Hand plane

[Brian Byers]

Hi I'm new to the creek so I will be asking several questions. I hope you'll bare with me. As I've been researching jointer I've noticed some people say that they use a hand plane to smooth their lumber. I've never used one. How can I learn that skill. Is there a book or DVD. Is there a certain YouTube video I can loom up. Which hand plane should I buy if I decide to practice that skill. Thanks guys

[David Bassett]

Hi I'm new to the creek so I will be asking several questions. I hope you'll bare with me. As I've been researching jointer I've noticed some people say that they use a hand plane to smooth their lumber. I've never used one. How can I learn that skill. Is there a book or DVD. Is there a certain YouTube video I can loom up. Which hand plane should I buy if I decide to practice that skill. Thanks guys

To get oriented I think you should look for "Coarse, Medium & Fine" an article Christopher Schwarz for Popular Woodworking mag. (Sorry, no issue number. I have it in a reprint.) It describes the strategy of using planes as a system for working wood from rough lumber to finished panels. Ah, searched and found it online (https://www.popularwoodworking.com/wp-content/uploads/CoarseMediumFine.pdf).

Searching I find Kieran has written something similar on his blog Coarse, Medium, and Fine (https://overthewireless.com/2017/01/08/coarse-medium-and-fine/)

That will get you started and once it puts things into context the other details & tutorials will make more sense.

[David Bassett]

... should look for "Coarse, Medium & Fine" an article Christopher Schwarz ...

Let me add, I'm not sure Schwarz is the best source for the minutiae of planing. (Late to the chip-breaker renaissance, etc.) I just think he does a great overview and that may be all you need right now. Many many folk have offered their take on details of using a plane for a specific task. You need to find someone knowledgeable who teaches in a way you understand. Also, you should visit the Neanderthal sub-forum, that's where the local plane users will be. Hands on instruction would be best. If there's school you could attend or if e.g. Lie-Nielsen's road show was near by or you had a mentor you'd "get" it much faster.

[Brian Byers]

Thanks guys, I downloaded the article by Schwartz. I'll read it soon. I would learn so much better if I was taught. I live in a small town in northern ca. I don't think that will be any woodworking shows near me. I tried to update my creeker profile to let others know wher i live. Id love to meet a fellow woodworker. Thanks guys

[Phil Mueller]

Hi Brian, and welcome! As David suggested, put a post in the Neaderthal Haven sub-group. There are probably some folks near your area that would be happy to give you an introduction to bench planes.

[Philipp Jaindl]

Paul Sellers has good Videos and blog posts on the topic, just Google him or look at his YouTube channel.

As phil said this belongs in the Neandertal haven, probably gonna get moved there.

[Randy Heinemann]

Thanks guys, I downloaded the article by Schwartz. I'll read it soon. I would learn so much better if I was taught. I live in a small town in northern ca. I don't think that will be any woodworking shows near me. I tried to update my creeker profile to let others know wher i live. Id love to meet a fellow woodworker. Thanks guys

Brian, Over the years I have found that hand planes (block, smoothing, etc.) have their place in woodworking. Christopher Schwarz has a book out which is called Handplane Essentials (I think). It's a great book and gives a lot of basic information about planes and their uses plus sharpening. A few years ago I took a weekend class on sharpening from Christopher. Great class, but in answer to a question in class as to the progression of planes he goes through to flatten, smooth and thickness, he said he uses power equipment when building furniture as it is not economical for him to use handplanes for these tasks if he is building something to sell. I think learning about hand planes, their uses, and sharpening is a great way to understand the basics of woodworking. However, I use hand planes for the purpose of finish work, like shaving small amounts off a drawer or door to make it fit perfectly and square, chamfering an edge to ease the corners and edges. So, to do some basic projects with hand planes completely to learn about woodworking is a great idea. After the understanding is there, for me, I don't have the patience to use a handplane to flatten a board when I can use a power jointer and planer and get the same or better results in a fraction of the time.

[Metod Alif]

Search Youtube for 'hand planes'. Once you are all fired up, start practicing:)
Best wishes, Metod

[Tony Wilkins]

Look up David Charlesworth. He has a video that you can get through Lie Nielsen that is great. It’s a very precise way of working.

