Roughing blade for LN No. 4 - anyone use one??

[John Keeton]

I have occasional times a scrub plane would come in handy. I notice LN has some cambered blades with an 8” radius that would fit the LN No 4 that I have. I am curious if anyone has used one. Thanks!

[Jim Koepke]

It would likely work fine. Do they offer a cambered chip breaker to go with it?

My scrub planes have included a small variety, a #5-1/4, #5, #5-1/2 & a #40.

482973

Just about any bench plane can be set up to be a scrub plane.

jtk

[John Keeton]

Jim, I just checked and they don’t seem to list a cambered chipbreaker. Given the hassle of switching the existing one back and forth and the ineffectiveness of the lack of camber, it doesn’t seem to be a wise purchase. Thanks for the inquiry!!

[Thomas Wilson]

Hi John,

I have a LN No 5 set up that way. It works great. I bought an extra lever cap to grind to a curve but have never needed it. I backed the frog a little so the chip clears easily. I sharpen to a fairly steep angle freehand, probably 35 degrees. I use it to flatten one side of wide boards to go through the planer so I am not concerned with a fine finish. (My jointer is only 6”.)

I asked a demonstrator at a LN event about setting up a No 5 as a scrub plane using the LN cambered blade. He was aghast. He may have been of the tissue paper shavings school of Neanderthals.

[Tom M King]

Or just get an Ulmia. The weathering on this one is from sweat, and wear from use. It still works great, and is ready to go at a moments notice!

edited to add: It's very lightweight, and fun to throw shavings three feet in the air with it.

[John Keeton]

Well, the Ulmia seems to be virtually unavailable - at least in a quick search. The suggestion of a No. 5 set up as a scrub is interesting, but I think I would just lean toward getting the LN 40 1/2 scrub plane. From what I see, the Stanleys are approaching the price of the LN and that just doesn't make sense to me. When I was at John C Campbell Folk School in June I used the LN and enjoyed it. I don't care to "fiddle" with my planes. My needs are very limited and I am somewhat of a minimalist when it comes to tools - well, with the exception of the drawknife addiction that I believe is now under control thanks to the out of control market! I don't hesitate to buy quality tools, so the LN seems like the way to go. I probably wouldn't end up using it more than 3-4 times a year, but the scrub sure makes short work of hogging off material!

[Thomas Wilson]

Well, the Ulmia seems to be virtually unavailable - at least in a quick search. The suggestion of a No. 5 set up as a scrub is interesting, but I think I would just lean toward getting the LN 40 1/2 scrub plane. From what I see, the Stanleys are approaching the price of the LN and that just doesn't make sense to me. When I was at John C Campbell Folk School in June I used the LN and enjoyed it. I don't care to "fiddle" with my planes. My needs are very limited and I am somewhat of a minimalist when it comes to tools - well, with the exception of the drawknife addiction that I believe is now under control thanks to the out of control market! I don't hesitate to buy quality tools, so the LN seems like the way to go. I probably wouldn't end up using it more than 3-4 times a year, but the scrub sure makes short work of hogging off material!

I like the depth and lateral adjustment of the No. 5. Varying the depth is particularly useful to me. I am by no means an expert at hand planes.

[Scott Clausen]

I have my Fathers old Craftsman No. 4 sized plane set up as a scrub and also bought a bastard Stanley No. 78 and made it a scrub because Paul Sellers seems to like that version. I don't see myself as buying a premium plane for a scrub even if I am only changing the blade.

[Keegan Shields]

Scrub planes don't use chip breakers because they are used cross grain right? So as long as you can open the mouth up wide enough for thick shavings you should be able to use your #4 with a cambered blade and the standard chip breaker set back.

*disclaimer - I'm not any kind of expert.

[Rob Luter]

Well, the Ulmia seems to be virtually unavailable - at least in a quick search. The suggestion of a No. 5 set up as a scrub is interesting, but I think I would just lean toward getting the LN 40 1/2 scrub plane. From what I see, the Stanleys are approaching the price of the LN and that just doesn't make sense to me. When I was at John C Campbell Folk School in June I used the LN and enjoyed it. I don't care to "fiddle" with my planes. My needs are very limited and I am somewhat of a minimalist when it comes to tools - well, with the exception of the drawknife addiction that I believe is now under control thanks to the out of control market! I don't hesitate to buy quality tools, so the LN seems like the way to go. I probably wouldn't end up using it more than 3-4 times a year, but the scrub sure makes short work of hogging off material!

