes are comparable to a jack at best. Now, I realize I might be wrong, as I'm not all that knowledgeable of Japanese woodworking methods yet, so maybe Stanley can correct me, but that is my impression, and I'll wager that most Japanese craftsmen simply learn to use short planes where we might feel a longer plane is necessary.

So, whilst I'm still a newbie and it may be rather arrogant for me to say such, I'll disagree with the statement that "Yes, you need a jack and a jointer." You should be the judge of that; your work, your needs, your experience, and your constraints. You shouldn't buy (or refuse to buy) anything just because someone else told you that you do (or don't) need it. Well, you know, unless that person really knows what they're talking about and your experience leads you to think that they might be right. But definitely try and fail the hard way first! You learn more that way ;)

PS. I'm not intending to defend myself here, nor am I taking any offense. I'm just intending to communicate where myself, and probably a lot of other perceived "fanboys" are coming from. People find a certain teacher with methods that gel for them, and fit them personally. There's also the issue of, as a newbie, simply having very limited exposure to certain ways of doing things, hence the "Oh, I saw X do it this way!" or "Here's how X did and it works for me." kind of comments. I think there's nothing wrong with those things as long as you remain open-minded and don't start thinking that your way is the only way. When it comes down to it, though, I think statements along the lines of "you don't need X, you can make do without it" to generally be more open minded than statements along the lines of "you absolutely need X and you're wrong if you don't use it"

[Stewie Simpson]

My reference to "fanboys" was derogatory to those who follow blindly, and constantly refer in discussions to Paul for correct technique. It is not a comment about Paul.

With respect Derek; what do you hope to gain by being derogatory to those who seek advise given from Paul Sellers; is a change of allegiance to your own fan base being offered;

it makes perfect sense to most who share an interest within woodworking, to look upon someone like Paul Sellers as being a source of sound and reliable information to draw inspiration from; the guy has close to 50yrs of full time experience within the woodworking trade; have a read his bio and see if you can match it with your own woodworking experience. https://paulsellers.com/paul-sellers-biography/

Stewie;

[Simon MacGowen]

I'm fairly certain that PS is so adamant in saying "a #4 can do it all" simply because he wants people to jump in and create stuff. He doesn't want there to be barriers and excused why you can't get a job done. That is all.

.

It's anybody's guess why Sellers said the #4 can do everything. And my guess -- as good as anyone's -- is that he didn't say it "because he wants people to jump in and create stuff." He said that because he actually has the skill to do it. I have tried it -- yes with just my low angle smoother -- and it worked well on the edge of a 4 ft board. But it takes not only skill but patience and time. If you're good with your plane, you can do it too: Get a square and a straight edge, say, 2ft long. Mark the high spots and plane them off with very light cuts one at a time and check. You can move along (and forward) until you get a straight edge from start to end. Doable, 100%. BUT, I could finish the same in 1/4 of the time used with a jointer.

Sellers, in my view, was simply stating the obvious that with skill, you can do a lot even with a limited set of tools. Hasn't that been his teaching all along?: He shows how make a poor man's router with a chisel (and he owns many router planes); he shows how to make a beading tool with just a block and a screw; etc.

Sellers says a lot of things and we shouldn't overread everything he says. His style is as unique as any other teachers'. When he says a #4 can do all...I believe him, but I just don't need to follow him on that (as I don't plan to get rid of all my long planes from the low angle jack and up). Just as some preach they would never sand after planing a board, I sand whenever/if I want to.

Simon

[lowell holmes]

When I met Paul Sellers, he and others, Stan Beckworth for one were conducting classes "Furniture Making With Handtools". When you went to the workbench you found four blue handle Marple chisels, a mallet, a back saw, and a Stanley plane. This took place at Homestead Heritage near Waco, Texas. They taught us how to make mortise and tenon joints, dado's, how to plane a board smooth, and dovetail joints. The school is still in operation. Stan Beckworth is better using chisels in making joints than any one I've seen. We used box cutters for a marking gage. I still prefer a box cutter for marking . You just tilt the blade so one side of the bevel is vertical.

