[OP]
Contributor
I won't tell you I agree with everything the author says, but it was a good perpective on these really high end tools. LINK And OMG, just look at this beauty by Wayne Anderson that is pictured in the article.
Talk about eye candy!
16pwm1215customplanes-768x615.jpg
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
“If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”
Contributor
Sweet to the eye indeed!Talk about eye candy!
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Contributor
True craftsmanship and the skill that goes along with it is always appreciated.
Member
Some years back, I was able to fondle one of Wayne Anderson's planes, a small miter plane, at a MWTCA meet. Yowsa! pure tool porn!
Member
The article talks about "rarefied levels of performance" in today's hand plane offerings. The truth is that almost none of the makers he mentions have the knowledge or experience necessary to make a good hand plane. These makers are given to a number of fallacies about planes:
The idea that mass is a benefit; it is not.
The idea that a thick iron helps with tear out. It does not.
The idea that a thick iron is helpful with regard to chatter. Only if there is poor bedding.
The idea that a high angle is needed for cross grain woods. If one knows how to use a double iron, it is not needed and not desirable. Some of these makers actually deny that a double iron is helpful.
The idea that a cap iron should be ground at a low angle. This diminishes its effectiveness.
They also tend to concentrate on one function of a plane, taking very fine shavings. If they had more experience they might see the need for other planes.
These makers are good at polishing steel and dense hardwoods. Making an efficient tool not so much.
Contributor
Warren, relax.While all these planes are stunning, they are not designed for extended use as work horses. I have no doubt that they work amazingly well .. within their envelope. Each of the makers is really good at what they do ... just what they have built is a reflection of one school of design, which has its followers.
I was watching a video by Rob Cosman the other evening, winding down after my last patient was done for the day, and I recall pulling a face at what I heard. Rob is an excellent teacher, and no one can deny the results he achieves. Plus he is a good guy, and I want to like what he does. He is one of the fine shavings school, and he is fantastic at producing gossamer tissue. He does not believe the chipbreaker has any part in controlling tearout. He loves thick blades for their resistance to chatter. Mass is good - the #5-1/2 and #7 rule. The only small plane he uses is a block plane, and he is capable of planing interlocked grain with a low cutting angle! He does all this so well, and yet breaks all your rules. The reason is obvious: he is not playing the same game as you.
The question is whether many amateur woodworkers really attempt to expand their envelopes? There is no doubt that some do, generally those who have been witness to the discussions around the use of a double iron, and have also been willing to learn the technique. In my experience, there are a lot more plane users who are comfortable with less efficient methods, and probably because the timbers they use, and their preparation from rough to ready via machines, do not demand more. Does this make them less valid, or just a different game?
The author of the article is a very talented toolmaker, Raney Nelson (Daed Tools). He, as with the other plane makers here, take form and function into the domain of art. They are not designed to work to the principles of a Stanley. Then, again, neither was the Spier I restored. This languished on the shelf for years .. until I began to set the chipbreaker it came with.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Member
As objects of industrial art, these are wonders.
As my arthritis worsens, they're instruments of torture.
I learned from years of horse trading vintage saxophones that the ugly ones were played, for good reason. I'm openly suspicious of tools as jewelry.
Contributor
Many of these points are simply repeating what the author, Raney Nelson, says in the article. And he is one of the high-end plane makers mentioned in the article.Originally Posted by Warren Mickley
Contributor
One author said something about fettling a plane to take a super thin shaving, "often that is all such a plane can do."They also tend to concentrate on one function of a plane, taking very fine shavings.
Some of my planes do not take super thin shavings. Really, something like a scrub plane taking thin shavings would be strange at best.
One of my planes has too tight of a mouth to take a very heavy shavings. One of these days my "file that mouth" round tuit will appear.
Most of my plans work through a full range. They can peel off a few thick shavings to remove saw marks then be dialed back to make gossamer shavings if need be.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Contributor
It was a great article IMO... some serious beauties shown, would love to try em all out...just curiosity.
The article sheds a light on the premium planes, their build, their intended purpose, what drives their design, etc.
Unless u have tried all these planes and compared them to others, its unfair IMO to defy the comments in the article.
I have a few premium planes...and the one thing I am convinced of, mass does matter. A heavy plane, and a thick blade combined with solid mechanics is just a joy to use, albeit, a bit heavy for long term use unless u are super strong. But adding weight to a light weight plane (which I tried) is not the same, unfortunately. Of course, the coolest 5k hand plane with a dull blade will not perform as well as $90 plane with a super sharp blade. So newbs should NOT overlook obvious real world "use" issues. Tuning a plane, and upkeeping the plane, is what matters in the real world for optimal performance.
But as the article points out.... yes, some of these planes have superior performance in specific areas...but in no way does the added price truly justify the added performance. It's no different than high end audio, high end autos, etc. A $18K Toyota will get you everywhere you want to go just as well, and prob. with less break downs than a 400K Bentley.
I would agree with author in that, the LN and LV type of planes have maximized the performance vs. price ratio. And I am sure there is even lower cost planes that even further maximize that ratio. Hence why I own LOTS of LV planes for my daily drivers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote