Re-finishing a cutting board - which way is the grain?

[Mishkin Derakhshan]

3 questions

1. which way is the grain going in any of these pictures, or more importantly, which way should I use a hand plane across the surface and/or edges.
2. any guesses on wood identification
3. recommendations for how to remove the finish. use one of those solvents first or just have at it with the no 4 smoother?

tia

379124
379125
379126379127379128379129

[Phil Mueller]

Going by the second photo on the bottom set, it appears the grain is rising from right to left. So I would start there (planning right to left). However, it does appear that there are three boards glued up, so the center board or the opposite board may not go in that direction. To help with planing direction, it woukd be great to see all four sides. I’d also like to see the face grain more clearly before taking a guess at edge planing direction.

You could always just try a light cut in one direction. if the blade starts to dig in, stop and try the opposide direction. whichever direction cuts smooth will tell you which way to go.

[Joe Bailey]

Pssssst! - use a scraper, won't matter which way you scrape. You're trying to remove finish, not reduce thickness, right?

[Patrick Chase]

That cutting board is a glue-up of 3 separate pieces, so there's no guarantee or reason to expect that the grain orientation is the same.

With that said, that's not difficult-looking grain, and there should be no trouble (and definitely no tearout) planing against it with a close-set cap iron on a bevel-down plane. I'd say just start working it and read it as you go.

[Patrick Chase]

Pssssst! - use a scraper, won't matter which way you scrape

If you use a properly set up plane, it won't matter which way you plane either.

[Warren Mickley]

Looking at the 5th picture (with the Henckels logo) the bottom board would plane best left to right. The middle board has a grain reversal, but a slight preference for left to right. The top board right to left. Each of these individual boards would be planed in the opposite direction on the other side. It appears that the boards were not chosen for grain direction when the cutting board was assembled.

If you are picking one side as a face side you could experiment on the secondary side. Otherwise take thin shavings and take your time. The wood does not appear to be something from Europe or North America or something I am familiar with, but my instincts are that is is not terribly prone to tear out.

[John C Cox]

The OEM likely sanded it without paying attention to grain orientation to minimize chipout.

I would try a good cabinet scraper. If no love - switch to the sander....

[Prashun Patel]

I too would - and do - use a scraper to refinish a cutting board. But then again, I don't aim to completely remove any patina or scratches, but just to clean it up so it looks respectable and will take a new coat of oil evenly.

[Joe Bailey]

If you use a properly set up plane, it won't matter which way you plane either.

IF you were truly correct, there would be no occasion for a which a scraper would be preferred over a plane.
I think you're really saying that you can't read the grain.

[Warren Mickley]

IF you were truly correct, there would be no occasion for a which a scraper would be preferred over a plane.
I think you're really saying that you can't read the grain.

There is no situation for which a scraper is preferred over a plane.

[Joe Bailey]

There is no situation for which a scraper is preferred over a plane.

I Strongly disagree -- but then, that's just your opinion

[Pat Barry]

Looking at the 5th picture (with the Henckels logo) the bottom board would plane best left to right. The middle board has a grain reversal, but a slight preference for left to right. The top board right to left. Each of these individual boards would be planed in the opposite direction on the other side. It appears that the boards were not chosen for grain direction when the cutting board was assembled.

If you are picking one side as a face side you could experiment on the secondary side. Otherwise take thin shavings and take your time. The wood does not appear to be something from Europe or North America or something I am familiar with, but my instincts are that is is not terribly prone to tear out.
Probably should rip the cutting board between boards 2 and 3 and re-laminate it together with the grains all running the same way, then proceed to planer it down.

[Patrick Chase]

IF you were truly correct, there would be no occasion for a which a scraper would be preferred over a plane.

For domestic hardwood with relatively shallow grain like that, there is no occasion for which a scraper would be preferred over a plane. If you find yourself reaching for a scraper then that means that your planing technique is deficient. I do use scrapers sometimes for burl and the like, but even then I'm humble enough to admit that I should be able to plane them, and that the scraper is a crutch to cover for technical deficiencies with the plane.

Bottom line: Warren is right as usual.


I think you're really saying that you can't read the grain.

No, I'm saying that in this instance you don't need to obsess over it because it's in a range where it doesn't matter enough to be worth overthinking. That's why I suggested to set the cap iron tight, start working it, and read the grain as you go.

