Hey all

Looking to into jointing a board with a hand plane and trying to select
the appropriate type planes.

I can understand that the long the plane the less likely the plane is to
"follow the curve" but given that I can get a #6 at 18", a #7 at 22" and a
#8 at 24" is there significance in flatness or speed of work between the
three. Given that the different planes are made, there must be a reason
why.......

Cheers
Eric (a normite in neander territory)

Sam the Cat asks:

Looking to into jointing a board with a hand plane and trying to select
the appropriate type planes.

I can understand that the long the plane the less likely the plane is to
"follow the curve" but given that I can get a #6 at 18", a #7 at 22" and a
#8 at 24" is there significance in flatness or speed of work between the
three. Given that the different planes are made, there must be a reason
why.......

Because people insist on being people.

Charlie Self
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or
not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Ernest Benn

Sam the Cat wrote:
Looking to into jointing a board with a hand plane and trying to select
the appropriate type planes.
I can understand that the long the plane the less likely the plane is to
"follow the curve" but given that I can get a #6 at 18", a #7 at 22" and a
#8 at 24" is there significance in flatness or speed of work between the
three. Given that the different planes are made, there must be a reason
why.......

Good question but you've been distracted by the two differnt
places of use for the planes, face and side. Jointing is done to
the side of the board with a shooting board. This allows the
plane, whatever it is, to follow a registerd line and shave the
boards where needed to make them straight of mate to each other.
For this you can use alomost any plane, although a #5 or greater
is easier unless you own a shooting/chuting plane. Flattening the
face of the board is where the length begins to matter. In
theory, a longer plane won't follow the ups and downs of the board
but will span them instead. For this a #6 or better will be
necessary if it's a long board. The plane needs to be of decent
size compared to the board, but if the board is short, say under
3', even a #5 will work adequately. Remeber either buy old planes
or fairly expensive ones, India and China make paperweights, not
planes, newer Stanleys aren't as good as old ones and Buck or
Great Neck aren't worth the effort to fettle, IMHO.
I hope that helps,
Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Remeber either buy old planes
or fairly expensive ones, India and China make paperweights, not
planes, newer Stanleys aren't as good as old ones and Buck or
Great Neck aren't worth the effort to fettle, IMHO.

May I interupt? I seem to have taken up an interest in Anant planes from
India and I wonder about your opinion of them as paperweights... I mean
I know I can agree about China planes without touching one and I have
never shaven a stroke. Have you used the India made Anant planes?
Because I would really like to know about their quality, even if you
know of an online review I'd like read it. Highland Hardware sells them
and has a high opinion of them. http://www.tools-for-woodworking.com/
http://www.anant-tools.com/index2.php

Alex
(not-yet-beginner, or, beginner-not)

AArDvarK wrote:
May I interupt? I seem to have taken up an interest in Anant planes from
India and I wonder about your opinion of them as paperweights... I mean
I know I can agree about China planes without touching one and I have
never shaven a stroke. Have you used the India made Anant planes?
Because I would really like to know about their quality, even if you
know of an online review I'd like read it. Highland Hardware sells them
and has a high opinion of them. http://www.tools-for-woodworking.com/
http://www.anant-tools.com/index2.php

I can only give you my impressions, which is why I put in the
IMHO. I prefer to make my decisions based on my own experience,
whenever possible. Anants were cheap enough that I could talk
myself into buying them to try against my others without crying
too much if they turned out to be junk. I've owned and discarded
a #4, #5, #6 and #78. I found them to be better than the Chinese,
but to have poor fit and finish. Don't even talk to me about the
blades. I found the amount of fettling necessary to make them
square and flat to outrageous. Compared to a Veritas or LN they
were much cheaper, in every sense. Compared to an old Stanley
they cost about the same and are now where near the quality. Just
my opinion, but I bought them before I made it. I was thinking at
the time that a lot of medical instruments are made in Pakistan
and that Kukris are good knives, so that they might have a decent
metal industry in that part of the world. They may still have
one. I don't think that Anant shows it. I don't worry when I see
Pakistan on the side of a medical instrument at work, but I'll
never see Anant on my plane shelves again.