Also, the Woodwright Shop Episode with Schwarz called Handplane Essentials is a good primer.

[Jim Koepke]

Howdy Brian and welcome to the Creek.

Hopefully you have found the Neanderthal Haven area here by now.

The second post from the top is: Sticky: Neanderthal Sticky Threads clicking on that will take you to a page with three choices. Click on Neanderthal Wisdom / FAQs. There is a lot of information to find in the links listed on that page including one of mine:

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?148076-Getting-Started-With-Hand-Planes

It covers a lot of the details of getting started with hand planes.

One thing to remember with most hand planes and many other tools is, "sharp cures most problems."

jtk

[Bill McDermott]

Brian, I suggest you get a handplane and mess around with it. A used Stanley #4 is a great place to start. It is a kind of benchmark standard and can be easily obtained. Maybe someone on this forum can hook you up with one that is in good working order and is well sharpened. Make certain that someone who really, truly knows how to use handplanes sharpens it for you. Sharp is a word that you do not yet fully understand, but it is critical to handplane success. In any event, hands on exploration will reward you. Enjoy - and beware. You are going to like this!

[Bill Sutherland]

Hi Brian. I’m somewhat in the same boat as you. I just sold my power Jointer and I’m selling my power planer as well as my router setup and going to hand tools. In my case I just don’t find working with these power tools enjoyable. At my age (74) I’m not making furniture or remodeling anything just small boxes and trays and tool chests. I want to have fun doing it and the videos these fellas have suggested are a great help in understanding. I’ve spent time just experimenting and using the planes I have and that’s the best teaching for me. Good luck and have fun.

[michael langman]

Welcome Brian . You have done good by visiting Sawmill Creek for information. There is a vast storage of information in this sights archive if you like exploring.
Paul Sellers is a good teacher and a very talented wood worker. Utube is your friend for his videos as previously mentioned.

[David Bassett]

.
Thanks guys, I downloaded the article by Schwartz. I'll read it soon. I would learn so much better if I was taught. I live in a small town in northern ca. I don't think that will be any woodworking shows near me. I tried to update my creeker profile to let others know wher i live. Id love to meet a fellow woodworker. Thanks guys

Try again, your location update didn't take. (I'm assuming you mean northern northern California, not SLO town and up as so many in our southern population center think about it. :) Honestly, looking at a map, I'm not sure why I'm in "northern" CA. More like middle.) Anyway....

One of the best woodworking schools in the world, the Krenov School (https://thekrenovschool.org/summer-workshops-2018/) at the College of Mendocino, is in Ft. Bragg, CA. (In addition to degree programs, they offer summer workshops.) Another well regarded school is Port Townsend School of Woodworking (https://www.ptwoodschool.org/), in Port Townsend, WA. They're not close exactly, but they're closer to you than I and I keep saying I'm going someday. I'm sure there are smaller less famous opportunities even closer to you. E.g. I see a Woodcraft in Sacramento that probably has classes. Let us know where you are.

[Patrick Chase]

Searching I find Kieran has written something similar on his blog Coarse, Medium, and Fine (https://overthewireless.com/2017/01/08/coarse-medium-and-fine/)

Hmm, I have some concerns about some of his claims about technique in that article.

For example, his assertion that "domed" (convex) boards can only be worked end to end until almost flat leads to a needlessly inefficient working style. You just need enough of a flat at the top for the toe to register to at the start of each traversing stroke, and not even that if you can control where the plane cuts when traversing, and then avoid rocking it to follow the board's crown once in the cut (I can do both, and I'm not very skilled). Once you have a couple inches of flat it's pretty straightforward, and deep traversing cuts are a LOT more efficient than lengthwise ones. This is important, because ~3/4 of the stuff that needs to be removed to flatten a cupped board is on the convex side, so you really don't want to slow yourself down on that face.

[David Bassett]

... Is there a book or DVD....

Thought about this some more. Two less task specific resources came to mind. They might give you context as well as a start on general and specific skills.

