1gill?? dragon's blood?? =A0Bill Fariss Ashburn, Va.




________________________________
From: paul womack  To: oldtools  Sent:
Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:48:13 AM Subject: [OldTools] finishes for
beech planes

Further to, or in addition to the usual discussion on soaking in
linseed oil (or not), I just found this in Spons Workshop Reciepts,
1883, page 86:

Polishing or Oiling: Planes. =97 Planes made from naturally dried beech-
wood are much lighter in colour than those made from artificially dried
or steamed beech. For planes made of the first-named beech, use raw
linseed oil, 1 gill; dragon's blood, 1 pennyworth ; yellow ochre, as
much in bulk as dragon's blood ; mix these together, and rub the planes
all over except the sole or bottom ; let them remain about a week. Take
them and rub well all over with a clean soft rag ; give one more coat
of oil alone. Let it dry for three or four days, then rub well with a
clean rag ; lay them by for a week or two ; rub again with rag, and use
them if wanted. Let care be taken to keep them free from dust while the
oil is wet, or they will be a dirty colour. For steamed beech proceed
the same, except not to use more than about half the quantity of
dragon's blood.

No soaking there.

=A0 BugBear
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.

To change your subscription options:
http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

To read the FAQ: http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html

OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/

OldTools@r... http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

------------------------------------------------------------------------

IIRC, The Old Mill Cabinet Shop and Kremer Pigments both carry dragon's
blood. Ron Banks Fort Worth, TX

> -----Original Message----- From: oldtools-bounces@r...> [mailto:oldtools-
> bounces@r...] On Behalf Of> Bill Fariss Sent: Thursday, November 20,
> 2008 7:13 AM To: paul womack; oldtools Subject: Re: [OldTools]
> finishes for beech planes
>> 1gill??
> dragon's blood?? =A0Bill Fariss Ashburn, Va.>>>>>
> ________________________________ From: paul womack  To:
> oldtools  Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:48:13 AM
> Subject: [OldTools] finishes for beech planes
>> Further to, or in addition to the usual discussion on soaking> in
>> linseed oil (or not), I just found this in Spons Workshop> Reciepts,
>> 1883, page 86: Polishing or Oiling: Planes. > Planes made from
>> naturally dried beech-
> wood are much lighter in colour than those made from artificially
> dried or steamed beech. For planes made of the first-named beech, use
> raw linseed oil, 1 gill; dragon's> blood, 1 pennyworth ; yellow ochre,
> as much in bulk as> dragon's blood ; mix these together, and rub the
> planes all> over except the sole or bottom ; let them remain about a>
> week. Take them and rub well all over with a clean soft rag ;> give
> one more coat of oil alone. Let it dry for three or four days, then
> rub well with a clean rag ; lay them by for a week or two ; rub again
> with rag, and use them if wanted. Let care be taken to keep them free
> from dust while the oil is wet, or they will be a dirty colour. For
> steamed beech proceed the same, except not to use more than about half
> the quantity of dragon's blood.
>> No soaking there. =A0 BugBear
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand> tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the> history,
> usage, value, location, availability,> collectibility, and restoration
> of traditional handtools,> especially woodworking tools.
>> To change your subscription options:
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html
>> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/ OldTools@r...
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand> tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the> history,
> usage, value, location, availability,> collectibility, and restoration
> of traditional handtools,> especially woodworking tools.
>> To change your subscription options:
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html
>> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/ OldTools@r...
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does Clark and Williams finish the sole of their planes?

Matthew Groves
Springfield, MO
www.matthewgroves.com/Hobbies

------------------------------------------------------------------------

GG's: The real problem in interpreting that recipe isn=3Bt the gill=2C
which is a quarter of a pint (somewhat still in use=2C although today
we'd probably describe that as "1/2 cup". The real problem is the
pennyWORTH. Note that that is not a pennyWEIGHT=2C which is 1/20th of a
TROY ounce. I don=3Bt think there is any way to know what a pennyworth
of dragon's blood was in that particular year=2C at least not without a
lot of research !!! And=2C it might even be regional - the price of the
stuff might have been very different in various cities ! Sheesh ! This
can be the start of a great Porch discussion of "pennyworth" !!! John
Ruth Now=2C were did I leave those 10d nails......------------------------------
------------------------------
------------

Further to, or in addition to the usual discussion on soaking in
linseed oil (or not), I just found this in Spons Workshop Reciepts,
1883, page 86:

Polishing or Oiling: Planes. Planes made from naturally dried beech-
wood are much lighter in colour than those made from artificially dried
or steamed beech. For planes made of the first-named beech, use raw
linseed oil, 1 gill; dragon's blood, 1 pennyworth ; yellow ochre, as
much in bulk as dragon's blood ; mix these together, and rub the planes
all over except the sole or bottom ; let them remain about a week. Take
them and rub well all over with a clean soft rag ; give one more coat
of oil alone. Let it dry for three or four days, then rub well with a
clean rag ; lay them by for a week or two ; rub again with rag, and use
them if wanted. Let care be taken to keep them free from dust while the
oil is wet, or they will be a dirty colour. For steamed beech proceed
the same, except not to use more than about half the quantity of
dragon's blood.

No soaking there.

    BugBear
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew Groves asked:

> Does Clark and Williams finish the sole of their planes?
>

Yes, all surfaces are finished with Minwax's Antique Oil Finish -
applied as a wiping varnish. In other words, the oil/varnish is
liberally applied to the surfaces, then all the surplus wiped off
before being allowed to dry. This is followed with a light rub-out
and a coat of high quality furniture wax (i.e., without silicone,
etc.).

When the sole needs trued, usually due mostly to seasonal/environmental
changes, it is an easy matter to refinish and re-wax as desired, with
these readily available materials.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>1gill?? dragon's blood??

1 gill = 1/4 imperial pint (i.e., a pint of 20 fl oz = 34.68 cu in).

Dragon's blood = red gum that exudes from the fruit of some palms and
the dragon tree.

Bill Edwards

This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController -
www.MailController.altohiway.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll leave it up to them to say for sure, but the soles of my C&W smoother
and jointer (both made ca. 2005) sure "look" to my eyes like they're
finished....

Ron Banks
Fort Worth, TX

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oldtools-bounces@r... 
> [mailto:oldtools-bounces@r...] On Behalf Of 
> Matthew and Cathy Groves
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:37 AM
> To: oldtools
> Subject: Re: [OldTools] finishes for beech planes
> 
> Does Clark and Williams finish the sole of their planes?
> 
> 
> Matthew Groves
> Springfield, MO
> www.matthewgroves.com/Hobbies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand 
> tool aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the 
> history, usage, value, location, availability, 
> collectibility, and restoration of traditional handtools, 
> especially woodworking tools.
> 
> To change your subscription options:
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> 
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html
> 
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/
> 
> OldTools@r...
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To all,

Minwax Antique Finish is what the folks at C&W use and I think they look
excellent! Just my opinion of course.

Michael Rogen

----- Original Message ----- From: William Edwards Date: Thursday,
November 20, 2008 8:22 am Subject: RE: [OldTools] finishes for beech
planes To: oldtools@r...