Hi John -

I have an Ulmia that sits unused. I've thought about converting it to a cambered jack but have a #5 dedicated for that role. If you'd like it I'm sure we can work out some sort of bargain deal.

482986482987482988

[Tom M King]

I've seen a couple of them come up on the Classifieds here in the past year or so. I even bought one of them just because I like them, but I don't need it.

They can be used across, or with the grain. You can take really long strokes with the grain. The radius on the iron in my pictures in my last post is pretty close to the way it came 45 years ago.

Rob, That looks like a smoother, rather than a scrub plane. The scrub is pretty narrow. I'll trade you a like new, maybe even unused Scrub for that Smoother. I can send it to John first, to see how he likes one. Then he can send it to you, and then you send me the Smoother when you get the Scrub.

[Rob Luter]

I've seen a couple of them come up on the Classifieds here in the past year or so. I even bought one of them just because I like them, but I don't need it.

They can be used across, or with the grain. You can take really long strokes with the grain. The radius on the iron in my pictures in my last post is pretty close to the way it came 45 years ago.

Rob, That looks like a smoother, rather than a scrub plane. The scrub is pretty narrow. I'll trade you a like new, maybe even unused Scrub for that Smoother.


Correct, not a scrub. That said, either is my Stanley #5 that I have set up with a cambered iron. Even so, I use the Stanley in a quasi scrub capacity, much like John suggested he was considering with the LN roughing blade.

When I researched it by size, the Ulmia information suggested a Jack. I thought it was a little short for a Jack, but it's their product. It has a very generous mouth opening. Highland woodworking has these planes on their website. Their description: "At 9-7/16" long this jack plane could pass as a largish smooth plane. The body is 2-9/16" wide; the iron is 1-7/8" wide and has a metal chip breaker (referred to also as a double iron). This style of plane is narrow enough for vigorous roughing as well as smooth finishing."

I also have a dedicated European style scrub. It's an antique a family member found at a flea market in Germany. It's quite narrow and peels wood off like an angry beaver. Based on the worn sole, it's been used a bunch.

[Tom M King]

I just took a picture of one of the 6x8 Heart Pine beams in our house. I bought them in 1979 from a guy tearing down a mid 19th Century train station for $15 a piece. They were Black. I scrub planed them, and installed them. You can see the long strokes with the grain.

I would have liked to run a couple of other grades of planes over them, but we were living in a tent, and Winter was coming. This is on the ceiling in the kitchen. The first night we stayed in the house, it got down to 9 degrees, and we just had plastic over the back door. We had fun then, and still are.

[Jim Koepke]

Well, the Ulmia seems to be virtually unavailable - at least in a quick search. The suggestion of a No. 5 set up as a scrub is interesting, but I think I would just lean toward getting the LN 40 1/2 scrub plane. From what I see, the Stanleys are approaching the price of the LN and that just doesn't make sense to me. When I was at John C Campbell Folk School in June I used the LN and enjoyed it. I don't care to "fiddle" with my planes. My needs are very limited and I am somewhat of a minimalist when it comes to tools - well, with the exception of the drawknife addiction that I believe is now under control thanks to the out of control market! I don't hesitate to buy quality tools, so the LN seems like the way to go. I probably wouldn't end up using it more than 3-4 times a year, but the scrub sure makes short work of hogging off material!

For the longest time it seemed there wasn't a need for a scrub plane in my shop. Most of my lumber was purchased already milled enough to finish with standard bench planes.

John mentions being a minimalist, I'm the opposite. After a bad ebay deal there were a couple of beat to heck #5-1/4s in my shop. One was set up with a cambered blade and used as a scrub on some milled but unsurfaced lumber. It was an epiphany. Later at one of my favorite antique malls a vendor named Tony was setting up one of his spaces and had a #40 scrub plane at a price I couldn't refuse. It has not only made me a believer, it got me to set up a spare #5 as a scrub and occasionally a #5-1/2.

