Anant Bull Nose Rabbet Plane

Page 2 of 2  
Roy wrote:

http://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/hand-plane-restoration-parts-107107/index2.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/how-to-plans/woodworking/1273456?click=main_sr
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/7E/tb_lg_plans-lg-1.jpg
(Amazon.com product link shortened)90360479&sr=1-1
Thank you for all of the links/info. I saved a copy on my desktop. I've recently been reading one you mentioned above: "Making Traditional Wooden Planes", by Whelan. As you already know, he suggests that the best way to make a plane is to already have one like the one you're trying to make. I'll just have to ignore that little aside for now.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill wrote:

Roy, BTW, I was just re-reading a post you made here on 2/10/10 which compared the "practicality" of Finck's book to that of Whelan's book. Thus you can assume that I remember the differences between them that you mentioned verbatim!
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I will be making a spill plane, and will be doing the same as you. I have never actually seen one in the flesh, and will be working from a drawing and a picture.

I'd forgotten that post. Alzheimers kicking in again. I can take a hint and will shut up now. Looks like you're standing on a highly greased steep slope all on your own. Best of luck! Post pictures of whatever you buy or build. Most of all, have fun. Life is too short not to.
Regards, Roy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roy wrote:

I absolutely did not mean that at all! I always learn something from your posts--keep them coming please! I just didn't want you to rework a nicely written essay you already wrote when I could just repost it. Here is is for everyone who is interested, it deserves a repost:
Subject: Re: 2 Books on wooden planes Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:27 AM
>Making Traditional Wooden Planes, by John Whelan >Making and Mastering Wooden Planes (Rev. Ed.), by David Finck > >Can anyone provide a short comparison or review of the 2 wooden hand >plane books I mentioned at the top? > >Bill
I have both books. As someone already mentioned, the Finck book stresses Krenov style planes. The author assumes the reader does have a great deal of expertise with hand planes, and covers all the fundamentals that apply to both metal and wooden planes There is a lot of background info provided as it takes until page 72 to start discussing building a plane and wraps it up in 50 pages. The last 50ish pages are devoted to plane and scraper techniques.
There are a lot of illustrations and photos, some in color. I personally don't care for the esthetics of the Krenov style plane, however, they work well and that is the important point to most people. The book does devote a good amount of space to tuning and tweaking a wooden plane, and also discussing technique. It also has a chapter on sharpening and using scrapers. I have not done a good job reading this book since I only have an electronic copy picked up from one of the alt groups, and I don't really like electronic books for serious study The book is out of print and is listed used on Amazon ranging from $65 to $141 plus shipping.
However, I have been working on catching up with unread messages, and recently saw a post from a Galoot on another list to alert us that Dave Finck has apparently self published a new edition of the book. You can buy it directly from him for $25. I need to order a hard copy myself. His blades are supposed to be very good too, but I have no first hand experience with them. Good site to browse while you're buying the book.
http://www.davidfinck.com/book.htm
The Whelan book is not nearly as fancy as the Finck book. No glossy photos, no color, no slick paper. But it does have about 130 pages of good, solid instruction about plane making. The author assumes you are no beginner to woodworking and know something of the care and feeding of wood planes. The only introductory material consists of a few pages to make sure the reader is aware of the terminology,history and materials used by the old-timers. A whopping four and a half pages are devoted to tuning a wooden plane.
Page 17 starts with making a laminated (Krenov) style plane. Page 22 begins a two piece Jack plane, and the rest of the book is devoted to traditional plane making methods for another 17 or so different planes. Additional types discussed are smoother, jointer, bullnose, boxmaker, various edge treatment planes, dado and various plow planes plus fences. The instructions and drawings are not particularly detailed. However, if you have a copy of the plane you want to recreate in front of you for reference, the discussion in the book is pretty clear. The author states in the summary that he hopes people will be creative, and not just copy, which is why there are not detailed dimensions,
If you're interested in building just one or two block or bench planes in your life, you will not need the Whelan book. However, if you are a Galoot at heart, you will want, nay, need it. Then you need to buy some more tools like floats and planemaker's saws and chisels, which like clamps, are always insufficiently inventoried.
Check out the following site for some beautiful hand made tools, including planes. Derek is extremely talented and energetic. Going through his site is a joy, especially when you keep in mind this is just his hobby, and only does this in his spare time. I don't think he sleeps. Go to the "Shopmade Tools" heading to see his planes. Check out the mesquite jack plane way down at the bottom of the list. Love the razee style.
http://www.inthewoodshop.com/index.html
Crap, I didn't mean to blather on. Buy both books. It's only money and another couple steps down that slope. There's a bunch of us already part way down the hill waiting on you.
Regards, Roy