EDIT: If you go back to the scraper iron cross-section I posted a couple weeks ago, it is blindingly obvious that hooked scrapers and close-set cap irons create the same edge/"breaking" profile and have the same cutting and chip breaking mechanics. In principle there is nothing that one can do that the other cannot ("in principle" because it's much easier to achieve very small "cap iron setbacks" in a scraper, and larger ones in a plane). There is no magic here - just edges, setbacks, and angles.

[Patrick Chase]

Probably should rip the cutting board between boards 2 and 3 and re-laminate it together with the grains all running the same way, then proceed to planer it down.

Why?

You don't need the grain running the same way to be able to work that board if you have halfway reasonable planing skills. I would say choose orientation based on what produces the best figure and stabiiity, and rely on skill and technique to deal with whatever grain results. It's actually on roughly the same level of "not hard at all" as traversing on a convex board...

I practice intentionally planing boards with grain much worse than that against the grain literally every single night. They do not tear out. Of course there are cases where you can get somewhat better "sheen" in final finishing by working with the grain, and that's a reason to plan your strokes carefully to try to follow the wood's grain boundaries when you get to that step, but only if you're not subsequently going to sand.

[Joe Bailey]

For domestic hardwood with relatively shallow grain like that, there is no occasion for which a scraper would be preferred over a plane. If you find yourself reaching for a scraper then that means that your planing technique is deficient. I do use scrapers sometimes for burl and the like, but even then I'm humble enough to admit that I should be able to plane them, and that the scraper is a crutch to cover for technical deficiencies with the plane.

Bottom line: Warren is right as usual.





The argument you present at the beginning of this post is far different from the all-encompassing statement Warren made.
Give it another shot if you'd like, but this post of yours does not address his statement, or my response to it.

[Barney Markunas]

I wouldn't obsess over it too much. Clean up the worst of it and put it back to work. It isn't an heirloom instrument or piece of furniture - don't forget, as soon as you are done, somebody is going to go after it with a knife.

[Prashun Patel]

To the OP: given that the use of scrapers and planes is raising some hackles, perhaps you should use a random orbit sander.

To the rest: To both of our chagrin, I'll edit all snark out of any posts here.

[Pat Barry]

Why?

You don't need the grain running the same way to be able to work that board if you have halfway reasonable planing skills. I would say choose orientation based on what produces the best figure and stabiiity, and rely on skill and technique to deal with whatever grain results. It's actually on roughly the same level of "not hard at all" as traversing on a convex board...

I practice intentionally planing boards with grain much worse than that against the grain literally every single night. They do not tear out. Of course there are cases where you can get somewhat better "sheen" in final finishing by working with the grain, and that's a reason to plan your strokes carefully to try to follow the wood's grain boundaries when you get to that step, but only if you're not subsequently going to sand.
Why? Because it would be better. It should have been done that way to begin with. Nothing is worse than planing surfaces where the grain goes different directions on adjacent boards.

[Jim Koepke]

Why? Because it would be better. It should have been done that way to begin with. Nothing is worse than planing surfaces where the grain goes different directions on adjacent boards.

Finding a mass produced cutting board assembled with all the grain orientation running in the same direction would be close to a miraculous coincidence.

A full counter top cutting board salvaged from a 1928 built home by a friend an me doesn't even have many pieces side by side running in the same direction. Most of these were assembled and then run through a large sander. There was no reason to put in the extra cost of aligning all the pieces in the same direction. The interesting part about this old cutting board is it is assembled with hide glue so it has seams opening from years of being wiped down with hot water.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Why? Because it would be better. It should have been done that way to begin with. Nothing is worse than planing surfaces where the grain goes different directions on adjacent boards.

Generally when you pick board directions you're trading off (at least) three things against each other:

Grain direction. If you have trouble planing against the grain then you would want all of the boards with grain going the same way.
Figure. You want the boards to look "good" when glued up, which to most people means that you want continuously flowing grain with no obvious discontinuities or sharp turns at board boundaries. There are all sorts of ways to achieve this, and some of them involve intentionally reversing the grain direction from one board to the next.
Dimensional stability. If all of the boards in the glue-up have identical orientation (pith-up/down, grain) then the glued up board will be as prone to cupping as a single piece of the same width. For wide glue ups that can be a serious problem. You can avoid that by reversing every other board such that they alternate cup directions, but doing so sacrifices grain direction and potentially figure.

IMO being able to plane well against the grain is a key skill for good glue-ups precisely because it allows you to ignore (1) and focus entirely on the appearance and dimensional stability of the piece. That's a lot easier than having to worry about all 3 at once in my experience.