For a minimalist, the LN #40-1/2 is sure to be a pleasing addition to the tool box.

jtk

[Rob Luter]

I just took a picture of one of the 6x8 Heart Pine beams in our house. I bought them in 1979 from a guy tearing down a mid 19th Century train station for $15 a piece. They were Black. I scrub planed them, and installed them. You can see the long strokes with the grain.

I would have liked to run a couple of other grades of planes over them, but we were living in a tent, and Winter was coming. This is on the ceiling in the kitchen. The first night we stayed in the house, it got down to 9 degrees, and we just had plastic over the back door. We had fun then, and still are.

I like the aesthetic.

[Warren Mickley]

I would recommend getting a wooden double iron jack plane, about 17 inches long. This is the traditional tool for rough truing of wood. It is much more comfortable than a Bailey plane for rough work.

I have used this tool since 1978; it was a great improvement over a #4 plane.

[John Keeton]

Thanks for all the comments. They have been helpful as they have forced me to think about some issues I hadn't considered. This is going to sound like heresy, but most "lumber" that I use (minimal these days with the Windsor chair thing front and center) is run thru my planer and jointer. My main use for a scrub is to get a seat blank flat so that I can then use a smoother to get a nice surface. A 17" plane on a 22" seat blank might be a bit of overkill!?!?:)

After some of the comments I am pretty sure that moving the frog back would be necessary if I bought the cambered blade for the LN 4. I have it nicely tuned and I just wouldn't want to do that. As I said, I am not a fiddler when it comes to tools. I want it to be sitting on a shelf in my plane till ready to grab when needed. I will probably end up with the LN 40 1/2 at some point.

[Tom M King]

A no.6 would work fine for that. I keep two with different cambers. You can use the edge of the plane to feel and see for flat.

[steven c newman]

A 2" wide iron works just as well in a Jack plane as a #4 smoother....as the #5 also uses a 2" wide iron.....and a Jack is a better "home" for a cambered edged iron....and, NO one does not need to camber the chipbreaker to match....UN-nessasary

[Tom M King]

For planes that pull thick shavings, I just get the chipbreaker back out of the way, so shavings can fly up in the air, and get out of the way. Some think a shaving is not okay unless it's straight, but I like for them to curl up, and fly away, rather than having to pull one off my wrist.

[Rob Luter]

For planes that pull thick shavings, I just get the chipbreaker back out of the way, so shavings can fly up in the air, and get out of the way. Some think a shaving is not okay unless it's straight, but I like for them to curl up, and fly away, rather than having to pull one off my wrist.

I agree. A chip breaker is only useful if you want it to break chips. On the #5 is set up as a “Roughing Jack” I cambered the iron and backed the chip breaker way off. It peels up big thick curls. When the board is trued up, I hit it with a #62 LA Jack to flatten and then with a smoother. The #5 does all the hard work.

[Monte Milanuk]

John,

It may not be Ulmia, but Infinity Tools carries a line of Euro wooden planes, including a scrub plane version.

https://www.infinitytools.com/scrub-hand-plane

I haven't had a chance to do any flattening with mine, but have used it a few times to get a board down to width in a hurry.

YMMV,

Monte

[Warren Mickley]

Thanks for all the comments. They have been helpful as they have forced me to think about some issues I hadn't considered. This is going to sound like heresy, but most "lumber" that I use (minimal these days with the Windsor chair thing front and center) is run thru my planer and jointer. My main use for a scrub is to get a seat blank flat so that I can then use a smoother to get a nice surface. A 17" plane on a 22" seat blank might be a bit of overkill!?!?:)

.

The reason for a 17 inch jack plane is not because the length is needed for truing. It is because spreading your hands gives more leverage in controlling the plane. With a heavy cut, you need more leverage to keep from getting tired. And a wooden jack is lighter than an equivalent iron plane, also less tiring.

If you look at an 18th century Windsor chair you can usually see the marks of a jack plane on the bottom. The scrub plane originated about 1890 and was made by Stanley for carpenters, not Windsor chair makers.

[steven c newman]

in other words..Moxxon had it wrong....

