On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 19:02:05 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:

"OFWW" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 16:54:58 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 7:43:18 PM UTC-5, John Grossbohlin
wrote:
"OFWW" wrote in message
...

My question is, when using my router to do the same thing I don't ever
remember the shapes being that smooth, so do the hand planes cut the
shapes as smooth as a flat plane does?

If equally sharp, generally yes they would leave a comparably smooth
surface. The biggest problem with molding planes is that you typically
cannot change direction to deal with the grain so tear out and grain
related
chatter can become an issue. With rounds and hollows you might be able
change direction... but not always as the relationship between the iron
and
body of the plane can affect things, i.e., the iron would have to be
perfectly centered if you are using an edge or straight edge to guide
the
plane, and the iron would have to be perfectly symmetrical so the cuts
would
match up perfectly. Then again, just how perfect does it really have to
be?
If you don't notice the variance from 5-10 feet away it probably
doesn't.

It's not the seeing, it's the knowing. ;-)

If that's not the truth.

You guys need to trade in your 21st century lenses for some 18th century
lenses... ;~)


I hear you, but it is still in the knowing. Not so much in things like
production runs but in the one offs. In those days there were not a
lot of home tooling that was anywhere near exact as we have now, and
given the chance they would have loved to brought up their standards,
rather than just making it fit.

The best of the craftsman in those days were paid handsomely for their
beauty and symmetry of exactness. to the best of their ability.

When starting to work with wood products just given the nature of
wood, the types, the moisture, the way the grain runs, the way the
wood is cut all are variables that one has to deal with. It was a
shock to me after working with metals in one form or another all my
life. So understanding what you are conveying is not difficult for me,
yet....I still want to keep the standards as high as I can.

What you speak of, I count on so when I am making something that I
like and think other people would too then what is better than making
two, keeping the best one and selling the other to someone who just
want something nice or nice and functional. It is embarrassing hearing
comments about it when you can see and know every flaw, even though it
is not weakened in any way.

OTH, sometimes I wonder why I spent so much time on something when the
little things did not matter in the end. Makes me feel stupid as a
matter of fact.

So when I see something fine or of finesse, I truly appreciate it in
wood working.

Things in the 18th century were often made to patterns and items would look
similar to like items but if you put them side by side and started measuring
you'd find variance. This does not apply just to crude work, but rather to
fine work also. Turned spindles is a good example... assembled in a
staircase or the back of a chair and they look just fine even if there is
variance. Flintlocks are another example, No one would ever argue that a
fine flintlock wasn't precision even if it didn't have interchangeable
parts.

I had a discussion at my woodworking club's meeting that came about when a
member, who had a board about 1 5/8" thick, wanted to resaw it on a band
saw. He was adamant that he get 2 finished boards 3/4" thick to make the
panels for the sides of a frame and panel chest. We was adamant that they be
3/4" thick... He got really irritated when I suggested that he saw it as
best he could and use whatever thickness he ended up with. Who cares what
it measures... it's one board going in one chest, he isn't manufacturing 100
chests.... and used as a panel who could ever tell it wasn't 3/4" thick?
His 21st century lenses made him myopic and he just didn't get it...

Get yourself some 18th century glasses... stress disappears and you'll find
you can make very nice things even if they fail the micrometer test. ;~)