Thanks! I'm pretty sure I've got a few trips and falls ahead of me if that what you mean! :)
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not a worry. I didn't take it that way. I am much more of a lurker than a poster, and I realized I have been blathering more the last 3-4 days than I usually do in 6 months. When I start repeating myself, it's time to drop back into lurk mode and look for the experts here. A couple have waded in already, and I'm surprised that several others have not.
Regards, Roy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roy wrote:

Here's a link in case I'm wasn't the only one who doesn't know what a "spill plane" is/does:
http://toolmonger.com/2009/11/18/its-just-cool-spill-plane /
Roy must have a pretty complete tool collection for a "non-collector"!
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roy wrote:

Talk is cheap. Hopefully I'll be able to deliver. Like lots of others folks, I would probably progress faster if I didn't have a job! :) These days, I'm thankful to have one though.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/21/2010 9:46 PM, Bill wrote:

Beginning with little more than intent, what a complex web we weave...
You can ask anyone here about the wiring and drywall skills I learned here last summer... One of the longest threads on the Wreck..LOL. I'll post a picture of the results after I paint. You helped bring me up to speed on the Stanley 60, 60 1/2, 62, 62 1/2 block planes and a bunch of other stuff. Bunch of fine folks here. I am however trying to get my money back from one of them folks who sold me the mineral rights to 10 acres of swamp land in Arizona! ;) Having fun!
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip>

Neither do I, but I've got a couple of molding planes from c.a. 1750-1780 that still work shave a nice curl ...
--
If your name is No, I voted for you - more than once ...


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/20/2010 10:15 PM, Roy wrote:

With the exception of the type 12, where the "tall" front knob was introduced. The knobs are prone to breaking at the base, a problem that was mostly fixed by the type 13 when Stanley altered the casting of the base to incorporate a circular "receptacle" to receive the knob and protect it around its perimeter.
--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:32:16 -0600, Steve Turner

Steve,
I don't have a type 12 in any size. I have a #5, #6 and #7 type 11 all with the high front knob, but always thought those were replacements. All have the smaller brass adjusting nut, so they are T11's. I don't suppose you'd have an extra T12 or two setting around, would you? Anybody?
I actually do not collect planes. I ask this as more in the spirit of a, um, science experiment.
Regards, Roy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/21/2010 9:39 PM, Roy wrote:

No, I don't have any type 12 planes; mine are (almost) all type 11s, but I have a couple of type 9s and 10s, and various later types (14-17) as well. Yours all have three patent dates behind the frog? If so, they could be either type 11 or 12; I don't think the castings are any different between those two types. Also, since all the rest of the parts are interchangeable it's not uncommon to see "half-breed" variants of these types, and supposedly many of them came from the factory that way, as the newer parts (tall front knob, larger depth adjustment nut, modified lever cap, logo changes on the cutters) were staged in to replace the old.
The front knobs on your planes could be replacements (in which case the hold-down screw would have to be a replacement as well), but they just as easily could be type 12s before Stanley ran out of small depth adjustment knobs and switched to the larger version. Most type 11s also had the V-shaped logo on the cutter.
I was pretty sure Stanley had introduced the "raised ring" receptacle into the casting with the type 13, but I'm reading one of the "type studies" I've stowed away and it claims that the ring was actually introduced with the type 14... Once again, my memory ain't what it used to be. :-)
--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.