> >1gill?? dragon's blood??
>
> 1 gill = 1/4 imperial pint (i.e., a pint of 20 fl oz = 34.68 cu in).
>
> Dragon's blood = red gum that exudes from the fruit of some palms and
> the dragon tree.
>
> Bill Edwards
>
>
>
> > This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController - www.MailContro
ller.altohiway.com---------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ: http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r... http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Manners wrote:

> The usual recommendation with new wooden planes was to remove the 
> irons, set the wedge lightly, plug the mouth with putty, fill the 
> cavity with linseed oil and wait for about a week until the oil has 
> been absorbed.  Job's done.
>
>
> Regards from Brisbane
>
> John Manners

What type of putty? If its oil based , wouldn`t you be getting an 
unwanted oil  on the plane?  I`m assuming that you don`t want a putty 
that  dries out.

Brian Myers
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Womack writes:

> Polishing or Oiling: Planes. > Planes made from naturally dried beech-
> wood are much lighter in colour than those made from artificially
> dried or steamed beech. For planes made of the first-named beech, use
> raw linseed oil, 1 gill; dragon's blood, 1 pennyworth ; yellow ochre,
> as much in bulk as dragon's blood ;

The usual recommendation with new wooden planes was to remove the irons,
set the wedge lightly, plug the mouth with putty, fill thecavity with
linseed oil and wait for about a week until the oil has been absorbed.
Job's done.

Dragon's blood, if used at all, necessarily had to be sourced from, if
memory serves, the Green-eyed Dragon with the thirteen tails.

The Dragon went down to the kitchen one day where the Fair Princess was
baking, He ate, by mistake, some rich plum cake Which the Fair Princess
was making. That homemade cake he could not digest, He moaned and he
groaned, and at last - went west.

Hence, the rarity of this species of dragon's blood.

Regards from Brisbane

John Manners
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian Myers writes:

> John Manners wrote:
>
>> The usual recommendation with new wooden planes was to remove the
>> irons, set the wedge lightly, plug the mouth with putty, fill the
>> cavity with linseed oil and wait for about a week until the oil has
>> been absorbed. Job's done.
>>
>>
>> Regards from Brisbane
>>
>> John Manners
>
> What type of putty? If its oil based , wouldn`t you be getting an
> unwanted oil on the plane? I`m assuming that you don`t want a putty
> that dries out.

Putty is made with linseed oil and whiting (zinc oxide?) or red lead.
Doesn't dry much in a week, particularly with a throat full of linseed
oil sitting on top of it. Never struck any trouble removing it. What do
you make your putty with?

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners

------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Manners wrote:

> Brian Myers writes:
>
>> John Manners wrote:
>>
>>> The usual recommendation with new wooden planes was to remove the 
>>> irons, set the wedge lightly, plug the mouth with putty, fill the 
>>> cavity with linseed oil and wait for about a week until the oil has 
>>> been absorbed.  Job's done.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards from Brisbane
>>>
>>> John Manners
>>
>>
>> What type of putty? If its oil based , wouldn`t you be getting an 
>> unwanted oil  on the plane?  I`m assuming that you don`t want a putty 
>> that  dries out.
>
>
> Putty is made with linseed oil and whiting (zinc oxide?) or red lead.  
> Doesn't dry much in a week, particularly with a throat full of linseed 
> oil sitting on top of it.  Never struck any trouble removing it.  What 
> do you make your putty with?
>
> Regards from Brisbane,
>
> John Manners
>
I haven`t tried making a plane yet. I just wanted to know future 
reference when I do try to make one.

Thanks,
Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Manners wrote:
> Paul Womack writes:
>>> Polishing or Oiling: Planes. >> Planes made from naturally dried beech-
>> wood are much lighter in colour than those made from artificially
>> dried or steamed beech. For planes made of the first-named beech, use
>> raw linseed oil, 1 gill; dragon's blood, 1 pennyworth ; yellow ochre,
>> as much in bulk as dragon's blood ; The usual recommendation with new
>> wooden planes was to remove the irons,> set the wedge lightly, plug
>> the mouth with putty, fill the cavity with> linseed oil and wait for
>> about a week until the oil has been absorbed. > Job's done.

Yes; it is this treatment that I'm addressing. It appears from
Spons that this was NOT "usual" in 1883, or at least that an
alternative existed.

And by 1928 Woodworker said that soaking was wrong - so wrong that
manufacturers would not warrent a tool so treated

So the question becomes; "in what period was a full linseed
soaking usual?"

I certainly recall a reference speaking of a plane being weighed, soaked
in oil, weighed again, and the weight of the taken-up oil being charged
by the shop that owned the barrel of oil, but I can't remember which
reference :-(

   BugBear
------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about glazer's putty?  Seems to me that should work, non?

- Bill T.
- Also not about to embark on wooden plane-making or soaking, but bored by
work and looking for brief, temporary respites...

-----Original Message-----
From: oldtools-bounces@r...
[mailto:oldtools-bounces@r...] On Behalf Of
myers1a@c...
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 10:52 PM
To: OldTools@r...
Subject: Re: [OldTools] finishes for beech planes

John Manners wrote:

> Brian Myers writes:
>
>> John Manners wrote:
>>
>>> The usual recommendation with new wooden planes was to remove the
>>> irons, set the wedge lightly, plug the mouth with putty, fill the
>>> cavity with linseed oil and wait for about a week until the oil has
>>> been absorbed.  Job's done.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards from Brisbane
>>>
>>> John Manners
>>
>>
>> What type of putty? If its oil based , wouldn`t you be getting an
>> unwanted oil  on the plane?  I`m assuming that you don`t want a putty
>> that  dries out.
>
>
> Putty is made with linseed oil and whiting (zinc oxide?) or red lead.
> Doesn't dry much in a week, particularly with a throat full of linseed
> oil sitting on top of it.  Never struck any trouble removing it.  What
> do you make your putty with?
>
> Regards from Brisbane,
>
> John Manners
>
I haven`t tried making a plane yet. I just wanted to know future
reference when I do try to make one.

Thanks,
Brian.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

John and all,
It is my understanding that the linseed oil treatment was something they 
did in Great Britain. For some reason it was not as common in America. 
If you look at old American planes they are typically lighter in color 
because of this.
Mike