Frank Strazza and others are conducting classes now. Google his name and you will see his prize winning work.

The beat goes on.

Paul, Stan, Frank and others are exceptional woodworkers.

When we went home, many of us went out and bought the tools we had used at Waco. The cost of the tools were under $100. This was around the year 1995. So you see, Paul's methods work.
I'm surprised so many resent what they are doing. It's sound handtool woodworking techniques.

They have a booth at the Houston Woodworking Show each year. One thing they do is demonstrate making dovetail joints with a backsaw and coping saw. They do it without laying the dovetails
out . They just put a board in a vise and saw the tails using a back saw and chisel. They mark the pins from the tails they just cut. The joint produced is incredible. They do draw a single line across the board to cut to. They do not mark the dovetails. They do mark the pins using the dovetails they just cut.

You may understand where a lot of the techniques they use originated.

[Patrick Chase]

Wow, this thread is starting to make me feel compelled to defend Sellars, and that takes some serious doing.


It's anybody's guess why Sellers said the #4 can do everything.

He said it because it's true, at least inasmuch as "everything" encompasses the classical bench plane tasks of roughing, jointing, and smoothing.

The operative words in that sentence are "can do", not "is ideal for". The #4 can in fact do everything, and it doesn't take as much skill as you might think. Yes, you'll have to resort to the straightedge a lot more when jointing. Yes, any roughing you do will be very slow going if you don't have a second, cambered blade. But it *can* in fact do both in addition to smoothing.

I know a lot of people who think that effective hand-tool woodworking requires a massive upfront investment (and the sight of my own...err..."collection" usually doesn't help convince them otherwise). Sellars is trying to combat that message, and IMO he's doing God's Work in that regard (tm).

[Stewie Simpson]

Patrick; if you watch the Paul Sellers video he is using a #4 with a cambered blade to do the rough work.

Stewie;

[Derek Cohen]

It appears that a few noses are out of joint with regard my use of "Fanboys". And they are correct to be. It was said in jest, and clearly struck a nerve, and this was wrong of me to word things this way. To those I offended, I apologise.

There is a more relevant underbelly that can be mentioned. The thread began with a quote from Chris Schwarz about the use of handplanes that (although implied but not stated) that Paul Sellers does not advocate the use of. Both Chris and Paul have done an enormous amount of work to encourage handtool woodworking. In this they share a common purpose, however they go about this differently.

Chris wrote a wonderful book about becoming an anarchist in the workshop. The philosophy behind this was a curious mix of 'think for yourself' but do so following 'traditional lines'. For example, his popularising of "coarse, medium and fine" focuses the woodworker on a universal work sequence, and the choice of handplanes for this. Although Chris argues the case for individuality, he has his roots firmly in history (his research attests to this).

Paul is an anarchist in his own right. He champion's keeping tool excess and expenditure out of building furniture. He wants it to be affordable. To do this he reduces the choice of handplanes, with his #4 smoother doing double, even triple duty. Bench chisels are treated the same way, as is sharpening. I do not think that he would work this way for himself when out of the public sight (since he is traditionally trained). The overall attempt at simplification woodwork is a deliberate ploy to attract a following (after all, he is in business - which is not to demean the good he has done).

Both Chris and Paul have personal blogs and forums. If you ever visit these you will be strikingly aware that there is never any debate, just agreement (and if I were less kind, a bunch of fawning messages). I guess I am a bit jaded at this time. I find this all a bit sickly. Far from the independence of thought that both these fine gentlemen advocate, one sees in their followers a literalness of thought that derives from placing someone high on a pedestal and never questioning their advice. What follows is that these disciples proclaim the gospel on other forums (not so much this one). I dip into some of these occasionally, and leave quickly. So .. my knee-jerk reaction.

