Holtey plane blades I do not need

[stephen thomas]

Ralph -
Thank you for that link.

I have preached those principles for a few decades because they are all inter-related.
But it is interesting what works when, where, at times. So for known rigorous testers like Derek and probably you, i am always happy to hear current data points.

About 10 years ago i designed an all-angle plane to test various combinations of inputs.
It can be used with or without the cap iron, closed or open throat, any bed angle from 47 deg through about 85 deg. Sometimes one combination works well, sometimes a different one. I do tend to gravitate back to about 48 deg, tight mouth. I also have some ideas about a better throat system. Maybe it will become compelling to make planes again.

As i've posted various places, my early plane practice and interest was due to constant jobs requiring solids to be flushed up next to veneers - at that time, paper-thin factory veneers, so the interest was not trivial. Well tuned, BU adjustable throat block plane was the one constant reliable option.

This plane was designed strictly as a test mule. (It was also designed in response after test driving BCT's disappointingly complex and impractical version. I immediately went home and designed this one.) Prettier versions are in mind. It weighs 8.5 lbs & could be lightened by at least a couple.

Click on the individual photos - most will blow up more.

Planing solid pau fero next to ebony
DSC_0019_01.jpg
clipping birdseye maple veneer with solid ebony veneer stringing
DSC_0027.jpgDSC_0026.jpg
I often spit-coat made up veneer faces with shellac before pressing them. It helps protect the face, and minimizes random glue adherence - that is why there is shellac on the inner veneers. The spandrel between the ebony veneer and maple burl veneer here is also veneer. Only the outer rim is solid wood.
DSC_0031.jpg

DSC_0040.jpgDSC_0028.jpgDSC_0031.jpg

The point is, you can test any combination of inputs.
Although as many of us point out, a tight throat and a perfectly set chipbreaker are practically mutually exclusive.

[Robert Hazelwood]

Bevel up planes have two ranges where they can work well- with very low angles (<40) they cut end grain and across the grain well. They will also leave a great finish on long grain (especially in softer woods) if there's no runout, but will make a terrible mess if there is. Then on the other end of the range, they can perform well in long grain without tearout on very hard woods with a steep bevel (>55 or so), but with a limited shaving thickness due to the force required. Softer woods won't take a great finish off the plane with those angles.

In between those extremes you just get the downsides of each without much benefit, and that's where you are with a 25 degree bevel (47.5). Effectively a Bailey plane, but without the benefit of a chipbreaker.

Derek said the plane bed is at 22.5, so the low-angle range is out of the question. I'd say your plane really wants to be a high-angle smoother dedicated to difficult grain in harder woods. To that end I would add a secondary bevel in the range of 35 to 40 degrees. I'd start out on the low end of the range and see how that works. It's very easy to increase the angle if you still get some tearout.

I'd also persevere with the iron it came with. If you only have to sharpen a small secondary bevel, A2 ought to sharpen on aluminum oxide media (india stones, most synthetic waterstones, sandpaper, etc.) even if its run very hard. The test for sharpness for this plane is to take good piece of hard wood and see how thin of a shaving you could take. Hard maple (unfigured) would be a pretty good test piece.

[Rafael Herrera]

Ralph -
Thank you for that link.

I have preached those principles for a few decades because they are all inter-related.
But it is interesting what works when, where, at times. So for known rigorous testers like Derek and probably you, i am always happy to hear current data points.

About 10 years ago i designed an all-angle plane to test various combinations of inputs.
It can be used with or without the cap iron, closed or open throat, any bed angle from 47 deg through about 85 deg. Sometimes one combination works well, sometimes a different one. I do tend to gravitate back to about 48 deg, tight mouth. I also have some ideas about a better throat system. Maybe it will become compelling to make planes again.

As i've posted various places, my early plane practice and interest was due to constant jobs requiring solids to be flushed up next to veneers - at that time, paper-thin factory veneers, so the interest was not trivial. Well tuned, BU adjustable throat block plane was the one constant reliable option.

This plane was designed strictly as a test mule. (It was also designed in response after test driving BCT's disappointingly complex and impractical version. I immediately went home and designed this one.) Prettier versions are in mind. It weighs 8.5 lbs & could be lightened by at least a couple.

I often spit-coat made up veneer faces with shellac before pressing them. It helps protect the face, and minimizes random glue adherence - that is why there is shellac on the inner veneers. The spandrel between the ebony veneer and maple burl veneer here is also veneer. Only the outer rim is solid wood.

The point is, you can test any combination of inputs.
Although as many of us point out, a tight throat and a perfectly set chipbreaker are practically mutually exclusive.

For the specific requirement of planing next to veneers, just the high angle may have been enough to plane off the high areas, the chipbreaker would have been redundant. What do you think?

I imagine you were taking very shallow passes until the pieces were flush to each other. You were not planing the veneers, were you?

I asked my cousin, who continued furniture business the my uncle started. My dad was also a cabinet maker, but no one in my family continued the business. I asked him how do they finish veneered table tops like the one you show. I thought I remembered, but wasn't sure. They use cabinet scrapers and sandpaper, no planes.

One of his pieces.