That may have come across a bit strong on rereading it, but
itreally pushed a button. I'm honestly not trying to pick a
fight, I just have a very low opinion of the planes.
Dave Leader
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

**** that is fair enough! I'm only "Mr. Wannaknow" you know... highland
has such a hype on them probably just for sales. But they may have pushed
the issue and these days Anant may be doing it right, who knows, I may try
just one. I think the LN's are too much money so what is your feeling about
Veritas planes? I noticed the LN scraper 112 is $210.00 but the Veritas is
$129.xx...

Alex

Don't know if this still applies to India, but a few years ago I saw a
documentary on India and in one shot a mechanic was re-sizing a piston to
fit a bore. Held in his feet. With a file.

Sounds like the same guys are making the Anant planes.


--
John Snow
"If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't be here"

AArDvarK wrote:
**** that is fair enough! I'm only "Mr. Wannaknow" you know... highland
has such a hype on them probably just for sales. But they may have pushed
the issue and these days Anant may be doing it right, who knows, I may try
just one. I think the LN's are too much money so what is your feeling about
Veritas planes? I noticed the LN scraper 112 is $210.00 but the Veritas is
$129.xx...

Sorry if that seemed defensive, planes take on an almst religious
signifigance here. Get one tuned just right and you'll see why.
Highland has a good reputation and it's been quite a while since I
tried the Anants, so it's possible that they cleaned up their
act. Once upon a time, "Made in Japan" was a curse. I've never
heard anything bad about the Veritas planes, indeed they seem to
be the most inovative planes around. Come to think of it, I heard
that there was a knuckle space issue on one if you had huge hands,
but that's just hearsay, and Robin may have addressed that issue,
if it was a real problem. Since he's undoubltedly listening in
I'd expect to hear from him shortly on this. If you aren't built
on Economy of Scale, it may be moot anyway. LNs are gorgeous, but
the Veritas planes are spiffy too. Both seem to run right out of
the box. The old Stanleys are frequently in a "hone and go"
condition due to the previous owner. Many will need cleaning,
check under "electrolysis" in the archives. It's really a
question of taste and economics. If you don't own ANY planes, go
to the local flea market or antiques shop after reading
www.supertool.com thoroughly and buy a god looking #5. Learn
about planes on it, should cost about $20. You'll learn about
sharpening, maybe fettling - check Jeff Gorman's site. It's a
cheap, instructive lesson, and you'll end up with a good user. A
peice of birch ply will make you a shooting board and there's your
jointer right there.
I hope this helps some, if you have further questions, after doing
the reading, feel free to write off-line. As I said, this has
been talked to death, several times and that might be nicer than
boring everybody to tears, again.

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

In article ,
says...
Jointing is done to
the side of the board with a shooting board. This allows the
plane, whatever it is, to follow a registerd line and shave the
boards where needed to make them straight of mate to each other.

A shooting board? For the edge of a 6' board? For the end, or
for a short edge, yes. But for a long edge, unless you have the
worlds largest shooting board, the reasons you gave for using a
jointer on the face of the board also apply to the edge.

And to the OP, I like a #8 because of the greater mass. Once
you get it going, it seems to bog down less than the lighter
planes. But it's all subjective - as Charlie said, people will
be people.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 06:49:30 -0700, "AArDvarK"
wrote:

Remeber either buy old planes
or fairly expensive ones, India and China make paperweights, not
planes, newer Stanleys aren't as good as old ones and Buck or
Great Neck aren't worth the effort to fettle, IMHO.

May I interupt? I seem to have taken up an interest in Anant planes from
India and I wonder about your opinion of them as paperweights... I mean
I know I can agree about China planes without touching one


not so fast there...

the chinese have been doing woodworking prolly longer than anybody
else. their traditional wood body pull planes are right up there for
quality and usability. chinese made-for-export-copy-of-stanley are
what you'd expect, though...





and I have
never shaven a stroke. Have you used the India made Anant planes?
Because I would really like to know about their quality

the last time I had one in my hands was a few years ago, so they may
have improved. then, what I saw was warped, poorly finished castings,
parts that only sorta approximated fitting together, chrome plate
peeling off, too thin cutters.... real crap.