First is The Naked Woodworker (https://lostartpress.com/collections/dvds/products/the-naked-woodworker) video by Mike Siemsen. (That's naked, as in starting without anything, not nudist! Also, the DVD seems to be out of print.) He starts with buying and rehab'ing used hand tools, continues with using them to build a couple saw benches and then a workbench. Even if you don't follow his path, e.g. I've never found a tool swap meet like that out here, it will give you a background and context of traditional woodworking.

Another resource about working with hand tools, is The Joiner and Cabinet Maker (https://lostartpress.com/collections/books/products/the-joiner-and-cabinet-maker-1). It is a reprint of book written in the 1800's as a guide to boys considering an apprenticeship. Joel Moskowitz (TFWW) owns an original copy, provided updates to the English, and supporting historic background. Christopher Schwarz completed each of the projects and provides detailed instructions to duplicate each project in Thomas the fictional apprentice's training.

[David Bassett]

Hmm, I have some concerns about some of his claims about technique in that article. ...

Hmm, teach me to read something before suggesting it. I was surprised when it popped up in my search results and passed it along. Given Kieran's rep, that is a little disappointing.

OK, OP stick to my original suggestion of Chris Schwarz's article as an overview. (Especially since it's been posted online now and you don't have to be buying reprints or back issues. Oh, overview. Don't take Schwarz's chip-breaker advice as gospel or another round of religious war might breakout around you! :) ) PS- Sorry.

[Jim Koepke]

For example, his assertion that "domed" (convex) boards can only be worked end to end until almost flat leads to a needlessly inefficient working style.

Anyone trying to claim there is only one way on just about anything is wrong right out of the box.

Not sure if this is the Christopher Schwarz article mentioned before, but it is a good primer on hand planes.

https://www.popularwoodworking.com/article/bench-planes-the-system-of-three


Try again, your location update didn't take. (I'm assuming you mean northern northern California, not SLO town and up as so many in our southern population center think about it. Honestly, looking at a map, I'm not sure why I'm in "northern" CA. More like middle.) Anyway....

The naming of different areas of California can be confusing. Southern California to some is south of the Tehachapi Mountains and everything else is northern California. Central California breaks down into Valley or Coastal. Northern California is everything north of the Santa Cruz Mountains. To the east it is still "The Valley." Way up north along the coast some don't even think of it as California and will let you know it when they fly the state flag with a big XX for Jefferson, but that is a different state altogether. That is what a gas station attendant's response was when at about age 10 my quest was to find a map of Los Angeles. When enquired about what he meant about it being in a different state, he said, "yes, it is in a state of confusion." That was back in the day when almost every gas station had free maps. Though most stations in the SF Bay Area didn't carry maps of Los Angeles.

jtk

[Jon Wolfe]

Jim and David,
Thanks so much so sharing the terrific Christopher Schwartz articles. I have just started using and acquiring planes and I have a smoother, jack and a number 7. I have a few extra blades so I now have a much better idea of what I am trying to do for different set ups with each of them.
Anyone that hasn't read that article really should and should also bookmark it.
thanks again Jim.
Jon

[Jim Koepke]

You are welcome Jon and welcome to the Creek.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Anyone trying to claim there is only one way on just about anything is wrong right out of the box.

Indeed :-).

I tried to be careful not to imply that you *couldn't* flatten the convex side with lengthwise strokes, just that IMO it's not a terribly good idea to limit yourself to that.

[Pat Barry]

Hmm, teach me to read something before suggesting it. I was surprised when it popped up in my search results and passed it along. Given Kieran's rep, that is a little disappointing.