John Manners wrote:
> 
Paul 
> Womack writes:
>
>>> The usual recommendation with new wooden planes was to remove the 
>>> irons, set the wedge lightly, plug the mouth with putty, fill the 
>>> cavity with linseed oil and wait for about a week until the oil has 
>>> been absorbed.  Job's done.
>>
>> Yes; it is this treatment that I'm addressing. It appears from Spons
>> that this was NOT "usual" in 1883, or at least that an alternative 
>> existed.
>>
>> And by 1928 Woodworker said that soaking was wrong - so wrong
>> that manufacturers would not warrent a tool so treated
>>
>>
>> So the question becomes; "in what period was a full linseed soaking
>> usual?"
>
> To answer the last question, I don't recall ever seeing a whole plane 
> submerged in linseed oil and my earliest recollection of seeing the 
> mouth puttied up and the throat filled with oil is from about 60 years 
> ago, the plane being one newly bought by my uncle and left sitting on 
> a shelf above his father's (my grandfather's)workbench with a stern 
> injunction to me and my brother not to touch it.
>
> Thereafter I became further acquainted with the practice from 
> conversations with tradesmen and, in particular, from a piece 
> recommending it in one of the weekly articles on carpentry and 
> cabinet-making which appeared in our daily newspaper in the early 
> fifties.  I was a little bit awed to see in print a write-up of the 
> same process which an uncle of mine had undertaken a few years 
> previously.
>
> It is not thought that the tradesmen of my acquaintance in the late 
> forties and early fifties ever had the advantage of reading Spons or 
> the 1928 "Woodworker".  They read about the politics of the day and 
> the "Guide to Form" and were quick to criticize the weekly article on 
> carpentry if they believed it to be in error.  A classmate of mine who 
> left school at 14 and became apprenticed to a carpenter showed me one 
> of his Technical College books which consisted solely of reprints of 
> all of the newspaper articles.  I doubt if many copies of this tome 
> survive as it was printed on newsprint and stapled between light 
> cardboard covers in those days of austerity.
>
> A warranty for a tool?  No tools were warranted here until the late 
> sixties or early seventies except Sidchrome spanners.  If the plane 
> split apart on its first run down a board or the head flew off the 
> hammer the hardware store proprietor would insist that it was the 
> customer's fault and avoid drinking in the same pub as his customer 
> for the following six months.  All we had was the Sale of Goods Act, 
> all very fine in its own way but, in reality, confined in its use to 
> the more plutocratic members of the commercial community who could 
> afford to engage legal representation concerning, say, the quality of 
> a shipment of several hundred tons of wheat to a flour-mill.   No 
> "consumer watch-dogs" then.
>
> It is clear from the wooden planes that I have acquired that, although 
> some still show putty marks just inside the mouth, most were not give 
> any treatment preliminary to their being put to work and it is just as 
> clear from some of the metal planes I have bought that their new 
> owners did not even bother to stone the iron.  With so little guidance 
> ever being on offer to the neophyte handy-man it is little wonder that 
> he resorted to power tools in a big way when they became plentiful and 
> comparatively cheap, even before the Chinese saturated the power-tools 
> market, and were the only things written about in the newly arrived, 
> generally available woodworking magazines.
>
> The proof, for me, is in the pudding.  Every newly acquired wooden 
> plane gets, at least, its dose of oil poured down its throat. Cracks 
> significantly larger than the hairline variety disappear within a few 
> days and the tendency on the outside grain of coffin smoothers to run 
> out at the midway bulge is subdued.  Longer planes, such as jointers, 
> try planes and jacks, which show signs of having had a bit of 
> merciless treatment with a hammer at either end, are further treated 
> by having their ends dunked in linseed oil for a couple of days and 
> are then permitted to drip out for a day or so, closing up most of the 
> more fearsome cracks developed by their early mistreatment.  The 
> obdurate cracks in the top are simply puttied up with very moist 
> linseed oil putty with a bit of turps added to hasten drying.  When 
> the plane looks and feels dry enough, and this seems to depend on the 
> ambient humidity, I then attend to flattening it sole and, if needs 
> be, patching the mouth.  The patch material is oiled, a bit of mineral 
> turps being mixed with the oil to foster drying, and left to dry for a 
> few days before it is cut and fitted but this does not appear to 
> affect the glue job adversely.  I hesitated to treat my European 
> planes having lignum vitae or suchlike soles in this way for fear that 
> the sole might detach or the different woods would expand at different 
> rates.   Eventually, I experimented with one of these planes which was 
> something of a wreck and found that everything proceeded happily 
> enough and, gradually, I successfully oiled all of them and flattened 
> their soles.
>
> It is probably something to do with the harsh, dry seasons which we 
> experience here but some old wooden planes manage to digest their 
> throat full of oil in less than a day.  However, I leave things at 
> that and do not bother re-priming them.
>
> A treated plane certainly whips down the workpiece with much less 
> friction resistance than its desiccated cousin.
>
> Regards from Brisbane,
>
> John Manners
>
> 
>

-- 
Michael E. Siemsen
Green Lake Clock Co.
http://www.greenlakeclock.com/

Mike Siemsen's School of Woodworking
http://schoolofwood.com/
651-257-9166

Have you practiced today?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The inimitable Bernard Jones had this to say on the topic (The  
Practical Woodworker, original c. 2nd decade of the 20th century,  
this from the 10-Speed Press facsimile edition, 1983), p. 55:

	"A plane should be 'oiled' before using; this makes it heavier,  
lessens the friction, and thus makes the plane work easily.  A  
reasonably heavy plane is better than a light one, as it works more  
solidly and does not require so much pressing down on to the work.   
If the plane, therefore, has not been oiled, or is too light, it  
should be soaked in raw linseed oil or other suitable oil until it is  
a suitable weight.  This is usually done by suspending it in an oil  
tank.  If this is inconvenient the cutter and wedge are taken out,  
the bottom of the mouth of the plane is stopped with putty, and the  
mouth filled with oil  After a few days the oil will have soaked into  
the plane; add more oil until sufficient has been absorbed.  Planes  
are sometimes french-polished, but this is not necessary."

	The companion volume (The Complete Woodworker, p. 38 of the 10-Speed  
Press facsimile edition) has this to say:

	"In the case of new planes it is a good plan to soak them well with  
linseed oil a short time before using, and then, by well rubbing the  
surfaces, a dull finish is obtain, and by following this with an  
occasional rub, the surfaces are kept clean and in good condition.   
Some people oil a new plane by removing the wedge and irons, stopping  
up the mouth on the face with putty, and then filling the mouth with  
linseed oil, leaving it until the oil exudes from the pores and the  
end of the stock; it is allowed to dry, and then polished with  
friction."

	Tom Holloway
------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 09:44 AM 11/25/2008, Mike Siemsen wrote:
>John and all,
>It is my understanding that the linseed oil treatment was something 
>they did in Great Britain. For some reason it was not as common in 
>America. If you look at old American planes they are typically 
>lighter in color because of this.

The lighter color has to do more with the difference between English 
beech and American beech.  I have seen American planes that were oil 
treated as I have seen English planes that were done that 
way.  Usually it was a once and done type job and not something done 
on a regular basis.

The other issue is the fact that the English continued to work in the 
traditional way for a lot longer than the American's did.  By the end 
of WWI, almost all furniture making in this county was done in 
factories.  Not saying that there weren't any smaller traditional 
shops but they were fewer in number.   Over in England a lot of the 
cabinet makers continued to use hand tools up to the WWII era.  A lot 
of rural England (if my reading is correct) wasn't electrified or 
only marginally so until after WWII.   So English planes have a lot 
more working patination on them.

This is also born out in the fact that the last American wooden plane 
makers were gone, at least the major ones by the time of WWI and 
there were still firms making planes in England again up to WWII and 
a little beyond in a few cases.

Tony

                         Olde River Hard Goods
                     http://www.oldetoolshop.com
                                           TSMusic
                http://www.myspace.com/tonyseomusic

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone have any idea how long it would take aplane treated like this
with raw oil to dry well enough to use?

Tom Ellis Dayton OH


> -----Original Message----- From: oldtools-bounces@r...> [mailto:oldtools-
> bounces@r...] On Behalf Of> T&J Holloway Sent: Tuesday, November 25,
> 2008 11:59 AM To: oldtools Subject: Re: [OldTools] finishes for
> beech planes
>>
>       "In the case of new planes it is a good plan to soak> them well
>       with > linseed oil a short time before using, and then, by well
>       rubbing the > surfaces, a dull finish is obtain, and by
>       following this with an > occasional rub, the surfaces are kept
>       clean and in good condition. > Some people oil a new plane by
>       removing the wedge and irons,> stopping > up the mouth on the
>       face with putty, and then filling the mouth with > linseed oil,
>       leaving it until the oil exudes from the pores and the > end of
>       the stock; it is allowed to dry, and then polished with >
>       friction."
>>      Tom Holloway
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas Ellis wrote:

> Anyone have any idea how long it would take a
> plane treated like this with raw oil to dry well
> enough to use?