Clearly I was a jerk. I am all for supporting newcomers to woodworking. I need to be more tolerant.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

The operative words in that sentence are "can do", not "is ideal for". The #4 can in fact do everything, and it doesn't take as much skill as you might think.

So often the "operative words" of one considered a 'guru of woodworking' get embedded in the new comer's mind and mixed up into "the #4 is the only plane one will ever need." Then things can become frustrating when they try to join two boards to make a panel. Of course they can put the two boards side by side to offset any out of square areas. If undulations occur there will be gaps.

Of course if you have a shop full of power tools that might take care of the problem... If they can't afford more to get started than a #4, they likely won't have a shop full of power tools either.

It is fine to try to keep one's shop cost to a minimum. There is a point where a person may find it to their advantage to have tools designed to do a particular task more efficiently.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

Just as some preach they would never sand after planing a board, I sand whenever/if I want to.

Simon

I do not sand as much as I used to. But for me it is one of the ways to deal with tear out. Besides, if something needs sanding I try to get my wife to do it. She actually likes sanding.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

When I met Paul Sellers, he and others, Stan Beckworth for one were conducting classes "Furniture Making With Handtools". When you went to the workbench you found four blue handle Marple chisels, a mallet, a back saw, and a Stanley plane.

What? 4 chisels? AND a backsaw, AND a Stanley plane? You could do with just one chisel, break the wood over your knee and cut of the fibers with the one chisel. Attach the chisel to a block of wood and you have a plane. Forget about the mallet too, use any lump of wood lying around. Or a street brick.

Of course that is nonsence. The above small kit of tools is a perfect way to get started on your first steps in making things from wood. As long as you keep with predimensioned pine and poplar from the box store, you can continue for quite a while. But when you want to grow, when you want to use rough sawn wood, when you want to make larger or more complex things, it just makes sence to slowly add to your tool collection. We are not talking about a fully outfitted specialised shop, just the basics. A jackplane (cheap!) a jointer (can be a cheaper wooden one). When you want to incorporate some grooves in your work, then a plow plane starts to be a really good idea, etc.

Clinging all the time to the idea that everything can be done with a #4 gets limiting after a while. It would be a good idea of Paul Sellers to acknowledge that fact and teach how the traditional aproach of woodworking really works.

[Luke Dupont]

What? 4 chisels? AND a backsaw, AND a Stanley plane? You could do with just one chisel, break the wood over your knee and cut of the fibers with the one chisel. Attach the chisel to a block of wood and you have a plane. Forget about the mallet too, use any lump of wood lying around. Or a street brick.

Of course that is nonsence. The above small kit of tools is a perfect way to get started on your first steps in making things from wood. As long as you keep with predimensioned pine and poplar from the box store, you can continue for quite a while. But when you want to grow, when you want to use rough sawn wood, when you want to make larger or more complex things, it just makes sence to slowly add to your tool collection. We are not talking about a fully outfitted specialised shop, just the basics. A jackplane (cheap!) a jointer (can be a cheaper wooden one). When you want to incorporate some grooves in your work, then a plow plane starts to be a really good idea, etc.

Clinging all the time to the idea that everything can be done with a #4 gets limiting after a while. It would be a good idea of Paul Sellers to acknowledge that fact and teach how the traditional aproach of woodworking really works.

Ummm.... Paul routinely uses an array of more specialized tools. Spokeshaves, Router planes, Scrub planes, even Jacks, Jointers, and shoulder planes on rare occasion, and of course an array of Chisels, Gouges, Rip and Crosscut saws, etc. etc. He just gives simple alternatives in case you don't have a particular tool, or perhaps even, prefer to use a different one. He chooses to focus on the fundamentals; an approach that I find very helpful.