, even if you
know of an online review I'd like read it. Highland Hardware sells them
and has a high opinion of them. http://www.tools-for-woodworking.com/
http://www.anant-tools.com/index2.php

Alex
(not-yet-beginner, or, beginner-not)

No problem with knuckles on the smoother/jack. They're the ones on my shelf
which DO have enough space for me. My LN low angle, and perhaps the Veritas
take a fingering diagram.

I, too, have had experience with donated Anants. I don't know how much the
outfit wrote off on the donation, but if it was more than a buck and a
quarter each, the IRS oughta lock 'em up. Hell, even the irons chip off
when planing knots, and as to the cast in the body....

"dave in fairfax" wrote in message
...
Highland has a good reputation and it's been quite a while since I
tried the Anants, so it's possible that they cleaned up their
act. Once upon a time, "Made in Japan" was a curse. I've never
heard anything bad about the Veritas planes, indeed they seem to
be the most inovative planes around. Come to think of it, I heard
that there was a knuckle space issue on one if you had huge hands,
but that's just hearsay, and Robin may have addressed that issue,
if it was a real problem.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
A shooting board? For the edge of a 6' board? For the end, or
for a short edge, yes. But for a long edge, unless you have the
worlds largest shooting board, the reasons you gave for using a
jointer on the face of the board also apply to the edge.

And to the OP, I like a #8 because of the greater mass. Once
you get it going, it seems to bog down less than the lighter
planes. But it's all subjective - as Charlie said, people will
be people.

If you look again, you'll see that I said to use some birch ply,
that gives you at least a 5' length. A couple posts back, on this
subject, I said that I live in a townhouse and don't have room for
things like a jointer, but that a shooting board takes up no space
stacked against a wall. If you have a short board then a longer
plane will be useful, but if you a decent length board most any
plane will work adequately. Once it's started the plane will only
tkae the board down as farr as the shooting board has been
recessed. You'll need to advance the edge of the board you're
working on if more needs to be taken off.

I prefer a #7 or #8 as well, but I don't know That the OP is
willing to push that much iron.

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

wrote:
not so fast there...
the chinese have been doing woodworking prolly longer than anybody
else. their traditional wood body pull planes are right up there for
quality and usability. chinese made-for-export-copy-of-stanley are
what you'd expect, though...

the last time I had one in my hands was a few years ago, so they may
have improved. then, what I saw was warped, poorly finished castings,
parts that only sorta approximated fitting together, chrome plate
peeling off, too thin cutters.... real crap.

You're right about the Chinese woodies, I'd assumed that we were
talking metal bodies since the OP asked about Anants. You're
right though, the chines and japanese woodies are a lot of fun and
once you get used to them are very easy to use. Your impressions
of the Anants was what I remembered as well as a chip breaker made
of tinfoil. Fair paper weights.

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

In article ,
says...
If you look again, you'll see that I said to use some birch ply,
that gives you at least a 5' length. A couple posts back, on this
subject, I said that I live in a townhouse and don't have room for
things like a jointer, but that a shooting board takes up no space
stacked against a wall. If you have a short board then a longer
plane will be useful, but if you a decent length board most any
plane will work adequately. Once it's started the plane will only
tkae the board down as farr as the shooting board has been
recessed.

Sorry, I missed that.

But since I've never used a shooting board, I have a question.
You take your plywood and clamp it to the board to be edged,
back just far enough to take off all the irregularities.

Now you start planing. Your last sentence is what I question.
Since most planes have a blade that goes very near the edge, how
do you keep it from cutting into the plywood? I could see it if
the part that rode on the plywood had no blade in it, but I
don't see how that could be the case.

BTW, I use my jointer plane mostly for edge joining two boards
and for that I just clamp them together.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Larry Blanchard wrote:
Now you start planing. Your last sentence is what I question.
Since most planes have a blade that goes very near the edge, how
do you keep it from cutting into the plywood? I could see it if
the part that rode on the plywood had no blade in it, but I
don't see how that could be the case.
BTW, I use my jointer plane mostly for edge joining two boards
and for that I just clamp them together.