That's ok...I'll just keep my Corsair C-5 scrub jack...with it's 8' radius camber and LARGE mouth.....shavings the thickness of an old Groat ( coin)....

Go straight across the grain, all the way along the board
Come back up the length, going at a 45 degree "Traverse" diagonal until you reach where you started from...then go back the other direction, crossing the first diagonals at 90 degrees...

Switch to a longer ( No. 6 size) fore plane...also at the traverse....until it produces a full width shaving...

THEN a smoother to finish up....

A job for each plane....do them in order, and things will get done fast...

I'm afraid Moxxon was before Warren's time....

[Scott Winners]

If trading the Ulmia's around doesn't work for you, I have a #4 Stanley from the current home store inventory that was useless as a #4. I think I paid about $20 for it. Once I gave up on taking shavings with it I cambered the iron and just kept opening the mouth open open open until shavings were flying vertically. You can have it ready to work for $25 plus shipping.

[Warren Mickley]

in other words..Moxxon had it wrong....

I'm afraid Moxxon was before Warren's time....

In other words you are none too familiar with Moxon. One x

Moxon describes rough planing with a fore plane. Planing with the grain unless the board is wide and warped. He later says that fore planeand jack plane are two names for the same tool.

Moxon never heard of a scrub plane. He died in 1691

[steven c newman]

Same old, same old...learned to use hand planes back in High School...beginning about the 67-68 school year...

Because the scrub plane came from German Joiners....NOT English Joiners. However...Moxon spoke pages about the common Jack plane, didn't he?

Although...Chris Schwarz does show all about the "Fore-most" Common Jack plane....an entire episode of The Woodwright's shop was taken up by it.

Back to the OP's question....both the #4 and #5 planes NORMALLY take a 2" wide irons.....with the cambered, "roughing" iron finding a home in the #5 Jack of all planes.

[Charles Guest]

If he'd traveled to Germany or Scandinavia he likely would have.

[Scott Clausen]

It is funny, I hear scrub, fore and jack almost used interchangeably at times. Sometimes it is a function of region, time period, others it is how you were raised (instructed) or just a matter of what forum you are into. All I know is that I become more skillful with planes I get a better feel to "Hog Off" more material at a time to speed things up. When you think about it, a new comer to hand planes doesn't go strait to the scrub. They start taking very thin passes and get a square to check their work. It is the skill and knowledge in knowing how to work the wood that makes them fun! I must admit where I started was best described as over correcting in a skid.

[Jim Koepke]

It is funny, I hear scrub, fore and jack almost used interchangeably at times. Sometimes it is a function of region, time period, others it is how you were raised (instructed) or just a matter of what forum you are into.

It is funny how this is.

What woodworkers tend to call marking gauges:

483073

Candy and her associates in the framing department of an arts supply store called a scribe.

Sometimes a name may conjure up an image other than one intended.

jtk

[Charles Guest]

I agree. A chip breaker is only useful if you want it to break chips. On the #5 is set up as a “Roughing Jack” I cambered the iron and backed the chip breaker way off. It peels up big thick curls. When the board is trued up, I hit it with a #62 LA Jack to flatten and then with a smoother. The #5 does all the hard work.

A chipbreaker can still exert an effect when hogging.

If you don't think so, get a single-iron jack and see for yourself.

Frankly, hogging is where you can't necessarily throw caution to the wind -- pulling up a big pockmark that goes below planned thickness, and right in the middle of a beautifully figured essentially irreplaceable board, will ruin your day if not your week. Your wallet won't like it either.

Pulling final passes at half a thou or so is not even close to being as risky, but smoothing your way to final thickness is a good way to become a weekend board planer rather than a woodworker. The workmanship of risk is unavoidable if you're making things rather than endlessly testing and tuning the equipment.

Results obtained on easy-to-plane species don't necessarily extrapolate to everything else. It's a start. That's about it. Cherry and walnut can make you feel as if you're a genius -- God's gift to planing wood. It's easy to get lulled. Don't.

[Jim Koepke]

The workmanship of risk is unavoidable if you're making things rather than endlessly testing and tuning the equipment.