I don't think he's the only one to think this way, either. I quite like watching The English Woodworker for the same reasons; he shows how to use a chisel in instances where many people just pick up a shoulder plane, or moving filister, and leave you without any instruction on how to go about doing the job if you lack such an expensive, specialized tool. He also had a video suggesting a singular plane one might choose to own, in which he suggests a Jack (which he had some good logic for preferring over the No. 4, but still recognized that a No. 4 would be a good choice as well.) So, I don't think the notion that one plane can do it all is entirely a Paul Sellers thing. It really just comes down, again, to mindset. Some prefer to have all of the specialized tools, and are more specialized in their work, whilst others might prefer a more flexible, minimalist approach.

You just start with the fundamentals, and then get what specialized tools you really need, as you need them. For instance, I don't think I will need a jointer any time soon. I do see the benefit of longer planes, and a jack is something I think I'll use, but it's just not very often that I find myself wanting to make anything large enough to warrant a jointer; the only time being when I'm working on a work bench. Otherwise, I rarely need to work with anything larger than 2-3'. If that changes, I can go get a jointer. But why should I rush out and buy one right now?

[Kees Heiden]

Yes that's fair. It probably was more an impression I got then the reality. That's how these thing go often enough.

[Kees Heiden]

And now I think a bit more about it, maybe the standard advice of getting a jack, jointer and smoother, is a bit silly too. Totally depends on what you want to use it for. The great majority of woodworkers don't own or use a plane at all, they would be well served with just a #4 for fitting, chamfering, stuff like that. Power tool woodworkers often have no use for a jack and a jointer at all.

[Luke Dupont]

It appears that a few noses are out of joint with regard my use of "Fanboys". And they are correct to be. It was said in jest, and clearly struck a nerve, and this was wrong of me to word things this way. To those I offended, I apologise.

There is a more relevant underbelly that can be mentioned. The thread began with a quote from Chris Schwarz about the use of handplanes that (although implied but not stated) that Paul Sellers does not advocate the use of. Both Chris and Paul have done an enormous amount of work to encourage handtool woodworking. In this they share a common purpose, however they go about this differently.

Chris wrote a wonderful book about becoming an anarchist in the workshop. The philosophy behind this was a curious mix of 'think for yourself' but do so following 'traditional lines'. For example, his popularising of "coarse, medium and fine" focuses the woodworker on a universal work sequence, and the choice of handplanes for this. Although Chris argues the case for individuality, he has his roots firmly in history (his research attests to this).

Paul is an anarchist in his own right. He champion's keeping tool excess and expenditure out of building furniture. He wants it to be affordable. To do this he reduces the choice of handplanes, with his #4 smoother doing double, even triple duty. Bench chisels are treated the same way, as is sharpening. I do not think that he would work this way for himself when out of the public sight (since he is traditionally trained). The overall attempt at simplification woodwork is a deliberate ploy to attract a following (after all, he is in business - which is not to demean the good he has done).

Both Chris and Paul have personal blogs and forums. If you ever visit these you will be strikingly aware that there is never any debate, just agreement (and if I were less kind, a bunch of fawning messages). I guess I am a bit jaded at this time. I find this all a bit sickly. Far from the independence of thought that both these fine gentlemen advocate, one sees in their followers a literalness of thought that derives from placing someone high on a pedestal and never questioning their advice. What follows is that these disciples proclaim the gospel on other forums (not so much this one). I dip into some of these occasionally, and leave quickly. So .. my knee-jerk reaction.

Clearly I was a jerk. I am all for supporting newcomers to woodworking. I need to be more tolerant.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Hi Cohen,

I didn't actually take offense (and hopefully noone else did either!). And, I can appreciate your point.

I think it's just human nature to cling to a particular teacher's philosophy and take that as gospel. I see it a lot in the world of Martial Arts as well. Sometimes it bothers me, but I think most people "grow out" of it as they get exposed to other points of view. And some, despite being narrow minded, go on to become very skilled regardless.