Almost exactly thirty years ago, I tried this very treatment on a plane
I'd just made. Never again! To this day, if it hasn't been used for a
short period of time, the wedge/iron assembly still tends to stick in
place. And, it has always been harder to adjust than it needs to be
because of the "stickiness" in the escapement.

As to adding weight, as one who has done long planing sessions over
a number of years, any extra and unnecessary weight just adds to the
work load. Consider that many of the 19th century patents for metallic
planes included claims regarding lessening the weight of the planes.
Also, consider that the small amount of weight added by the oil is
completely inconsequential when compared with the downward pressure we
can, and do, apply to the plane during the stroke.

There may be some slight lubricating advantage to this practice, but
keeping some means of lubricating the sole of your planes at the ready
on your bench obviates this.

Finally, as to claims for stabilizing the wood body of wooden planes -
again, I think there is no clear evidence for this. One contemporary
wooden plane maker habitually soaked all of his planes in oil and made
very strong claims about the stability this engendered. After a couple
of years of feedback from his customers, he completely reversed himself
regarding any such claims - and ... quit soaking them in oil. In line
with this, it's been my observation that very few of the antique wooden
planes I've encountered over the years show evidence of this kind of
treatment.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On this linseed oil for wooden planes, should one use raw linseed oil or
boiled or the stuff that has dryers added to it?  I have a number of wooden
planes that would probably benefit from this.

Marcus
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Don McConnell wrote:

>
> Finally, as to claims for stabilizing the wood body of wooden planes -
> again, I think there is no clear evidence for this.

There are penetrating epoxies made for restoring wooden boats,
among other things, which can penetrate a number of inches into
end grain (i.e. the whole body of a wooden plane).  Has anyone
ever eperimented with doing that for stabilization?

	-- Andy Barss
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don and all:

There is pretty good evidence that oil-soaked wood loses strength.  Oil as a
surface protector may be OK, and may not, depending, but soaking seems nuts
to me.

Joe

Joseph Sullivan

 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: oldtools-bounces@r...
[mailto:oldtools-bounces@r...] On Behalf Of Don McConnell
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:20 PM
To: oldtools List
Subject: Re: [OldTools] finishes for beech planes

Thomas Ellis wrote:

> Anyone have any idea how long it would take a
> plane treated like this with raw oil to dry well
> enough to use?

Almost exactly thirty years ago, I tried this very treatment on a plane
I'd just made. Never again! To this day, if it hasn't been used for a
short period of time, the wedge/iron assembly still tends to stick in
place. And, it has always been harder to adjust than it needs to be
because of the "stickiness" in the escapement.

As to adding weight, as one who has done long planing sessions over
a number of years, any extra and unnecessary weight just adds to the
work load. Consider that many of the 19th century patents for metallic
planes included claims regarding lessening the weight of the planes.
Also, consider that the small amount of weight added by the oil is
completely inconsequential when compared with the downward pressure we
can, and do, apply to the plane during the stroke.

There may be some slight lubricating advantage to this practice, but
keeping some means of lubricating the sole of your planes at the ready
on your bench obviates this.

Finally, as to claims for stabilizing the wood body of wooden planes -
again, I think there is no clear evidence for this. One contemporary
wooden plane maker habitually soaked all of his planes in oil and made
very strong claims about the stability this engendered. After a couple
of years of feedback from his customers, he completely reversed himself
regarding any such claims - and ... quit soaking them in oil. In line
with this, it's been my observation that very few of the antique wooden
planes I've encountered over the years show evidence of this kind of
treatment.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Taggart writes:

> How about glazer's putty? Seems to me that should work, non?

Indeed it should in circumstances where linseed oil and whiting putty
made the glazier's traditional putty. Some used the later latex putty on
the grounds that it "shock-proofed" the pane but it never seemed to dry
and was almost impossible to paint over. Linseed oil putty can be made
to dry and harden a little more quickly than otherwise, which is helpful
for glazing, or, at least, for painting over the putty, by the addition
of some mineral turpentine to the oil. Surplus linseed oil putty can be
kept in jar of water and later used after wringing out the water and
kneading again with a little linseed oil. Modern putties which come ready-
prepared with a secret recipe of herbs and spices may be a different
kettle of fish (or chook), of course, but many glaziers still prepare
their own putty for big jobs just like their grand-dads did.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Womack writes:

>> The usual recommendation with new wooden planes was to remove the
>> irons, set the wedge lightly, plug the mouth with putty, fill the
>> cavity with linseed oil and wait for about a week until the oil has
>> been absorbed. Job's done.
>
> Yes; it is this treatment that I'm addressing. It appears from Spons
> that this was NOT "usual" in 1883, or at least that an alternative
> existed.
>
> And by 1928 Woodworker said that soaking was wrong - so wrong that
> manufacturers would not warrent a tool so treated
>
>
> So the question becomes; "in what period was a full linseed
> soaking usual?"

To answer the last question, I don't recall ever seeing a whole plane
submerged in linseed oil and my earliest recollection of seeing the
mouth puttied up and the throat filled with oil is from about 60 years
ago, the plane being one newly bought by my uncle and left sitting on a
shelf above his father's (my grandfather's)workbench with a stern
injunction to me and my brother not to touch it.

Thereafter I became further acquainted with the practice from
conversations with tradesmen and, in particular, from a piece
recommending it in one of the weekly articles on carpentry and cabinet-
making which appeared in our daily newspaper in the early fifties. I was
a little bit awed to see in print a write-up of the same process which
an uncle of mine had undertaken a few years previously.

It is not thought that the tradesmen of my acquaintance in the late
forties and early fifties ever had the advantage of reading Spons or the
1928 "Woodworker". They read about the politics of the day and the
"Guide to Form" and were quick to criticize the weekly article on
carpentry if they believed it to be in error. A classmate of mine who
left school at 14 and became apprenticed to a carpenter showed me one of
his Technical College books which consisted solely of reprints of all of
the newspaper articles. I doubt if many copies of this tome survive as
it was printed on newsprint and stapled between light cardboard covers
in those days of austerity.

A warranty for a tool? No tools were warranted here until the late
sixties or early seventies except Sidchrome spanners. If the plane split
apart on its first run down a board or the head flew off the hammer the
hardware store proprietor would insist that it was the customer's fault
and avoid drinking in the same pub as his customer for the following six
months. All we had was the Sale of Goods Act, all very fine in its own
way but, in reality, confined in its use to the more plutocratic members
of the commercial community who could afford to engage legal
representation concerning, say, the quality of a shipment of several
hundred tons of wheat to a flour-mill. No "consumer watch-dogs" then.

It is clear from the wooden planes that I have acquired that, although
some still show putty marks just inside the mouth, most were not give
any treatment preliminary to their being put to work and it is just as
clear from some of the metal planes I have bought that their new owners
did not even bother to stone the iron. With so little guidance ever
being on offer to the neophyte handy-man it is little wonder that he
resorted to power tools in a big way when they became plentiful and
comparatively cheap, even before the Chinese saturated the power-tools
market, and were the only things written about in the newly arrived,
generally available woodworking magazines.