There seems to be a myth among many about others who tune their equipment to do superior work. It isn't an endless chore. My planes are mostly cleaned and fettled to work to the fullest of their ability. After this one time set up, about the only thing done to them is to brush the accumulated wood dust off, wipe them down or sharpen their blades when needed.

The idea of tool maintenance being an endless process taking precedent over any woodworking is a foolish hoax.

jtk

[steven c newman]

and..a myth that sells a LOT of gimmicks to "Better tune a tool" with....Makes one wonder how Thomas Sheraton managed to get anything built...

[steven c newman]

Perhaps one should remember why the Chipbreaker was designed for....what was L. Bailey trying to do.....besides being able to use a thinner, easier to sharpen iron, as when you add in the chipbreaker...it makes a nice thicker assembly...

[Tom M King]

Once I get a plane tuned for a particular task, I never change it. Only the iron gets sharpened. If I don't have one for some new task, I just get another plane, and set it up for that. I haven't needed another plane for about a decade and a half now.

[Brandon Speaks]

Mine was just a beater no 4 that I reshaped the blade and opened the mouth. Wouldnt bother with anything high dollar for that use case.

[Rob Luter]

Mine was just a beater no 4 that I reshaped the blade and opened the mouth. Wouldn't bother with anything high dollar for that use case.

My thoughts exactly. I found a bargain #5 to dedicate to this sort of work. Ain't pretty but works great.

[steven c newman]

Hmmm..
483197
483198
Iron has no camber...
483199
OEM iron, chipbreaker set 1mm back from the edge...Wood is Maple...

[Warren Mickley]

Perhaps one should remember why the Chipbreaker was designed for....what was L. Bailey trying to do.....besides being able to use a thinner, easier to sharpen iron, as when you add in the chipbreaker...it makes a nice thicker assembly...

I think Thomas Chippendale used a double iron plane. It was in common use when Chippendale was an apprentice and nearly universal by the time he opened his own business in 1790.

Leonard Bailey wasn't even born until 1825.

[steven c newman]

So...who decided a thinner iron would be a good idea? Chippendale's irons were still thick slabs...compared to the new-fangled Bailey irons...

[Charles Guest]

Chippendale:

https://www.christies.com/features/A-guide-to-Thomas-Chippendale-Senior-8823-1.aspx

Not sure he had a lot of time to navel-gaze about the double iron. I'm sure he thought it was peachy, especially when he saw somebody else pushing the plane. He could do it all, but he couldn't meet with his clients dripping with sweat and stink from four-squaring lumber all day.

Read the article.

[Rob Luter]

Hmmm..
483197
483198
Iron has no camber...
483199
OEM iron, chipbreaker set 1mm back from the edge...Wood is Maple...

Yup. Still works just fine. The camber helps with deep cuts. I can peel wood off faster with a cambered roughing blade.

[Jim Koepke]

Once I get a plane tuned for a particular task, I never change it. Only the iron gets sharpened. If I don't have one for some new task, I just get another plane, and set it up for that. I haven't needed another plane for about a decade and a half now.

Not needing another plane has never stopped me from buying one if the deal was good enough.

How often do people adjust the frog? (this sounds like a good question for a poll)

For me at one time it seemed planes were had cheap enough to just have two or more set up as desired. After learning about chip breakers the frog adjustment became superfluous. (it amazes me to have gotten that spelled right on the first try)

As far as the purpose of the cap iron or chip breaker, Leonard Bailey rendered his reasoning on the design of his cap iron in the patent:

483204

Beside the cap iron breaking chips it was made in such a manner as to apply pressure to the area of a thin blade where it was likely to buckle to prevent same.

The full patent is here > https://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&idkey=NONE&SectionNum=3&HomeUrl=&docid=0072443

jtk

[Warren Mickley]

Chippendale:

https://www.christies.com/features/A-guide-to-Thomas-Chippendale-Senior-8823-1.aspx

Not sure he had a lot of time to navel-gaze about the double iron. I'm sure he thought it was peachy, especially when he saw somebody else pushing the plane. He could do it all, but he couldn't meet with his clients dripping with sweat and stink from four-squaring lumber.

Read the article.

My apologies, Charles.