My only caution is that people fond of a particular teacher or style are often mistakenly lumped into that category of cultish fanboys / hero worshippers, just because it's hard to discern on the surface. Well, you know, unless they're going around telling everyone how wrong they are. But even then, communication is a complicated thing, and people aren't always on the same page.

I've actually been really impressed by the quality of the community here. This is one of the most civil, friendly, and open minded forums that I've seen, and that's saying a lot.

[lowell holmes]

[QUOTE=Kees Heiden;2577092]And now I think a bit more about it, maybe the standard advice of getting a jack, jointer and smoother, is a bit silly too.]

I take exception to this statement, I refuse to give up my toys. :)

[Kees Heiden]

If you use handtools primairily, then sure: get them all three!

[Patrick Chase]

It appears that a few noses are out of joint with regard my use of "Fanboys". And they are correct to be. It was said in jest, and clearly struck a nerve, and this was wrong of me to word things this way. To those I offended, I apologise.

[snip]

Clearly I was a jerk. I am all for supporting newcomers to woodworking. I need to be more tolerant.

Regards from Perth

Derek

To be clear, I understood your posts as you intended them and wasn't responding to you in #34. Ironically you accumulated your own sort of "bandwagon" in this thread IMO.... :-)

[george wilson]

Derek deservedly does have his own followers. And certainly not just because of this thread.

[Pat Barry]

What? 4 chisels? AND a backsaw, AND a Stanley plane? You could do with just one chisel, break the wood over your knee and cut of the fibers with the one chisel. Attach the chisel to a block of wood and you have a plane. Forget about the mallet too, use any lump of wood lying around. Or a street brick.

Of course that is nonsence. The above small kit of tools is a perfect way to get started on your first steps in making things from wood. As long as you keep with predimensioned pine and poplar from the box store, you can continue for quite a while. But when you want to grow, when you want to use rough sawn wood, when you want to make larger or more complex things, it just makes sence to slowly add to your tool collection. We are not talking about a fully outfitted specialised shop, just the basics. A jackplane (cheap!) a jointer (can be a cheaper wooden one). When you want to incorporate some grooves in your work, then a plow plane starts to be a really good idea, etc.

Clinging all the time to the idea that everything can be done with a #4 gets limiting after a while. It would be a good idea of Paul Sellers to acknowledge that fact and teach how the traditional aproach of woodworking really works.
Kees - that isn't necessary. All you have to do is look at his videos and see a huge array of tools in the background to know that he doesn't 'just' use the #4 handplane.

[george wilson]

Kees, I have seen work done by some which looked like it was done according to your first sentences in the above post!!:)

[Chris Fournier]

The take away from these threads (which come up with nauseating regularity) is that everyone should spend their time at their own benches figuring this stuff out for themselves. This is woodworking after all, there are no secrets just not yet practised skills.

People who write and teach want people who read and attend, they are always selling something...

[george wilson]

Yes,they ARE,Chris!!(always selling something!)

If you want guru status,do a lot of writing,maybe start a TV show,and many will believe everything that comes out of your mouth.

[Patrick Chase]

What? 4 chisels? AND a backsaw, AND a Stanley plane? You could do with just one chisel, break the wood over your knee and cut of the fibers with the one chisel. Attach the chisel to a block of wood and you have a plane. Forget about the mallet too, use any lump of wood lying around. Or a street brick.

Of course that is nonsence. The above small kit of tools is a perfect way to get started on your first steps in making things from wood. As long as you keep with predimensioned pine and poplar from the box store, you can continue for quite a while.

If you look at the projects people build in Sellars' classes I think they demonstrate convincingly that you're making an overstatement here. I don't see any reason why you couldn't be effective in common hardwoods (soft maple, birch, mahogany, etc) with that setup.

[Kees Heiden]

As long as its predimensioned. Working from large, rough sawn boards with just a Stanley #4 with a straight blade, a backsaw and 4 chisels is going to be a challenge. Just like adding some mouldings or building a wardrobe.