WhatsApp Image 2023-06-12 at 9.42.05 AM (8).jpeg Bombe cabinet by Carlos Herrera

--

My opinion is that a regular double iron planes can tackle almost all situations where a plane needs to be used to prepare or finish a surface. Planes that are designed with a very specific task in mind may be called for, like in your case, but they probably are not very practical in most other cases. Your plane weighing 8.5 lb makes it a very heavy smoother, I don't think it's an advantage.

The profile of the chipbreaker's edge has a very distinctive effect on the way the shavings are deflected and the tear out mitigation effect. My friend David Weaver has analyzed them on examples of English wooden planes. I don't know to what extent the cb effect can be tuned in the situation you were working on, but on more conventional situations, like when you're dimensioning a board or smothing a panel, the cb is very obvious. That topic, the cb effect, is a less explored and analyzed aspect of plane use. I think it's worth exploring.

At the very least, getting those straight shavings just shooting out of the plane mouth lets you work continuously, as opposed to have to stop at every pass to remove the curled shavings stuck in the mouth.

20240731_083633.jpg a piece of pine planed by Rafael Herrera.

[Jim Koepke]

Joel, If no one else has shown any interest, please send me a PM to let me know how much you want for one or both to ship.

I have an old #5-1/2 that can use a 2-1/4" blade. I think that is also the size on an old transitional jointer of mine.

I would hate to think these would just be trashed or sent to the scrap pile for lack of being wanted.

jtk

[Joel Gelman]

Jim, they are both yours for free. Just PM me your mailing address.

[stephen thomas]

That is really awesome!
How long ago was it made? - the colors are brilliant!

For the specific requirement of planing next to veneers, just the high angle may have been enough to plane off the high areas, the chipbreaker would have been redundant. What do you think?

I don't trust high angle alone.
It has been a few years, but i suspect i was using the (adjustable) tight throat along with high angle, and the chipbreaker was retracted.

I imagine you were taking very shallow passes until the pieces were flush to each other.

Well, they were productive passes. Pau fero is darn hard, as is ebony. You can judge by the shavings.

You were not planing the veneers, were you?

Not intentionally - but part of the reason to show the pix is that at the edges, all the veneer did get some planing. With no tearout. No matter the grain configuration or direction.

I asked my cousin, who continued furniture business the my uncle started. My dad was also a cabinet maker, but no one in my family continued the business. I asked him how do they finish veneered table tops like the one you show. I thought I remembered, but wasn't sure. They use cabinet scrapers and sandpaper, no planes.

Yep, me too.
However, in traditional work there might not even be a solid band. It is easier to just veneer corner to corner. It is somewhat complex to make and join solid bands that fit interesting curves. So forever in the past, and even current work, most just meet the veneer at the corners and leave it sharp.

FWIW, Duncan Phyfe was one of my favorite OBF builders, because he is so incredibly good with just mass and line. He did not need to do much more than shape the forms, and then veneer all over them with carefully composed mahogany crotch. Bands and solids would ruin the effect. Honestly, i love it.

But personally, I'm not happy designing that way, because the edges have to be sharp (else you are exposing the core) and as soon as they get a few nicks, the piece looks ugly. In "good" traditional work, sometimes the core has stringing let in at the corners before veneering over it. That's better. But it is still not ideal. Or the case can be rabbeted all around after veneering, and stringing let in to form corners as an accent.

Anyway, with my version, there is lots of solid wood to plane, and planes are productive for that part.
Then scrapers and sandpaper.

smt

[Rafael Herrera]

That is really awesome!
How long ago was it made? - the colors are brilliant!

Two years ago, they made several. They're in production, you can see the others on their web site.

I remember my dad making these bombe chests, when I was a kid (not as flamboyant, my cousin has gone a more sculptural, modern path.) He would veneer them with mahogany, crotch walnut or something like that.

[Joel Gelman]

I am glad these Holtey blades found a good home. That was the main reason for the thread. On the Holtey planes, I am thinking if I had a low angle BU smoother like the 98 and 986, perhaps with a O1 blade super sharp, perhaps with a 30 vs 35 degree bevel angle, that would give me less tear out than what I now experience, assuming there is not some user related factor. However, I have not been able to compare as of today.

As for the non low-angle Holtey smoothers, there was one made that had a very high angle, which was the 11-SA. There is actually one for sale on eBay and it has been there for a very long time. I think the seller is trying to get top dollar and these planes generally do not sell use for even close to the new price. Description on the Holtey website



The original Norris mitre planes had a bed angle of 20° and this in combination with an average honing angle of 30° gives an angle of attack of 50°. This angle (slightly steeper than the usual 45°) is best suited to smoothing and is known to a few as York pitch.

Plane makers have found that high angles of attack produce planes with less tendency to tear the wood when working with difficult hardwoods.

In this new plane the blade is reversable, allowing the bed angle to be elevated, as honing angle is no longer a major component of the attack angle. With the 11-SA plane I have gone slightly beyond York pitch with an attack angle of 59° and with the blade reversed the angle is 89°. This has resulted in a plane which will be ideal for the finishing of difficult grains in cabinet and instrument making.