OK, OP stick to my original suggestion of Chris Schwarz's article as an overview. (Especially since it's been posted online now and you don't have to be buying reprints or back issues. Oh, overview. Don't take Schwarz's chip-breaker advice as gospel or another round of religious war might breakout around you! :) ) PS- Sorry.
What the guys says in the article that was referenced is correct. He is describing an efficient way to flatten a particular type of cupping in a board. He notes that making lateral planing passes (following the contour) leaves much more potential for doing unnecessary work. Going as he describes in the article fits the conditions he outlined and photographed very well. I have no idea why some others are finding issue with the article (except just to be contrarian). In fact, it would be ludicrous to try and balance the toe of your plane on a high-spot such as the cupped board in the article and attempt to do cross-grain or diagonal passes to level it. Sure, after the worst of the cupping is removed then by all means revert to the cross-grain method as needed - note that for a narrow board this isn't very efficient either. I think you can do good by taking your time, identifying the high-spots, working those down, and repeat as needed to get the surface flat. As far as planing direction - working with the grain to avoid tearout is much important, otherwise, do what is comfortable for you.
Also, I would give the guy who wrote the article credit for being proficient and knowledgeable and not dismiss things due to negative feedback from other 'experts'. I would bet that he has much more practical experience than some others who have offered arguments to what was written.

[Warren Mickley]

It seems as if what we have here is Pat telling us to listen to Kiernan about stock preparation. However Kiernan, a lawyer, only three years earlier took a class in this stuff with Chris Schwartz who teaches a workshop in hand work, then goes home and prepares stock by machine. Blind leading the blind. Kiernan pretends to have read Moxon, but obviously missed the section where it talks about planing both the concave side and the convex side cross grain. Moxon only wrote three sentences about cross grain planing. Planing a convex side cross grain is not difficult.

Moxon actually recommends planing cross grain only for boards that are both somewhat warped and also rather wide. I would say like ten inches or more. It is clumsy and inefficient to plane narrow boards cross grain. The great bulk of our rough planing we do with the grain. I am not sure I have ever seen diagonal planing mentioned in historic texts or seen the evidence on historic pieces of woodwork.

"And if the Stuff be broad you are to plane upon, and it warp a little with the Grain, or be any ways crooked in the breadth, you must then turn the Grain athwart the Work-bench and plane upon the Cross-grain. For, if your work be hollow in the middle,you must Plane both the bearing sides thinner, till they come to a Try with the middle. Then turn the other side of your work, and working still Cross-grain'd, work away the middle, till it come to Try with the two sides."

[Patrick Chase]

Moxon actually recommends planing cross grain only for boards that are both somewhat warped and also rather wide. I would say like ten inches or more. It is clumsy and inefficient to plane narrow boards cross grain. The great bulk of our rough planing we do with the grain. I am not sure I have ever seen diagonal planing mentioned in historic texts or seen the evidence on historic pieces of woodwork.

Hmm, sounds like I have an adjustment to make. I would guess that I'm switching from lengthwise to traversing at 8" or a bit less right now. I wonder if there's something inefficient about my lengthwise work that's causing me to think that's a good idea. As you say traversing gets cumbersome on small boards.

When you refer to "diagonal planing", are you talking about the alternating-45-degree roughing strokes that Schwartz preaches, or the practice of planing from high corner to high corner along the diagonal axis of the board after initial roughing? I don't see the point of and don't do the former, but I sometimes do the latter.

EDIT: This is probably obvious, but the amount of stuff that needs to be removed to joint a cupped board with any given curvature radius is roughly proportional to the *cube* of the board width. This is so because the depth of the cup is proportional to width squared, and the amount of stuff is proportional to width*depth ~= width^3.

[Pat Barry]

It seems as if what we have here is Pat telling us to listen to Kiernan about stock preparation. However Kiernan, a lawyer, only three years earlier took a class in this stuff with Chris Schwartz who teaches a workshop in hand work, then goes home and prepares stock by machine. Blind leading the blind. Kiernan pretends to have read Moxon, but obviously missed the section where it talks about planing both the concave side and the convex side cross grain. Moxon only wrote three sentences about cross grain planing. Planing a convex side cross grain is not difficult.

Moxon actually recommends planing cross grain only for boards that are both somewhat warped and also rather wide. I would say like ten inches or more. It is clumsy and inefficient to plane narrow boards cross grain. The great bulk of our rough planing we do with the grain. I am not sure I have ever seen diagonal planing mentioned in historic texts or seen the evidence on historic pieces of woodwork.