[Karl Wicklund]

Schwarz, Underhill, Sellers, et al are teachers, mostly producing content for beginners. Easing the entry to to woodworking, sure, and also piquing interest. Keeping things simple and direct is a reasonable part of this.

I am a high school teacher. If I tell students, "Here's a way to go about [whatever process], but here's this other way, and a third way, and then there's this unusual circumstance that doesn't fit, oh and then here's something else cool, and..." those students are lost in a mire of information. It might be accurate and applicable information, but it's too much. If they master the simple material first, they have some context and experience to master the nuance.

I'm sure a few of my kids get to college and argue with a professor - "That's not how I learned it!" That's frustrating, but at least they are invested in and confident with the material. Hopefully their eyes get opened along the way. I'd way rather students do that than meet new ideas with a shrug.

When Schwarz and Sellers say "Do it this way" they are keeping it digestible. If some people to take a particularly effective teacher's lessons as the whole Truth, I don't think faulting the teachers is really fair.

It's always tempting to roll our eyes when a newbie starts preaching things they just learned, but mostly it's the joy of discovery they are trying to share. To some grizzled vets it's old news, to others it's simply wrong. But I've been that new guy, and nothing turns me off more than the masters who scoff. An offer to show a different way, some encouraging advice goes a long way to helping us take a little broader view.

Also, I agree what this forum is generally blessed free of that attitude. It's why I keep coming here.

[Stew Hagerty]

I think that I have a nice "set" of planes.
Vintage Stanley Bench Planes: #40 Scrub Plane, #3, #4, #4 1/2, #5, #5 1/4, #5 1/2, #6, #7, and #8.
I also have a LN Rabbeting Block Plane, LV Low Angle Block Plane w/knob & tote, LV BU Smoother, LV Large Shoulder Plane, LV Skew Rabbet Plane, LV Router Plane, ECE Jointer Plane, ECE Mortise Plane, ECE Jack Plane, ECE Rabbet Plane, ECE Block Plane, ECE Primus 711 Smoother (for sale if anyone is interested), and a several miscellaneous Vintage Planes.
I consider myself a Hybrid Woodworker, but I believe that I tend to use most of my handplanes more regularly than many do.

[Hilton Ralphs]

Interesting that on Chris' blog, he only has eleven (11) responses whereas here the post count in this thread is now close to sixty (60).

We even were mentioned on Twitter!

339569

Good to discuss this stuff.

[Jason Dean]

This may not add anything to the discussion, but (in an effort to lighten the mood) reading all these comments puts me in mind of every Kung Fu movie I've ever seen. "My Master's British Style is superior to your Master's Kentucky style." (over-dubbed in English of course.) "Very well, let us plane shavings!" "Ha Ha Ha, my convex bevels shall defeat your ruler trick". . . . .

[Jim Koepke]

I think that I have a nice "set" of planes.

Sometimes my thoughts turn toward my being on the verge of having too many planes. They are taking over all the space in my shop. I start to run from them, I stop to catch my breath... Then I wakeup and brew my morning coffee.

jtk

[steven c newman]

339596
A little fuzzy......

[Len Coleman]

As someone who is in the process of retiring, I have been moving to using hand tools in the last couple of years I figure I will have plenty of time ( god willing) to hone my skills. I think I would call myself a "fanboy" of just about all of the teachers and enjoy sorting thru the various viewpoints. Eventually I settle on what works best for me, but it is beneficial to know of alternate ways to complete a task.

[John Kananis]

This may not add anything to the discussion, but (in an effort to lighten the mood) reading all these comments puts me in mind of every Kung Fu movie I've ever seen. "My Master's British Style is superior to your Master's Kentucky style." (over-dubbed in English of course.) "Very well, let us plane shavings!" "Ha Ha Ha, my convex bevels shall defeat your ruler trick". . . . .

Wow, you've been a member for over two years and this is your first post - actually, pretty freaking awesome - I had a pretty good laugh.