The reversing of the blade has allowed a steeper shorter blade to be used which gives a much improved hand hold behind the blade.


The plane is 6 5/8" long with a 1 ½" wide blade. The blades are A2 - S53 replacement blades are available.

I wonder how this would perform but again, I have never tried it. One thing about the Holtey (and I guess the Marcou) is that they are very heavy and so I do know that compared to LN for example, they are good at overcoming resistance, which would increase with the higher angle of attack. Anyhow, this topic has been on my mind after getting a tear out on a recent table top, and I resorted to sanding to 400. I wanted to not sand, but I wanted to get the project done and I lost thickness and did not want to risk more tearout.

[Rafael Herrera]

Do you have a Stanley Bailey smoothing plane with the chip breaker prepared? A no. 4 is a superb plane and can handle almost any situation where there's risk of tear out.

High bed angles were obsoleted in the 1750s, when the chip breaker was invented. Who knows the reasons for the persistence of high angle, single iron planes in the market today, it's only in the recent decades that these planes have had came back. One thing is certain, a no. 4 will beat any of those planes if you present it a difficult wood.

If you want, I'll send you a plane to try if you wish to, just send me PM.

[stephen thomas]

this topic has been on my mind after getting a tear out on a recent table top

Do you have any pictures?

As Ralph notes, it is often possible to tune some version of a Bailey plane or block plane to do practically tear-out free work in most wood. I don't like narrow planes for smoothers, so my preference is a 4-1/2. (Also see other planes i posted earlier, planing a piece of maple with knot and figure).

Holtey planes are beautiful, and he cares more about detailing his planes than i ever will. They are works of art. Then again, he only does cnc, and he has never made a round sided smoother, at least for production. His planes include none of the typical options for chip control that have been developed over centuries, other than mass, solid bedding of the iron, and a high cutting angle.

I suspect it would be possible to make a double iron for one of yours, as an experiment.
Where are you located in the world, approximately?

[Warren Mickley]

High bed angles were obsoleted in the 1750s, when the chip breaker was invented. Who knows the reasons for the persistence of high angle, single iron planes in the market today, it's only in the recent decades that these planes have had came back. One thing is certain, a no. 4 will beat any of those planes if you present it a difficult wood.

High angle planes did not persist in England or the United States. They disappeared for 200 hundred years. They were reintroduced and promoted by people who had no idea how to use a double iron plane.

[stephen thomas]

High angle planes did not persist in England or the United States. They disappeared for 200 hundred years.

Except as moulding planes and some rebate planes.

But i agree with your point.

[Rafael Herrera]

Or metal mitre planes, but those seem to have been a kind of niche fancy planes as well, more common in England than the US.

[stephen thomas]

Actually, some of the smoothing plane factors awareness during the past 200 years was dependent on whether the craftsperson was trained in US or in Europe. Or in Asia. There is steady mention of using higher pitches (along with double irons) for smoothing planes for hard & "difficult" wood perhaps especially in the UK. In the USA even our (commonly utilized) hardwoods, are not very hard. Overall, the preponderance of uses for handplanes in the US was carpentry, and involved pine. We automated early and often. Planers well before the civil war, drum sanding machines not long after. I've worked in old buildings that had drum-sanded parquets (back side) or paneled floor systems, same; dating to the 1870's. These were made up in factories, sanded flush on the back, and shellacked with black shellac. We had wide, powered, scraping machines dating to about the same era for finishing face surfaces in cabinet, furniture, and piano factories.

In the UK, they were more apt to utilize "exotic" timbers from all over the empire, and work them up everywhere still by hand methods right up until the end of the depression. As a matter of course, not to be special. Norris planes were supposedly a compromise 47.5 deg pitch. Some Spiers seem to have been 50 (York pitch) and York pitch is not uncommon to see mentioned when smoothing planes are in discussion. I've used Spiers planes, and inspected more than a couple Norris's, but don't remember noting the pitches at first hand. Settled on 47 - 48 for my own. Did not want to have the "crutch" of high pitch substituting for other sound methods of chip control. But there is a lot of "free" performance just going up to 50 deg - some of mine settled out at 49....

In the US, as soon as cast metal parts became available before the civil war (Knowles patent occurred ca 1827) adjustable throats became widely included and experimented with for at least the better models of any high end plane. As we have seen in other posts, this included metal adjustable toe pieces for wooden smoothers as well.

"High" pitch was not forgotten nor unused, it just was not much necessary in the US for the types of work done in the largest markets with handplanes.

[Warren Mickley]

Actually, some of the smoothing plane factors awareness during the past 200 years was dependent on whether the craftsperson was trained in US or in Europe. Or in Asia. There is steady mention of using higher pitches (along with double irons) for smoothing planes for hard & "difficult" wood perhaps especially in the UK.

"High" pitch was not forgotten nor unused, it just was not much necessary in the US for the types of work done in the largest markets with handplanes.

Have you read Peter Nicholson (London 1812)? Have you read Holtzapffel (London 1843)? Have you seen the descriptions of planes in the Seaton chest (1796)? Where did you get the idea that higher pitches were necessary or desireable? Where is this "steady mention"?