What you do to make the shooting board, or what I do anyway, is to
take a long peice of very stable ply and use it as the base of the
board. I then get a thin, 1/4" piece of luan ply and make a
straight line along the length, assuming the edge isn't straight
as it is. Lay the thin ply on the birch ply and slide it back
from the edge far enough for the lane to lie on its side with its
sole touching the edge of the thin ply and be supported entirely,
or more by the birch ply. Like this on an end view.

___________________
|__________________|_______________
| |
|__________________________________|

Glue the two peices of wood together and clamp them flat. When
they're dry, take what ever plane you're going to be using as a
jointer and run it along the edge of the upper board as though you
were jointing a board sitting on the top. This will leave the
ower edeg of the upper board as it was, but will cut a recess into
the upper board as deep as the set of your plane blade. When you
want to joint a couplke of boards, clamps them stacked on top of
the upper board even with the unrecessed edge. Now when you use
your jointer, it will remove the wood up to the point where it
touches its sole on the unrecessed edge of the upper piece of
ply. Once it gets to that point it'll stop cutting. Hopefully
the boards will be jointed, but if there are still some hollows to
be cut out, just advance the two boards a squidge further and do
it again. The nice thing about this is that if the sole and blade
aren't exactly 90 degrees, the dicrepancy will make upo for its
when you put the two baoards together, they'll be complimentary
angles.

It's harder to explain than to do, so if that didn't make sense,
tell me what was murky and I'll try to make sense, no promises
though.

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

dave in fairfax wrote in message ...

Good question but you've been distracted by the two differnt
places of use for the planes, face and side. Jointing is done to
the side of the board with a shooting board.

Respecfully, I think you miswrote here.

Jointing is done to the side (edge to clear) of a board, or
to the edges of two boards clamped together which are to be
edge-joined to make a panel. This is sometimes done with a
jointer fence attached to the plane, but so long as the boards
are clamped together face-to-face or back-to-back the fence
isn't needed as any beveling of the jonted edges will be
suplimentary (e.g. match) to give a flat panel when edge
glued. However a long plane is a big help so as to not
crown the edges from end to end. A long straght edge used
as a guide WOULD make it possible to joint with a short plane,
a 4 1/2 for instance, but I have never seen that done or
even heard of it.

Beveling can be done with a fence on a jointer plane and the
combination of the #6 fore plane with the # 286 jointer fence
(I think that is the right number) was popular among boatwrights.
My guess is the shorter #6 (as oppesd to a #7 or #8 made it
possible to bevel the edges of longish planks while also slightly
crowning them to conform to the complex curvature of the side of
a boat.

I admit to never having used a shooting board, but have seen them
used and typically a shooting board is used to clean up a saw cut
and trim to exactly the correct angle a crosscut of some ilk,
such as a miter cut. Thus a shooting board typically is used to
guide the plane while trimming the endgrain of the board.
A shooting board may be used is used in place of a miter trimmer
or a discsander with miter gague for doing the corners for picture
flames and such.

I don't see how a shooting board could be used to edge joint
a board, though I have heard jointing referred to as 'shooting
the edge' of the board, by Roy Underhill.

... Flattening the
face of the board is where the length begins to matter. In
theory, a longer plane won't follow the ups and downs of the board
but will span them instead. For this a #6 or better will be
necessary if it's a long board. The plane needs to be of decent
size compared to the board, but if the board is short, say under
3', even a #5 will work adequately.

No disagreement here.

--

FF

"George" george@least wrote in message ...

No problem with knuckles on the smoother/jack. They're the ones on my shelf
which DO have enough space for me. My LN low angle, and perhaps the Veritas
take a fingering diagram.

When I first saw the totes on the Veritas I was not impressed.
They looked too clunky. Howver, when I started to use them I realized
that they are the most comfortable of all the planes I own. On the
models I have tried, it looks like they have actually extended the
totes a bit compared to the traditional Stanleys, and even on the
low-angle, there is a bit of extra room.

I, too, have had experience with donated Anants. I don't know how much the
outfit wrote off on the donation, but if it was more than a buck and a
quarter each, the IRS oughta lock 'em up. Hell, even the irons chip off
when planing knots, and as to the cast in the body....

I seem to recall one wrecker (was it you, Lar?) saying that they
managed to get an Anant to perform reasonably well by subbing a Hock
and doing quite a bit of tweaking. Other than that, I haven't heard
of anyone who has had good luck with them.