[Brian Holcombe]

Planing against the grain is important for most scenarios since grain reversals in wood are extremely common. However I always align boards in a glue up to plane the same direction and usually go through a bit of hell to ensure that. I don’t want the rug effect happening on a panel, so I slip match them in odd numbers, of pairs if they’re perfectly VG.

I’d recommend planing this, will be an excellent training program and if it goes poorly then chop it with a cleaver until it looks untouched.

[Patrick Chase]

Planing against the grain is important for most scenarios since grain reversals in wood are extremely common. However I always align boards in a glue up to plane the same direction and usually go through a bit of hell to ensure that. I don’t want the rug effect happening on a panel, so I slip match them in odd numbers, of pairs if they’re perfectly VG.

Yeah, good point. I probably overstated the regularity with which I mix grain directions in glue ups (though I think it is something that we must be able to do when there's no other way out of a tricky grain-matching problem).

[Jim Koepke]

[edit]
However I always align boards in a glue up to plane the same direction and usually go through a bit of hell to ensure that.

That is one of the big differences between something handmade by an experienced craftsman or artist and something made in a factory and machines.

jtk

[Brian Holcombe]

Thanks Jim!

[Mishkin Derakhshan]

WOW! Thanks to everyone for the discussion.
As someone pointed out, it's just a cutting board and not a fine piece of furniture so I'm not too stressed over it. I am, however, trying to improve my planing skills to be able to work on fine furniture.

So, I started planing with very thin shavings in a random direction. After a couple tries I think I figured out the planning direction to use on the three boards (indicated by the arrows in the pictures).
Board A still gave me tearout along the long part that I circled, and since it's such a large area I'm not 100% sure about the grain direction for that one, but I'm guessing it is more of my technique.

What I'd like to know is if I could have saved myself the trial and error from being able to read the face grain and end grain, or if you really just have to guess and test.

Someone also mentioned the cap iron setting so I've attached a picture of how the plane is set up. Maybe that is why I still had tearout?

I've also purchased a card scrapper and burnisher and once I get it sharpened I will try that for the final smoothing.

379286379287379288379289379290379291

[Patrick Chase]

Someone also mentioned the cap iron setting so I've attached a picture of how the plane is set up. Maybe that is why I still had tearout?

The setback of your cap iron is in the right ballpark. I think the problem is that the leading edge angle is too low to effectively break the shaving and suppress tearout. Based on the way it's finished I suspect that that's a cap iron from a Quangsheng-made plane (most likely sold as WoodRiver here in the US). Those ship with a 25 degree bevel, and you realistically need 50+ degrees at the very tip to prevent tearout.

Search for "David Weaver cap iron" and you'll find an informative article on the topic. I can't link it because it's on a "rival forum".

[Mishkin Derakhshan]

Based on the way it's finished I suspect that that's a cap iron from a Quangsheng-made plane (most likely sold as WoodRiver here in the US). Those ship with a 25 degree bevel, and you realistically need 50+ degrees at the very tip to prevent tearout.

Yup. A woodriver.

Just to be clear, you are saying to sharpen the cap iron to sharper angle like B in the (exaggerated) picture?
379300

And thanks for the other article, studying it now.

[Mishkin Derakhshan]

Looking at the 5th picture (with the Henckels logo) the bottom board would plane best left to right.

Just focusing on one board so I can gain a better understanding of grain, I would love to know how you came to that conclusion.

[Mishkin Derakhshan]

nm. i think from the article what it is saying is that I need is picture A, or in reality, just put a bevel on the tip of the cap iron.

I'm pretty sure this is the key advantage as it says in the article:

...instead of allowing the iron to lever a shaving such that it breaks below the level of the cut, the cap iron exerts forward pressure on the shaving, preventing it from levering wood before the cutting edge is able to reach it.

I'll just read that 100 more times until I understand it ;)

[Patrick Chase]

Just to be clear, you are saying to sharpen the cap iron to sharper angle like B in the (exaggerated) picture?

At a minimum you need a high-angle "microbevel" at the tip, about 1/64" tall. Ideally you should gradually blend that back into the cap iron's primary bevel, as doing so helps shaving ejection.

From experience the rough finish on that QS/WR cap iron will tend to trap shavings when used with a close-set cap iron. You're going to want to smooth that.

[Normand Leblanc]

nm. i think from the article what it is saying is that I need is picture A, or in reality, just put a bevel on the tip of the cap iron.

I'm pretty sure this is the key advantage as it says in the article:


I'll just read that 100 more times until I understand it ;)



Yes, that's the idea but by your picture - it's always difficult to judge a picture - I think that your cap iron is too far from the edge.