A previous poster had mentioned Thomas Sheraton and I meant to say his name when I made my post. Sheraton was 39 when he began his own business after working as an apprentice and a journeyman.

Sheraton was a bit later than Chippendale and worked at a time when figured timber was important, so the double iron was important economically.

[Charles Guest]

Chippendale was born in 1718 and died in 1779 at age 61. If he finished his apprenticeship by the time he was in his early 20s that would have been in the late 1730s. I think the earliest printed reference to the double-iron was 1767. I doubt that Chippendale was running hand planes twelve years before his death or really in the decades before then. Carving, yes, getting out stock for projects with a staff of 50+ at his disposal, highly doubtful. If he did, I suppose he sent some 15 year old apprentice to meet with his clients, suppliers, bankers, creditors, printers, ironmongers, etc.

London cabinetmakers were well staffed firms with broad capabilities, some of which had more than 150 employees (see George Seddon, et al.) They were not some lone, tortured craftsman working in a colonial backwater running through the muddy streets shrieking "Eureka" when the double-iron showed up on the scene, as if every problem of running a sophisticated cabinetmaking firm had been finally solved.

[steven c newman]

So....all this has ..what to say ...about a roughing iron for a No. 4 sized plane....hmmmm

Maybe just get a No. 40 or No.40-1/2? Or..just let the Jack plane do it's job....

History lesson ..noted. Needed? maybe not....

yes, any 2" wide iron will fit into about any #4 sized plane.....simple answer....nothing more.

There IS a chap working for the Plimouth Plantation...you 2 could talk to....Peter Follansbee....ever hear tell of the guy...

[Charles Guest]

My apologies, Charles.

A previous poster had mentioned Thomas Sheraton and I meant to say his name when I made my post. Sheraton was 39 when he began his own business after working as an apprentice and a journeyman.

Sheraton was a bit later than Chippendale and worked at a time when figured timber was important, so the double iron was important economically.

Timing certainly makes more sense Warren.

I read somewhere that when Sheraton came out with his four-volume design book it was during a time when he didn't even have a shop, and presumably no customers. It was the book plus some money he picked up as a part-time preacher that made ends meet. This, and there has been no attribution to even one piece in the series directly to Sheraton himself. Surely he made some of the designs though. He clearly wasn't as busy as Chippendale was before him. That said, his designs are better IMO.

He only lived to be 55 (1751-1806). With these dates in mind he presumably would have finished an apprenticeship in the early/mid 1770s at the latest.

[Mark Rainey]

Always a treasure trove of information when Warren and Charles exchange information ( and sometimes barbs ). Neanderthal heaven!

[Charles Guest]

Always a treasure trove of information when Warren and Charles exchange information ( and sometimes barbs ). Neanderthal heaven!

Sobering to realize that Chippendale, and those in his firm, worked with single-iron planes.

Didn't seem to diminish the work. :)

[Derek Cohen]

Chippendale was born in 1718 and died in 1779 at age 61. If he finished his apprenticeship by the time he was in his early 20s that would have been in the late 1730s. I think the earliest printed reference to the double-iron was 1767. I doubt that Chippendale was running hand planes twelve years before his death or really in the decades before then. Carving, yes, getting out stock for projects with a staff of 50+ at his disposal, highly doubtful. If he did, I suppose he sent some 15 year old apprentice to meet with his clients, suppliers, bankers, creditors, printers, ironmongers, etc.

London cabinetmakers were well staffed firms with broad capabilities, some of which had more than 150 employees (see George Seddon, et al.) They were not some lone, tortured craftsman working in a colonial backwater running through the muddy streets shrieking "Eureka" when the double-iron showed up on the scene, as if every problem of running a sophisticated cabinetmaking firm had been finally solved.

:D

I love this, Charles.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[John Keeton]

So....all this has ..what to say ...about a roughing iron for a No. 4 sized plane....hmmmm..Actually, I have enjoyed seeing this thread evolve!! So much information from so many skilled and experienced craftsmen has been both informative and educational. The historical commentary is just icing on the cake.

[Charles Guest]

Actually, I have enjoyed seeing this thread evolve!! So much information from so many skilled and experienced craftsmen has been both informative and educational. The historical commentary is just icing on the cake.