The proof, for me, is in the pudding. Every newly acquired wooden plane
gets, at least, its dose of oil poured down its throat. Cracks
significantly larger than the hairline variety disappear within a few
days and the tendency on the outside grain of coffin smoothers to run
out at the midway bulge is subdued. Longer planes, such as jointers, try
planes and jacks, which show signs of having had a bit of merciless
treatment with a hammer at either end, are further treated by having
their ends dunked in linseed oil for a couple of days and are then
permitted to drip out for a day or so, closing up most of the more
fearsome cracks developed by their early mistreatment. The obdurate
cracks in the top are simply puttied up with very moist linseed oil
putty with a bit of turps added to hasten drying. When the plane looks
and feels dry enough, and this seems to depend on the ambient humidity,
I then attend to flattening it sole and, if needs be, patching the
mouth. The patch material is oiled, a bit of mineral turps being mixed
with the oil to foster drying, and left to dry for a few days before it
is cut and fitted but this does not appear to affect the glue job
adversely. I hesitated to treat my European planes having lignum vitae
or suchlike soles in this way for fear that the sole might detach or the
different woods would expand at different rates. Eventually, I
experimented with one of these planes which was something of a wreck and
found that everything proceeded happily enough and, gradually, I
successfully oiled all of them and flattened their soles.

It is probably something to do with the harsh, dry seasons which we
experience here but some old wooden planes manage to digest their throat
full of oil in less than a day. However, I leave things at that and do
not bother re-priming them.

A treated plane certainly whips down the workpiece with much less
friction resistance than its desiccated cousin.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 25, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Don McConnell wrote:
> Almost exactly thirty years ago, I tried this very treatment on a  
> plane
> I'd just made. Never again!

Just to clarify:
	I wasn't advocating, mind you.  I was attempting to add some  
specifics on the lore discussed especially by our antipodian brethren  
regarding puttying the mouth and filling up the resulting cavity with  
linseed oil, and letting'er soak and soak.  I have not tried it, and  
don't intend to, but Bernard Jones apparently thought it was the  
cat's pajamas, in the early 20th century.  I have wiped wooden planes  
down with my usual mix of boiled linseed oil cut half-and-half with  
mineral spirits, but Don's experience confirms my suspicion regarding  
full soaking with raw (or even "boiled") linseed oil.
		Tom Holloway

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony Seo writes:

> The other issue is the fact that the English continued to work in the
> traditional way for a lot longer than the American's did. By the end
> of WWI, almost all furniture making in this county was done in
> factories. Not saying that there weren't any smaller traditional shops
> but they were fewer in number. Over in England a lot of the cabinet
> makers continued to use hand tools up to the WWII era. A lot of rural
> England (if my reading is correct) wasn't electrified or only
> marginally so until after WWII. So English planes have a lot more
> working patination on them.

Something similar to the U.K. experience happened in Australia. The
aftermath of WWI followed by the depression in the thirties and the post
WWII austerity years meant that very few could afford to set up what
then would have been state-of-the-art furniture factories and quite a
lot of common and cheap furniture was produced by relatively labour-
intensive means in numerous localities. I don't know when Mathieson &
Son in Glasgow stopped exporting their wooden planes to us but, judging
by the number still appearing at the fleas, it seems that these exports
must have been resumed at some time following WWII. However, there seems
to have been a period after WWII when we were driven to rely on our own
resources as is testified to by the appearance of wooden planes of
European pattern but made of Australian hardwood by Bergs during, I
think, the late forties or early fifties. At the same time as Bergs
wooden planes made their appearance quite a few Australian manufacturers
of metal planes came on to a market which really had been starved for
new tools. All of the planes at the manual arts schoolroom which I
attended were wooden ones with the exception of one metal jack,
jealously guarded by our teacher. I think that wooden planes retained
their position in the market here for quite some time because of their
comparative cheapness.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners

------------------------------------------------------------------------

My thanks to Tom Holloway for furnishing some nice, definitive
statements from yesteryear on the subject of oiling wooden planes. It
had not occurred to me that increasing the plane's weight was a
consideration, my own endeavours being directed to the thoughts of
holding the plane's body together, getting it to resume its correct
shape before flattening the sole and reducing friction. I am now
emboldened to give some of my planes which proved to be particularly
thirsty additional doses of oil.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners

----- Original Message ----- From: "T&J Holloway"  To:
"oldtools"  Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: [OldTools] finishes for beech planes

> The inimitable Bernard Jones had this to say on the topic (The
> Practical Woodworker, original c. 2nd decade of the 20th century, this
> from the 10-Speed Press facsimile edition, 1983), p. 55:
>
> "A plane should be 'oiled' before using; this makes it heavier,
> lessens the friction, and thus makes the plane work easily. A
> reasonably heavy plane is better than a light one, as it works more
> solidly and does not require so much pressing down on to the work. If
> the plane, therefore, has not been oiled, or is too light, it should
> be soaked in raw linseed oil or other suitable oil until it is a
> suitable weight. This is usually done by suspending it in an oil tank.
> If this is inconvenient the cutter and wedge are taken out, the bottom
> of the mouth of the plane is stopped with putty, and the mouth filled
> with oil After a few days the oil will have soaked into the plane; add
> more oil until sufficient has been absorbed. Planes are sometimes french-
> polished, but this is not necessary."
>
> The companion volume (The Complete Woodworker, p. 38 of the 10-Speed
> Press facsimile edition) has this to say:
>
> "In the case of new planes it is a good plan to soak them well with
> linseed oil a short time before using, and then, by well rubbing the
> surfaces, a dull finish is obtain, and by following this with an
> occasional rub, the surfaces are kept clean and in good condition.
> Some people oil a new plane by removing the wedge and irons, stopping
> up the mouth on the face with putty, and then filling the mouth with
> linseed oil, leaving it until the oil exudes from the pores and the
> end of the stock; it is allowed to dry, and then polished with
> friction."
>
> Tom Holloway
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ: http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r... http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version:
> 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date:
> 25/11/2008 19:53
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Ellis writes:

Anyone have any idea how long it would take a plane treated like this
with raw oil to dry well enough to use?

Usual unsatisfactory answer is, "It all depends". Mostly, I think, on
the ambient humidity. It certainly dries more quickly if some mineral
turpentine in, say, 1 part of turps to 4 parts oil ( I seldom measure
these things with any accuracy) is added to the oil. If this is done it
should be dry in less than a week. If considerable oil sweats through
the wood (this rarely happens) it is cleaned off with turps and if the
oil disappears from the throat but leaves a slight residue the throat is
washed out with turps, leaving the throat dry. It is supposed that a
plane may become super-saturated with oil but the right balance seems to
be easily regained with use of turps. I most cases the oil just
disappears within a week.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ellis, Thomas" 
To: "T&J Holloway" ; "oldtools"  Sent:
Wednesday, November 26, 2008 3:22 AM Subject: RE: [OldTools] finishes
for beech planes

Anyone have any idea how long it would take a plane treated like this
with raw oil to dry well enough to use?

Tom Ellis Dayton OH

> -----Original Message----- From: oldtools-bounces@r... [mailto:oldtools-
> bounces@r...] On Behalf Of T&J Holloway Sent: Tuesday, November 25,
> 2008 11:59 AM To: oldtools Subject: Re: [OldTools] finishes for
> beech planes
>
>
> "In the case of new planes it is a good plan to soak them well with
> linseed oil a short time before using, and then, by well rubbing the
> surfaces, a dull finish is obtain, and by following this with an
> occasional rub, the surfaces are kept clean and in good condition.
> Some people oil a new plane by removing the wedge and irons, stopping
> up the mouth on the face with putty, and then filling the mouth with
> linseed oil, leaving it until the oil exudes from the pores and the
> end of the stock; it is allowed to dry, and then polished with
> friction."
>
> Tom Holloway
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galooterati:

Tom Ellis asked:

"Anyone have any idea how long it would take a plane [soaked in] raw oil
to dry well enough to use?"