For my money, there's no question about it. I'm not going to shell
out the bucks for a new Stanley, Anant or any other marginal plane
when there are good old Stanleys, Veritas and L-N's available.


Chuck Vance
Just say (tmPL) IMHO, there's no way you should have to put as
much effort into tuning a new plane as you do one that was built sixty
years ago.

Interspersed comments for ease and clarity, I apologize for not
bottom posting.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
Respecfully, I think you miswrote here.
Jointing is done to the side (edge to clear) of a board, or
to the edges of two boards clamped together which are to be
edge-joined to make a panel.
I guess I missed something, I thought that I'd said that the
jointing was done to the sides of the board. As I've said in the
past, I'm a turner trying to learn flatwork, so maybe I got the
terms mixed up. I use mine to make boards suitable for gluing
together to make wider boards and to clean up the ends of a board.

This is sometimes done with a
jointer fence attached to the plane, but so long as the boards
are clamped together face-to-face or back-to-back the fence
isn't needed as any beveling of the jonted edges will be
suplimentary (e.g. match) to give a flat panel when edge
glued. However a long plane is a big help so as to not
crown the edges from end to end.
No argument there, That's why I pointed out that the length of the
plane in respect to the length of the board is important. It's
also why I said that the two boards jointed at the same time would
mate up because the angles wouyld be complimentary. It's also why
I said #5 or greater.

A long straght edge used
as a guide WOULD make it possible to joint with a short plane,
a 4 1/2 for instance, but I have never seen that done or
even heard of it.
I mentioned using a long straight-edge to check the straightness
of the upper piece of plywood. I wasn't suggesting using it as
the reference surface for the plane, and certainly not for use
with a #4.

I admit to never having used a shooting board, but have seen them
used and typically a shooting board is used to clean up a saw cut
and trim to exactly the correct angle a crosscut of some ilk,
such as a miter cut. Thus a shooting board typically is used to
guide the plane while trimming the endgrain of the board.
I saw shooting boards used to square ends as well as trim angles.

I don't see how a shooting board could be used to edge joint
a board, though I have heard jointing referred to as 'shooting
the edge' of the board, by Roy Underhill.
If you take a look at the sketch I made, the board gets clamped to
the upper board just barely hanging over its edge, and the plane
is put on it's side on the lower board. The plane will remove the
edge of the board up to the point where its sole contacts the edge
of the upper board. At that time, hopefully, the edge of the
board to be jointed will be flat and square. I got the idea from
Jeff Gorman's website,
http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingp...otingindex.htm
but it's possible that I misunderstood what he was saying. It
works, which is what I was looking for.

It's possible that I've misused the shooting board by using it for
edges on boards, but since I don't have a jointer, it'll have to
do. %-)

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

dave in fairfax wrote:

It's possible that I've misused the shooting board by using it for
edges on boards, but since I don't have a jointer, it'll have to
do. %-)

It's certainly not a misuse, as can be seen on this picture from a
German woodworking book (1954):
http://www.holzwerken.de/techniken/stosslade1.jpg
I'd say it's a good way to joint short boards. For long boards a jointer
plane alone should do it.

Wolfgang
--
"Holzbearbeitung mit Handwerkzeugen": http://www.holzwerken.de
Forum Handwerkzeuge:
http://www.woodworking.de/cgi-bin/fo...bbbs_config.pl

Wolfgang Jordan wrote:
It's certainly not a misuse, as can be seen on this picture from a
German woodworking book (1954):
http://www.holzwerken.de/techniken/stosslade1.jpg
I'd say it's a good way to joint short boards. For long boards a jointer
plane alone should do it.

Thanks for the documentation, Wolfgang. That looks like about a
2-2&1/2' shooting board from the picture, the ones I was
suggesting are 5' and longer making longer boards much easier to
use. I'll post a pic to ABPW to see if that makes it any easier
to explain. A long plane, #7 or #8 could be used on top of the
bench alone, I'm just a belt and suspenders type of person.

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

On 7 Jul 2004 05:11:27 -0700, (Conan The Librarian)
calmly ranted:

"George" george@least wrote in message ...