[Chris Fournier]

Yes,they ARE,Chris!!(always selling something!)

If you want guru status,do a lot of writing,maybe start a TV show,and many will believe everything that comes out of your mouth.

I just try to sell my work, that is all that is really important to me. What and how I do things in my shop is for me!

[Prashun Patel]

I am a ww student of the Internet. As such, I think pros and teachers would do well to note that with access to so many masters, I'd never subscribe purely to one method. I value debate of methods because it really challenges my understanding. There's a lot of 'he's being inconsistent' or 'he's just a teacher not a pro' stuff, that I think insults the student (let alone the pro/teacher). I mean, the smart Internet student takes things with a grain of salt and is able to spot inconsistencies or flaws and to take the good out of an article without having other pros casting personal aspersions. Having someone else point it out is like telling me 'Don't trust him, he's a liar or misrepresenting.' as if I was giving him my 401k $$ to invest.

I don't need Paul Sellers to acknowledge that the traditional method of woodworking works. I can make that determination myself. I am rather grateful that his philosophy has encouraged me to try to do a little more with a little less.

I continue to be puzzled why we - even as nice as we are on SMC - feel the need to throw spears. I just don't understand what threat we're defending against. Maybe we just want to look very clever - as I am hoping to look with this very post ;)

Oddly, this does not seem to exist on the Turners' Forum. Seems like those guys are a less dubious crowd.

[george wilson]

You are doing a great job as moderator,Prashun!!!!

[Pat Barry]

This thread was destined to have controversy right from its inception. In fact, I think it was the entire point of the thread. Just drop some fresh chum in the water and watch the sharks circle and pounce.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

I continue to be puzzled why we - even as nice as we are on SMC - feel the need to throw spears. I just don't understand what threat we're defending against. Maybe we just want to look very clever - as I am hoping to look with this very post ;)


It does so because of frustration and anger when something for some reason doesn't work out for someone. I know because I was naive to believe every tool review. Since then I learned that there are a lot of amateurs out there arguing for what worked for them in the Internet. And that hand tool woodworking taught more like a craft then like a science. Some rules exist but do not help a newbie most of the time.

I read that article and I see it as "in some situation if it would be Christopher Schwarz and he would want to make something out of some wood he would prefer to have jack and jointer planes". I'm trying to understand the reasons from the article and somehow match them to my situations. Not always possible, too many situations and too many variables.

I wish I could see Paul Sellers make let's say a table in production mode to see the pace. And see him do it 40, 30, 20, 10 years ago to see how his method of work evolved.

It is natural to humans to have the need to belong to some group and to defend it. It requires conscious mind effort not to fall into this sweet trap. :)

[James Waldron]

[snip]
It is natural to humans to have the need to belong to some group and to defend it. It requires conscious mind effort not to fall into this sweet trap. :)

Not to worry, we've got Derek to "jerk" us out of the trap!!! :rolleyes:

I just hope he keeps it up. We can't have a bunch of fan boys dissing our Derek!

[Patrick Chase]

It is natural to humans to have the need to belong to some group and to defend it. It requires conscious mind effort not to fall into this sweet trap. :)

Natural for *most* humans. Then there are the iconoclastic sorts who find something to correct or quibble with in everybody's opinion. Oh wait....

[Phil Stone]

Natural for *most* humans. Then there are the iconoclastic sorts who find something to correct or quibble with in everybody's opinion. Oh wait....

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, Patrick.

;)

[John Sanford]

Oddly, this does not seem to exist on the Turners' Forum. Seems like those guys are a less dubious crowd.

That's purely a misperception. They're so busy going spinny-spinny that everybody is too dizzy to hit anything with a thrown spear. And many of 'em are also to experienced at ducking thrown objects (lathes have been known to get surly) that nailing one of 'em with a spear is more a matter of luck than anything else. :D

The truth is, they are indubitably a dubious crowd. Very, very dubious, albeit not as dubious as potters. Don't let 'em spin you otherwise.