... and George Hepplewhite lived from 1727-1786, just to round out the Big 3. He apprenticed to Gillow, and a firm named Gillow is still in business in England under that name though a buyout occurred in the early 1800s.

Hepplewhite may have been exposed to double-iron planes but it would not have been until fairly late in his life based on the dates in the posts above. He would not have used them as an apprentice. Hepplewhite, like Sheraton, is another instance where a particular piece of existing furniture cannot be positively attributed to his own hand or firm, but 10 designs exist in the London Book of Prices with his name on them.

The double-iron plane, from a date perspective, really only caught the tail end of two of the Big 3 London cabinetmakers' careers and was missed by the biggest name, Chippendale, altogether. And when I say "biggest" name I mean from the perspective of a firm with a lot of extant work and a documented history of actual commissions. Individual tastes vary. I like Sheraton and Hepplewhite designs.

[Warren Mickley]

We don't really have a date for the origin of the double iron plane.

The earliest written reference we know about is the Carruthers advertisement in the Pennsylvania Chronicle 1767. It is nice to pull out this date when someone suggests that Leonard Bailey invented the double iron a century later. But the Carruthers ad itself suggests that he was selling an improved design for the double iron planes that had been available previously. Many of us have long thought that the earliest double iron planes had two irons that were not screwed together and that they were likely used by craftsmen who made them themselves or altered single iron planes. I have seen pictures of double iron rabbet planes that had no screw holding the irons together. And Japanese planes use a cap iron that is not screwed to the cutting iron.

A recent archeological dig unearthed a double iron plane with no screw that appears to be from around 1750. This technology could have been around for decades on a small scale. Someone with a lot of experience in hand stock preparation with double iron planes might be able discern whether a piece made in 1750 was prepared with a double iron.

[Charles Guest]

We don't really have a date for the origin of the double iron plane.

The earliest written reference we know about is the Carruthers advertisement in the Pennsylvania Chronicle 1767. It is nice to pull out this date when someone suggests that Leonard Bailey invented the double iron a century later. But the Carruthers ad itself suggests that he was selling an improved design for the double iron planes that had been available previously. Many of us have long thought that the earliest double iron planes had two irons that were not screwed together and that they were likely used by craftsmen who made them themselves or altered single iron planes. I have seen pictures of double iron rabbet planes that had no screw holding the irons together. And Japanese planes use a cap iron that is not screwed to the cutting iron.

A recent archeological dig unearthed a double iron plane with no screw that appears to be from around 1750. This technology could have been around for decades on a small scale. Someone with a lot of experience in hand stock preparation with double iron planes might be able discern whether a piece made in 1750 was prepared with a double iron.


Well surely the Romans probably used them. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.

I wish I knew how to produce the funny memes that people produce. I'd make one showing Chippendale using a Hammer sliding tablesaw and grinning from ear-to-ear.

[Mark Rainey]

We don't really have a date for the origin of the double iron plane.

The earliest written reference we know about is the Carruthers advertisement in the Pennsylvania Chronicle 1767. It is nice to pull out this date when someone suggests that Leonard Bailey invented the double iron a century later. But the Carruthers ad itself suggests that he was selling an improved design for the double iron planes that had been available previously. Many of us have long thought that the earliest double iron planes had two irons that were not screwed together and that they were likely used by craftsmen who made them themselves or altered single iron planes. I have seen pictures of double iron rabbet planes that had no screw holding the irons together. And Japanese planes use a cap iron that is not screwed to the cutting iron.

A recent archeological dig unearthed a double iron plane with no screw that appears to be from around 1750. This technology could have been around for decades on a small scale. Someone with a lot of experience in hand stock preparation with double iron planes might be able discern whether a piece made in 1750 was prepared with a double iron.
Good point Warren. There is so much unknown about that period. Do we have single iron planes from the early 1700’s? Was there a common bedding angle? I guess it varied with the planemaker.

[Frederick Skelly]

Chippendale:

https://www.christies.com/features/A-guide-to-Thomas-Chippendale-Senior-8823-1.aspx

Read the article.

I enjoyed that article. Thanks for posting it!