No problem with knuckles on the smoother/jack. They're the ones on my shelf
which DO have enough space for me. My LN low angle, and perhaps the Veritas
take a fingering diagram.

When I first saw the totes on the Veritas I was not impressed.
They looked too clunky. Howver, when I started to use them I realized
that they are the most comfortable of all the planes I own. On the
models I have tried, it looks like they have actually extended the
totes a bit compared to the traditional Stanleys, and even on the
low-angle, there is a bit of extra room.

I remember thinking the same thing from the pictures but will have
to find someone locally with a Veritas plane so I can try it out.


I, too, have had experience with donated Anants. I don't know how much the
outfit wrote off on the donation, but if it was more than a buck and a
quarter each, the IRS oughta lock 'em up. Hell, even the irons chip off
when planing knots, and as to the cast in the body....

I seem to recall one wrecker (was it you, Lar?) saying that they
managed to get an Anant to perform reasonably well by subbing a Hock
and doing quite a bit of tweaking. Other than that, I haven't heard
of anyone who has had good luck with them.

I have only one Hock iron and that came in the $10 #60-1/2 I picked
up from another Wrecker. The message you might remember was way back
when I had just learned ScarySharp(tm)ing and had actually been able
to put an edge on a cheaparse iron from a made-in-India plane. What
I didn't disclose: it lasted only a few strokes before reverting to
its nasty, tear-outy nature. I keep it for use on sticky doors and
gritty, painted stuff where I don't want to lose a decent iron.


For my money, there's no question about it. I'm not going to shell
out the bucks for a new Stanley, Anant or any other marginal plane
when there are good old Stanleys, Veritas and L-N's available.

Agreed! And I'll probably go with a Veritas vs. a L-N due to
owning short crowbars and a proper Scottish wallet. (It screams
when you open it.)


Chuck Vance
Just say (tmPL) IMHO, there's no way you should have to put as
much effort into tuning a new plane as you do one that was built sixty
years ago.


----------------------------------------------
Never attempt to traverse a chasm in two leaps
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
================================================== =========

dave in fairfax wrote in message ...
Interspersed comments for ease and clarity, I apologize for not
bottom posting.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
Respecfully, I think you miswrote here.
Jointing is done to the side (edge to clear) of a board, or
to the edges of two boards clamped together which are to be
edge-joined to make a panel.
I guess I missed something, I thought that I'd said that the
jointing was done to the sides of the board. As I've said in the
past, I'm a turner trying to learn flatwork, so maybe I got the
terms mixed up.

No, no mix up. I just thought 'edge' was clearer than 'side'.

A flat rectangular board has 6 sides, two are faces, two are edges,
two are ends. If you just say 'side' it is clear to me that you
mean the edge, but that might not be clear to others, especially
some of the feriners who read rec.nahrm, though most of them probably
read and write English better than I do.



... It's
also why I said that the two boards jointed at the same time would
mate up because the angles wouyld be complimentary. It's also why
I said #5 or greater.

Here's nit, please don't be annoyed, but complimentary angles sum
to 90 degrees, supplimentary angles sum to 180 degrees. You actually
want supplimentary bevel angles when edge jointing boards.

I mentioned using a long straight-edge to check the straightness
of the upper piece of plywood. I wasn't suggesting using it as
the reference surface for the plane, and certainly not for use
with a #4.

I misunderstood.


I admit to never having used a shooting board, but have seen them
used and typically a shooting board is used to clean up a saw cut
and trim to exactly the correct angle a crosscut of some ilk,
such as a miter cut. Thus a shooting board typically is used to
guide the plane while trimming the endgrain of the board.
I saw shooting boards used to square ends as well as trim angles.

Me too.


I don't see how a shooting board could be used to edge joint
a board, though I have heard jointing referred to as 'shooting
the edge' of the board, by Roy Underhill.

But now I do see is illustrated at a page on the website you
mentioned:

http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingp...ubjointing.htm

Live and learn.

If you take a look at the sketch I made, the board gets clamped to
the upper board just barely hanging over its edge, and the plane
is put on it's side on the lower board.

Where do we find the sketch?