I don't know about raw oil, but around twenty years ago I bought a "new
old" English smoother, one of dozens of identical planes found in a
barrel in a hardware store completely unused and never finished in any
way. I stopped the mouth with glazier's putty and kept it full of boiled
linseed oil until the oil showed at the ends. As best I remember it was
dry enough to handle and to have been used in a couple of weeks.

As it happens the plane never has been used, but that has nothing to do
with the oil: the problem is that the blade is made out of pot metal.
This was my first wooden plane and I sharpened it and set it and tried
it over and over again trying to get it to work; it was only when I had
other, old, planes to compare with it that I really convinced myself
that the steel was bad and simply wouldn't hold an edge. I've often
remembered bitterly the amount of work I put into that plane before I
tried sharpening it. Someday I'll get a decent blade for it, or maybe
try hardening the one it has.

Before soaking in oil the wood of this plane was very pale, but the oil
turned it a gorgeous dark red. I had a similar experience with my first
bookbinder's sewing frame, also of unfinished beech and many years old
when I bought it: it turned from the palest biscuit to deep red when I
soaked it in oil. Somewhere in my experience I think I have seen two
items from the same piece of wood, soaked in oil immediately after
purchase with fresh-cut surfaces and soaked in oil some years later
after sitting and oxidizing for all that time. Both looked pale-biscuit
before finishing, but the fresh surface didn't darken much with oil
while the old/oxidized surface darkened strikingly to a deep red. In
consequence I have never been quite convinced by the claim that American
beech is paler than European beech: I have seen old/unfinished European
beech as pale as any American beech I have seen, and I have seen
American beech that darkened markedly when an old surface was oiled. I
think the apparent difference is more a matter of different seasoning
and finishing practices than any real difference in the wood.

Tom Conroy Berkeley


------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few (well, OK "many") year ago I did some experiments with this method. I
used BLO - the heavy metals dryer type. I took a bunch of beech blocks -
about 3"x3"x15", bored a good sized hole in the middle (where the blade
would go if it was a plane), and filled it with oil. After a good soak -
long enough that the oil was coming out the ends of the wood, I checked them
daily. Most of them had skinned over in a few days, but a decent scratch in
the wood would expose wet oil. After a few weeks, a deep scratch wouldn't
expose wet oil, but a split would show that the oil was still wet in the
middle. Some months later, splitting one open revealed that he oil had
polymerized all the way to the center.

I didn't check to see if the hardness or durability was effected, and I
didn't have either raw or non-heavy metal laced BLO available...

-James

-----Original Message-----
From: oldtools-bounces@r...
[mailto:oldtools-bounces@r...] On Behalf Of Thomas Conroy
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 8:34 PM
To: oldtools@r...
Subject: RE: [OldTools] finishes for beech planes

Galooterati:

Tom Ellis asked:

"Anyone have any idea how long it would take a
plane [soaked in] raw oil to dry well
enough to use?"

I don't know about raw oil, but around twenty years ago I bought a "new old"
English smoother, one of dozens of identical planes found in a barrel in a
hardware store completely unused and never finished in any way. I stopped
the mouth with glazier's putty and kept it full of boiled linseed oil until
the oil showed at the ends. As best I remember it was dry enough to handle
and to have been used in a couple of weeks. 

As it happens the plane never has been used, but that has nothing to do with
the oil: the problem is that the blade is made out of pot metal. This was my
first wooden plane and I sharpened it and set it and tried it over and over
again trying to get it to work; it was only when I had other, old, planes to
compare with it that I really convinced myself that the steel was bad and
simply wouldn't hold an edge. I've often remembered bitterly the amount of
work I put into that plane before I tried sharpening it. Someday I'll get a
decent blade for it, or maybe try hardening the one it has.

Before soaking in oil the wood of this plane was very pale, but the oil
turned it a gorgeous dark red. I had a similar experience with my first
bookbinder's sewing frame, also of unfinished beech and many years old when
I bought it: it turned from the palest biscuit to deep red when I soaked it
in oil. Somewhere in my experience I think I have seen two items from the
same piece of wood, soaked in oil immediately after purchase with fresh-cut
surfaces and soaked in oil some years later after sitting and oxidizing for
all that time. Both looked pale-biscuit before finishing, but the fresh
surface didn't darken much with oil while the old/oxidized surface darkened
strikingly to a deep red. In consequence I have never been quite convinced
by the claim that American beech is paler than European beech: I have seen
old/unfinished European beech as pale as any American beech I have seen, and
I have seen American beech that darkened markedly when an old surface
 was oiled. I think the apparent difference is more a matter of different
seasoning and finishing practices than any real difference in the wood.

Tom Conroy
Berkeley

      
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don McConnell writes:

> Almost exactly thirty years ago, I tried this very treatment on a
> plane I'd just made. Never again! To this day, if it hasn't been used
> for a short period of time, the wedge/iron assembly still tends to
> stick in place. And, it has always been harder to adjust than it needs
> to be because of the "stickiness" in the escapement.

Ah, the old "stickiness in the escapement" syndrome! Stickiness in that
patch of air between the front of the plane's throat and the top of the
wedge through which the shavings endeavour, through the stickiness, to
escape unless, of course, we are referring to a side-escapement plane.
Can't say I've ever experienced it myself. Better stickiness in the
escapement, one supposes, than stickiness on the plane's bed or on the
surfaces of the slots of the abutments. And recurring over short periods
of time. Preferable, perhaps, to short periods of whatever else is
susceptible to being divided into short periods.

On the other hand, although, doubtless, some may regard it as perverse,
it is a comfort to others that, when set, a plane's iron assembly and
wedge tend to stay stuck in the given position. Some might even claim
that such a phenomenon is downright desirable but perhaps they are yet
to become acquainted with hitherto unsuspected functions of the wedge.

It verges on the cathartic, mixed with despair, to come to the
realization that all of those planes over the years which first were
difficult to adjust as required had no need of all of the bed-
flattening, abutment-scraping and wedge-paring which, notwithstanding
the New Enlightenment, gave one the impression, now suspected to be
false, of resolving their adjustment problems.

We are also informed that those who oil their planes seek,
unsuccessfully, to "stabilize the wood" and we are all grateful for
being made the giftees of that insight into the futility of our actions.
If the displacement of water in timber with an oil which does not
evaporate from the timber like water does but dries in situ without any
appreciable loss of volume is not "stabilisation" then there is,
doubtless, another word for the process. If the application of oil on a
desiccated plane body with the result that its cracks close is not "re-
stabilisation" then, also, someone will eventually give us the correct
noun for this phenomenon.

It is not thought that Tom Holloway, quoting from Bernard Jones, or
anyone else has advocated the oiling of a wooden plane for the purpose
of increasing its weight. Even Bernard Jones strikes the correct note in
saying: "If the plane, therefore, has not been oiled, or is too light,
it should be soaked in raw linseed oil or other suitable oil until it is
a suitable weight." Jones clearly understood, it is inferred, that the
weight of a tool is a subjective thing, dependent upon the preferences
of the user whose preferences are usually guided by his own strength and
fitness. It is thought that, if optimally seasoned timber had some or
most of its water replaced by oil, it is unlikely that there would be
any weight gain and it seems that Jones was considering a dried-out
plane when mentioning a plane which is "too light". It is a nonsensical
and disingenuous setting up of a knock-em-down doll to run the weight of
a plane and the and the workman's downwards pressure on it into the same
paddock. Where a plane must be moved to perform its work, it is the
momentum of the tool, after the workman has overcome its initial
inertia, which sees it moving forward against the resistance of the cut
and friction. The combination of high velocity and low mass or low
velocity and high mass can result in the same momentum and it all really
comes back to the workman's preference in getting the job done.
Naturally, the plane must be held down to the workpiece but all the
downwards pressure in the world will not plane it unless the plane is
moving forward.