[Jerry Olexa]

IMHO, you need a jointer (7 or8), a Jack (5) and a smoothing plane..The jointer planes are amazing tools that do the job of what they were specifically designed to do (square stock)..Just my opinion but it worksfor me...

[Jerry Olexa]

Well said, Prashun...

[Patrick Chase]

IMHO, you need a jointer (7 or8), a Jack (5) and a smoothing plane..The jointer planes are amazing tools that do the job of what they were specifically designed to do (square stock)..Just my opinion but it worksfor me...

Can we all please agree that the apporpriate wording is: "Yes, you really really really want a jointer if you intend to be decently productive"

There isn't *that* much functional difference between a #4 with a heavily cambered spare blade and a #5...

[steven c newman]

Most projects I do, there is a job for the Stanley #7c, there are a few jobs for the Stanley #5c, or the Millers Falls No.14. IF the boards are on the short side, then it becomes a Stanley #6c and a Millers Falls No. 11... Smoothers being either the Millers Falls No. 9 or #900, with the #3 sized ones as needed. I use a Stanley #5-1/2 when the need arises. More of a smoother than a jack. The little block planes get used as well. Low angle or standard, depending on where I grab in the till. I use the size of plane needed for the job I am doing at the time. Not really all that particular about what planes are in the shop, as long as they do the jobs I ask of them.

As for making see through shavings? Meh. A gossemer shaving is usually right at the LAST stroke of a job. If I were to set up a plane to do nothing but those type of shavings, I would be at a single board all day long, not very effective, speed wise. Gosemer shavings are mainly for showing off, not doing work. IfI need to plane down, say 1/8" to level a panel.......0.001 shavings would take a LONG time, too long for me.

As for my #5 jacks......one does have that 8" radius to the edge, one has just a hint of a camber, and the Millers Falls No. 14 has just the corners done. The first one acts as a long bodied scrub, second one as a regular jack, and the third as a long smoother for panels. have yet to find any use for a #4-1/2. My low angle stuff is confined to my block planes. YMMV.

[Jim Koepke]

Can we all please agree that the apporpriate wording is: "Yes, you really really really want a jointer if you intend to be decently productive"

There isn't *that* much functional difference between a #4 with a heavily cambered spare blade and a #5...

Can we differentiate between fact and opinion?


Originally Posted by Jerry Olexa
IMHO, you need a jointer (7 or8), a Jack (5) and a smoothing plane..

It is an opinion similar to my own for anyone planning to work with wood in commonly available lengths. If one isn't going to work with wood longer than 12" or so, then maybe a #4 could be all they need or possibly want.

Likewise your comment about the "functional difference between a #4 with heavily cambered spare blade and a a#5... " is more of an opinion. If the thought was finished to both of them having heavily cambered working blades, then it would be closer to a fact. In my use there is a bit of difference between the two with straight, non-cambered, blades.

If one wants to state a 'fact', why not there isn't much functional difference between a #4 with an unusably dull blade and any other plane with an unusably dull blade?

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

As for making see through shavings? Meh. A gossemer shaving is usually right at the LAST stroke of a job. If I were to set up a plane to do nothing but those type of shavings, I would be at a single board all day long, not very effective, speed wise.

Usually one of my smoothers is set up with a very sharp blade to take very light shavings. The others are set up to take thicker shavings.

It is nice to have different planes of the same size in the middle of the pack set up for the different jobs the size plane is able to do.

If one can put a shine on a piece of wood with a #6, why follow with a 'smoother?'

jtk

[lowell holmes]

That's why I have a Veritas bevel up smoother and a bevel up Jack. I have all of their irons for these planes.

[steven c newman]

Don't have the time to just stand around and change irons....much quicker just to set one plane down, and pick up another that IS set up to do the next job. Just set one down, or into the till, and grab the next one......quick and easy to do.