Jeff Gorman's website,
http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingp...otingindex.htm
but it's possible that I misunderstood what he was saying. It
works, which is what I was looking for.

It looks to me like you got it right, and now I've been educated too.


It's possible that I've misused the shooting board by using it for
edges on boards, but since I don't have a jointer, it'll have to
do. %-)

Ah, but if you get a jointe, you'll love using it. A #7 or #8 is
an impressive tool and when you're not truing boards you can whop
pit bulls on the head with it.

--

FF

Larry Jaques wrote:

On 7 Jul 2004 05:11:27 -0700, (Conan The Librarian)
calmly ranted:

When I first saw the totes on the Veritas I was not impressed.
They looked too clunky. Howver, when I started to use them I realized
that they are the most comfortable of all the planes I own. On the
models I have tried, it looks like they have actually extended the
totes a bit compared to the traditional Stanleys, and even on the
low-angle, there is a bit of extra room.


I remember thinking the same thing from the pictures but will have
to find someone locally with a Veritas plane so I can try it out.

You really should. I was reading on woodcentral that some folks
can't even bring themselves to use the Veritas planes because they think
the totes are so ugly. For me it's a no-brainer if I'd prefer to have a
lovely, semi-comfortable tote vs. an ugly tote that fits like a glove.

But then I *use* my planes. :-)

I have only one Hock iron and that came in the $10 #60-1/2 I picked
up from another Wrecker. The message you might remember was way back
when I had just learned ScarySharp(tm)ing and had actually been able
to put an edge on a cheaparse iron from a made-in-India plane. What
I didn't disclose: it lasted only a few strokes before reverting to
its nasty, tear-outy nature. I keep it for use on sticky doors and
gritty, painted stuff where I don't want to lose a decent iron.

Sounds like my newish Stanley block plane. I foolishly bought it
when I was starting out, and I keep it around just for working on ply or
other stuff where I don't want to risk messing up a real plane.

For my money, there's no question about it. I'm not going to shell
out the bucks for a new Stanley, Anant or any other marginal plane
when there are good old Stanleys, Veritas and L-N's available.

Agreed! And I'll probably go with a Veritas vs. a L-N due to
owning short crowbars and a proper Scottish wallet. (It screams
when you open it.)

You've certainly made that clear, Mr. Squeaky Britches. :-)

Knowing what I know now, if I were starting from scratch buying
planes, I'd go almost exclusively with Veritas. I'd probably still have
an old Stanley jointer and fore, but for specialty planes, I don't think
you can get better bang for the buck than the Veritas.


Chuck Vance

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:12:08 -0500, Conan the Librarian
calmly ranted:

Larry Jaques wrote:
I remember thinking the same thing from the pictures but will have
to find someone locally with a Veritas plane so I can try it out.

You really should. I was reading on woodcentral that some folks
can't even bring themselves to use the Veritas planes because they think
the totes are so ugly. For me it's a no-brainer if I'd prefer to have a
lovely, semi-comfortable tote vs. an ugly tote that fits like a glove.

Yes, comfort and control are where it's at.


But then I *use* my planes. :-)

I put several handfuls of redwood shavings from the mantle I
redid Monday, so there! I'll degloss and wax tomorrow,
then install on Saturday after the "known to the Republik of
Kalifornia to be harmful" fumes have outgassed from that nasty
J&J paste wax.


Agreed! And I'll probably go with a Veritas vs. a L-N due to
owning short crowbars and a proper Scottish wallet. (It screams
when you open it.)

You've certainly made that clear, Mr. Squeaky Britches. :-)

Of that I have no doubt.


Knowing what I know now, if I were starting from scratch buying
planes, I'd go almost exclusively with Veritas. I'd probably still have
an old Stanley jointer and fore, but for specialty planes, I don't think
you can get better bang for the buck than the Veritas.

I'm perfectly happy with the ugly^H^H^H^Hfull-of-character old
Stanleys. Maybe one of the new Veritas medium shoulder planes
will find its way here shortly after my birfday next month...
That or fix the li'l 1/2" Knight shoulder plane. It's one of his
earliest models and the epoxy didn't hold the brass sole on as
well as he'd hoped. Some jarrah ought to fix that.