It would be of interest to the List, it is thought, if the name of the
"contemporary wooden plane maker" was made known and his pronouncements,
in their original form, given an airing.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners

----- Original Message ----- From: "Don McConnell" 
To: "oldtools List"  Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008
5:19 AM Subject: Re: [OldTools] finishes for beech planes

>
> Thomas Ellis wrote:
>
>> Anyone have any idea how long it would take a plane treated like this
>> with raw oil to dry well enough to use?
>
> Almost exactly thirty years ago, I tried this very treatment on a
> plane I'd just made. Never again! To this day, if it hasn't been used
> for a short period of time, the wedge/iron assembly still tends to
> stick in place. And, it has always been harder to adjust than it needs
> to be because of the "stickiness" in the escapement.
>
> As to adding weight, as one who has done long planing sessions over a
> number of years, any extra and unnecessary weight just adds to the
> work load. Consider that many of the 19th century patents for metallic
> planes included claims regarding lessening the weight of the planes.
> Also, consider that the small amount of weight added by the oil is
> completely inconsequential when compared with the downward pressure we
> can, and do, apply to the plane during the stroke.
>
> There may be some slight lubricating advantage to this practice, but
> keeping some means of lubricating the sole of your planes at the ready
> on your bench obviates this.
>
> Finally, as to claims for stabilizing the wood body of wooden planes -
> again, I think there is no clear evidence for this. One contemporary
> wooden plane maker habitually soaked all of his planes in oil and made
> very strong claims about the stability this engendered. After a couple
> of years of feedback from his customers, he completely reversed
> himself regarding any such claims - and ... quit soaking them in oil.
> In line with this, it's been my observation that very few of the
> antique wooden planes I've encountered over the years show evidence of
> this kind of treatment.
>
> Don McConnell Eureka Springs, AR
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ: http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r... http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version:
> 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date:
> 25/11/2008 19:53
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marcus Ward writes:

> On this linseed oil for wooden planes, should one use raw linseed oil
> or boiled or the stuff that has dryers added to it? I have a number of
> wooden planes that would probably benefit from this.

Raw linseed oil has been used traditionally. Boiled linseed oils dries
out quickly to form a film and it is thought that it would not penetrate
the wood to any great extent. Raw linseed oil takes a while to dry in
conditions of medium to high humidity and the addition of some mineral
turps to the raw linseed oil speeds up the drying process.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Conroy writes:

> I don't know about raw oil, but around twenty years ago I bought a
> "new old" English smoother, one of dozens of identical planes found in
> a barrel in a hardware store completely unused and never finished in
> any way. I stopped the mouth with glazier's putty and kept it full of
> boiled linseed oil until the oil showed at the ends. As best I
> remember it was dry enough to handle and to have been used in a couple
> of weeks

and

> As it happens the plane never has been used, but that has nothing to
> do with the oil: the problem is that the blade is made out of pot
> metal. This was my first wooden plane and I sharpened it and set it
> and tried it over and over again trying to get it to work;

Over the years I have acquired several small wooden planes, simple
things, 7 1/2" long with single irons 1 1/2" wide and with a tallish,
thin, mushroom-looking knob at the front. With two of them, although the
beech timber was sound enough, the irons were as Tom describes,
incapable of holding an edge. A Czechoslovakian firm made similar planes
but with a bead along the side under the "Tigre" brand but their irons
are superb.

The maker of the planes with the dud irons did not bother to disclose
his name or country of origin on his products but I suspect that were
made in the U.K. shortly after the war when good materials were as
hard to come by there as they were here. My reason for suspecting that
they were made in the U.K. is that I have what appear to be older
planes of identical pattern with "Sheffield" on the irons.
Fortunately, I had managed to acquire at the flea what must once have
been someone's stash of old irons, doubles and singles, amongst which
were several 1 1/2" or 40 mm irons, one being a "Two Cherries", which
replaced the original apologies for irons quite satisfactorily. These
little planes can easily be used in one hand and are useful for all
sorts of light cleaning-up work.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with the use of oils to stabilize wood is that they don't do it.
What oils actually do, for a short period of time, is to add bulk to the
cells of desiccated material.  However, the oils tend over time to weaken
the wood, and to chemically react to things present in the wood (such as
tannins) and to outside influences (such as air pollutants and who knows
what that comes in contact with the wood).  These reactions can under some
circumstances be very bad for the wood.

It is possible to use various kinds of polymers to semi-permanently
strengthen and bulk the cells of the wood.  These treatments have not yet
been commercialized, but they are used in some of the top archaeological
preservation labs.

It is a question of longevity.  Oil today may help today, but may assure
that the tool does not last another full generation.  Does one care?

Joe

Joseph Sullivan

 
-----Original Message-----
From: oldtools-bounces@r...
[mailto:oldtools-bounces@r...] On Behalf Of John Manners
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 7:08 PM
To: Don McConnell; oldtools List
Subject: Re: [OldTools] finishes for beech planes

Don McConnell writes:

> Almost exactly thirty years ago, I tried this very treatment on a plane
> I'd just made. Never again! To this day, if it hasn't been used for a
> short period of time, the wedge/iron assembly still tends to stick in
> place. And, it has always been harder to adjust than it needs to be
> because of the "stickiness" in the escapement.

Ah, the old "stickiness in the escapement" syndrome!  Stickiness in that
patch of air between the front of the plane's throat and
the top of the wedge through which the shavings endeavour, through the
stickiness, to escape unless, of course, we are referring to
a side-escapement plane.  Can't say I've ever experienced it myself.  Better
stickiness in the escapement, one supposes, than
stickiness on the plane's bed or on the surfaces of the slots of the
abutments.  And recurring over short periods of time.
Preferable, perhaps, to short periods of whatever else is susceptible to
being divided into short periods.

On the other hand, although, doubtless, some may regard it as perverse, it
is a comfort to others that, when set, a plane's iron
assembly and wedge tend to stay stuck in the given position.  Some might
even claim that such a phenomenon is downright desirable
but perhaps they are yet to become acquainted with hitherto unsuspected
functions of the wedge.

It verges on the cathartic, mixed with despair, to come to the realization
that all of those planes over the years which first were
difficult to adjust as required had no need of all of the bed-flattening,
abutment-scraping and wedge-paring which, notwithstanding
the New Enlightenment, gave one the impression, now suspected to be false,
of resolving their adjustment problems.

We are also informed that those who oil their planes seek, unsuccessfully,
to "stabilize the wood" and we are all grateful for being 
made the giftees of that insight into the futility of our actions.  If  the
displacement of water in timber with an oil which does 
not evaporate from the timber like water does but dries in situ without any
appreciable loss of volume is not "stabilisation" then 
there is, doubtless, another word for the process.  If the application of
oil on a desiccated plane body with the result that its 
cracks close is not "re-stabilisation" then, also, someone will eventually
give us the correct noun for this phenomenon.