"And if the Stuff be broad you are to plane upon, and it warp a little with the Grain, or be any ways crooked in the breadth, you must then turn the Grain athwart the Work-bench and plane upon the Cross-grain. For, if your work be hollow in the middle,you must Plane both the bearing sides thinner, till they come to a Try with the middle. Then turn the other side of your work, and working still Cross-grain'd, work away the middle, till it come to Try with the two sides."
Thanks for the brilliant observations oh wise one. I stand by my comments regarding the article. When you write one of your own please let us know.

[Patrick Chase]

Thanks for the brilliant observations oh wise one. I stand by my comments regarding the article. When you write one of your own please let us know.

Because it has literally all been said before, and about all that can be done by writing yet another article at this point is to add confusion? I imagine that's why he quoted directly from Moxon instead of providing his own "interpretation" a la Schwartz/Kiernan/etc.

[Warren Mickley]

I tend to argue the most for techniques that I have used for decades and are also documented in historic literature. In this case, the idea that one could not plane cross grain on a convex surface contradicted years of experience of mine and what Moxon said 340 years ago. The strange thing was that this Kiernan fellow suggested he was following what Moxon said.

Patrick, from just my experience, routine 45 degree planing is not helpful, especially when it is in both directions and done blindly without regard to the actual wind or warp of the board. For minor adjustment of wind with the trying plane, I use 1) just planing the high corners (straight with the grain), 2) planing slightly diagional, high corner to high corner, and parallel strokes along the same angle, 3) straight planing through the middle of the board with shorter stokes along the edges to avoid planing low corners. I like to finish with full length strokes and then, at the end, test with straight edge and winding sticks. A well thought out routine is helpful, but one does not have a flat board automatically because of a routine.

[Hasin Haroon]

Hi Brian,

I would strongly recommend you look up 'Paul Sellers' on YouTube. A lot of woodworkers, myself included, learned much of the basic knowledge of hand plane use through Seller's videos. He can be a little dogmatic in his views and some here don't regard him very highly, but his content is undeniably valuable to a beginner woodworker just starting out with hand tools.

All the best!

[Graham Haydon]

You can trust Warren's reasoning on this topic for a few reasons. He's taken the time to study the text of the time where conversion by hand was the only option. More importantly, he's put it into practice for decades. Now, by sheer evolution, it's likely he would end up with the most effective process even without the text.

If you want to do this process effectively, Warren should be your resource. You should listen and put into practice what he says. People like Sellers and Schwarz are very skilled but they they are very low in experience when it comes to timber conversion. There is a video of Sellers on YT converting some wood by hand. It's clear with the time taken and method shown he does not convert timber by hand. He is like most people, he does all the hard work on machines and then does the joinery by hand.

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, from just my experience, routine 45 degree planing is not helpful, especially when it is in both directions and done blindly without regard to the actual wind or warp of the board.

That's my experience as well, though I have a theory as to why some people like to do the 45-deg thing: It compensates for sloppy roughing technique. If you don't pay close attention to what you're doing when traversing then it's possible to plane dips into the board. Alternating at 45 deg can somewhat cancel those out (provided they're not too wide) for obvious reasons. Also, going at 45 deg makes the work ~1.4X "wider" and may help some folks balance the plane, though that doesn't justify *alternating* 45 deg strokes.

The obvious downsides of diagonal traversing are that they require extra work fixturing (stops/dogs at both ends plus the back if you prefer to "work loose" as I do, or full-on clamping) and it forces you into potentially unfavorable stroke directions w.r.t. grain.

[Patrick Chase]

Returning to this:


In fact, it would be ludicrous to try and balance the toe of your plane on a high-spot such as the cupped board in the article and attempt to do cross-grain or diagonal passes to level it.

Warren will probably explain why this is a bad idea, but if anybody finds this to be a problem then there's a workaround that I've used in the past: Simply take a lengthwise pass or two as close as possible to the center of the convex face of the board with a cambered iron to create a concavity in the middle. That gives you something to register the plane's toe. I haven't done that in a while (since I learned to feel where my plane was engaging the stuff) but it worked for me.