-------------------------------------------
Crapsman tools are their own punishment
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
================================================== ====

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

clip
I'll degloss and wax tomorrow,
then install on Saturday after the "known to the Republik of
Kalifornia to be harmful" fumes have outgassed from that nasty
J&J paste wax.
We seem to have a number of outgassing problems down here... The budget
process in Sacramento come immediately to mind. ;-)

clip

I'm perfectly happy with the ugly^H^H^H^Hfull-of-character old
Stanleys. Maybe one of the new Veritas medium shoulder planes
will find its way here shortly after my birfday next month...

The Veritas Medium Shoulder plane is one sweet tool, Larry. Does the short
crowbar work on someone else's wallet? ;-)

Patriarch,
who eyes the southern Oregon coast as a potential refuge, when the time
comes...

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 23:29:13 GMT, patriarch
calmly ranted:

The Veritas Medium Shoulder plane is one sweet tool, Larry. Does the short
crowbar work on someone else's wallet? ;-)

Not yet, but I'm working on it.


Patriarch,
who eyes the southern Oregon coast as a potential refuge, when the time
comes...

"It ain't far off." he sighed.


-------------------------------------------
Crapsman tools are their own punishment
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
================================================== ====

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
No, no mix up. I just thought 'edge' was clearer than 'side'.
A flat rectangular board has 6 sides, two are faces, two are edges,
two are ends. If you just say 'side' it is clear to me that you
mean the edge, but that might not be clear to others
OK, just so long as we're both singin' from the same page.

Here's nit, please don't be annoyed, but complimentary angles sum
to 90 degrees, supplimentary angles sum to 180 degrees. You actually
want supplimentary bevel angles when edge jointing boards.
You're right, and that's what I was thinking of, a brain fart, I'm
afraid.

I don't see how a shooting board could be used to edge joint
a board, though I have heard jointing referred to as 'shooting
the edge' of the board, by Roy Underhill.

But now I do see is illustrated at a page on the website you
mentioned:
http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingp...ubjointing.htm
Live and learn.
I'ts a great website. Easy to go through and incredibly informative.

Where do we find the sketch?
It was ASCII art in an earlier message. Which, of course, I now can't
find.

Ah, but if you get a jointe, you'll love using it. A #7 or #8 is
an impressive tool and when you're not truing boards you can whop
pit bulls on the head with it.
Yup and it's good for correcting my daughter, too. %-)

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to-is-disabled-due-to-spam
use:
daveldr at att dot net

Member:
America Associaton of Woodturners
www.woodturner.org
http://www.woodturner.org/community/...s/aawlocal.cfm

Capital Area Woodturners
http://capwoodturners.org

Potomac Antiqe Tools and INdustries Association
www.patinatools.org

Just read tghis whole thread. Topic veered into Lee Valley vesus
Lei-Nielson verus Chinese planes versus Anant planes from India. I
suggests looking at the planes from Steve Knight at
http://www.knight-toolworks.com/ .

Regarding the original question: "is there significance in flatness or
speed of work between the three. Given that the different planes are
made, there must be a reason why.......".. I thinks it's just a matter
of accuracy. My feeling is that there's a significant difference
between a #6 and #7 but much less between a #7 and #8.

For readers who might have an engineering abckground, these planes
operate like low pass filters. If the length of the plane is L, then
the plane has (approximately) a low pass response which is a sinc
function whose first null is at 1/L.

So we compare 1/18 versus 1/22 versus 1/24: 0.0555 versus 0.04545
versus 0.04166. If you plotted the responses, you'd see the smaller
number means more "dc" rejection. To a first order, we can directly
compare these numbers:
the 24" is about 9% better than the 22".
the 22" is about 22% better than the 18".

Hope I did the arithmetic correctly....





"Sam the Cat" wrote in message ...
Hey all

Looking to into jointing a board with a hand plane and trying to select
the appropriate type planes.

I can understand that the long the plane the less likely the plane is to
"follow the curve" but given that I can get a #6 at 18", a #7 at 22" and a
#8 at 24" is there significance in flatness or speed of work between the
three. Given that the different planes are made, there must be a reason
why.......

Cheers
Eric (a normite in neander territory)