It is not thought that Tom Holloway, quoting from Bernard Jones, or anyone
else has advocated the oiling of a wooden plane for the 
purpose of increasing its weight.  Even Bernard Jones strikes the correct
note in saying: "If the plane, therefore, has not been 
oiled, or is too light, it  should be soaked in raw linseed oil or other
suitable oil until it is a suitable weight."  Jones clearly 
understood, it is inferred, that the weight of a tool is a subjective thing,
dependent upon the preferences of the user whose 
preferences are usually guided by his own strength and fitness. It is
thought that, if optimally seasoned timber had some or most of 
its water replaced by oil, it is unlikely that there would be any weight
gain and it seems that Jones was considering a dried-out 
plane when mentioning a plane which is "too light". It is a nonsensical and
disingenuous setting up of a knock-em-down doll to run 
the weight of a plane and the and the workman's downwards pressure on it
into the same paddock.  Where a plane must be moved to 
perform its work, it is the momentum of the tool, after the workman has
overcome its initial inertia, which sees it moving forward 
against the resistance of the cut and friction.  The combination of high
velocity and low mass or low velocity and high mass can 
result in the same momentum and it all really comes back to the workman's
preference in getting the job done.  Naturally, the plane 
must be held down to the workpiece but all the downwards pressure in the
world will not plane it unless the plane is moving forward.

It would be of interest to the List, it is thought, if the name of the
"contemporary wooden plane maker" was made known and his 
pronouncements, in their original form, given an airing.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don McConnell" 
To: "oldtools List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 5:19 AM
Subject: Re: [OldTools] finishes for beech planes

>
> Thomas Ellis wrote:
>
>> Anyone have any idea how long it would take a
>> plane treated like this with raw oil to dry well
>> enough to use?
>
> Almost exactly thirty years ago, I tried this very treatment on a plane
> I'd just made. Never again! To this day, if it hasn't been used for a
> short period of time, the wedge/iron assembly still tends to stick in
> place. And, it has always been harder to adjust than it needs to be
> because of the "stickiness" in the escapement.
>
> As to adding weight, as one who has done long planing sessions over
> a number of years, any extra and unnecessary weight just adds to the
> work load. Consider that many of the 19th century patents for metallic
> planes included claims regarding lessening the weight of the planes.
> Also, consider that the small amount of weight added by the oil is
> completely inconsequential when compared with the downward pressure we
> can, and do, apply to the plane during the stroke.
>
> There may be some slight lubricating advantage to this practice, but
> keeping some means of lubricating the sole of your planes at the ready
> on your bench obviates this.
>
> Finally, as to claims for stabilizing the wood body of wooden planes -
> again, I think there is no clear evidence for this. One contemporary
> wooden plane maker habitually soaked all of his planes in oil and made
> very strong claims about the stability this engendered. After a couple
> of years of feedback from his customers, he completely reversed himself
> regarding any such claims - and ... quit soaking them in oil. In line
> with this, it's been my observation that very few of the antique wooden
> planes I've encountered over the years show evidence of this kind of
> treatment.
>
> Don McConnell
> Eureka Springs, AR
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r...
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release
Date: 25/11/2008 19:53
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 28, 2008, at 8:33 AM, Joseph Sullivan wrote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~chop~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is possible to use various kinds of polymers to semi-permanently
strengthen and bulk the cells of the wood.  These treatments have not  
yet
been commercialized, but they are used in some of the top archaeological
preservation labs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Chop~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  The boat guys do this. Check Jamestown Distributors.

Spike Cornelius
PDX
           Crazy for Shavings

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed.  However, the treatments I mentioned are quite a bit different from
the stuff the boat guys use.  The labs use specialized active polymers that
penetrate the wood and cross-link, but are invisible to the eye.  I have
handled leather, wood and textiles that have been submerged anywhere from
300 to 4,000 years, treated with the new methods, and thereby stablized to
the point that climate control and even white gloves are no longer
necessary.  What's more, they look like what they are, with no gloss, sheen,
or coating -- and, above all, they do not shrink or deform.

Joe

Joseph Sullivan

 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Spike Cornelius [mailto:spikethebike@c...] 
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 1:48 PM
To: joe@j...
Cc: 'John Manners'; 'Don McConnell'; 'oldtools List'
Subject: Re: [OldTools] finishes for beech planes

On Nov 28, 2008, at 8:33 AM, Joseph Sullivan wrote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~chop~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is possible to use various kinds of polymers to semi-permanently
strengthen and bulk the cells of the wood.  These treatments have not  
yet
been commercialized, but they are used in some of the top archaeological
preservation labs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Chop~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  The boat guys do this. Check Jamestown Distributors.

Spike Cornelius
PDX
           Crazy for Shavings

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe, Sounds like good stuff, can I soak myself in it?
Mike

Joseph Sullivan wrote:
> Indeed.  However, the treatments I mentioned are quite a bit different from
> the stuff the boat guys use.  The labs use specialized active polymers that
> penetrate the wood and cross-link, but are invisible to the eye.  I have
> handled leather, wood and textiles that have been submerged anywhere from
> 300 to 4,000 years, treated with the new methods, and thereby stablized to
> the point that climate control and even white gloves are no longer
> necessary.  What's more, they look like what they are, with no gloss, sheen,
> or coating -- and, above all, they do not shrink or deform.
>
> Joe
>
> Joseph Sullivan
>
>  
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spike Cornelius [mailto:spikethebike@c...] 
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 1:48 PM
> To: joe@j...
> Cc: 'John Manners'; 'Don McConnell'; 'oldtools List'
> Subject: Re: [OldTools] finishes for beech planes
>
>
> On Nov 28, 2008, at 8:33 AM, Joseph Sullivan wrote:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~chop~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> It is possible to use various kinds of polymers to semi-permanently
> strengthen and bulk the cells of the wood.  These treatments have not  
> yet
> been commercialized, but they are used in some of the top archaeological
> preservation labs.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Chop~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>   The boat guys do this. Check Jamestown Distributors.
>
>
>
>
> Spike Cornelius
> PDX
>            Crazy for Shavings
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   

-- 
Michael E. Siemsen
Green Lake Clock Co.
http://www.greenlakeclock.com/

Mike Siemsen's School of Woodworking
http://schoolofwood.com/
651-257-9166

Have you practiced today?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is interesting - here we always sing the praises of a nice, beefy,
tapered, forged blade - and here is Woodwork 1930 dissing it in favor of a
drawn (I presume) steel parallel-sided blade.

I dunno that I would characterize such a thing "A much better type of
blade"...  Especially in a woodie.

And the assertion that the reason there was a steel bit forged onto an iron
back was because "it is easier to grind ha1f-and-half steel and iron than to
grind a solid steel blade"?  I have always understood it was because (1)
steel was a more precious commodity back then and (2) the iron absorbed the
shock better, while the steel held an edge better, so the combination of the
two made a better blade.

And as far as the back being "left rough-forged"?  That doesn't always have
to be the case.  I'll have to pull a few irons in some of the wooden planes
I have at home, but as I recall, they're all pretty well smooth and flat.

- Bill T.
- Age-old questions that remain debatable still, I guess...

-----Original Message-----
Another cause of chattering i(s a faulty blade. Most
planes are fitted with a tapered blade, as at Fig 3,
consisting of a small piece of steel which is forged on
to a wrought iron blade, The idea being that it is easier
to grind ha1f-and-half steel and iron than to grind a
solid steel blade. Many of these irons are left rough
forged at the back and consequently they do not bed accu-
rately on to the frog of the plane. Furthermore, as this
type of tapered blade is ground away to, say, the line A
it increases the opening at the mouth of the plane. This,
of course, is obvious owing to its tapered length. A much
better type of blade is the gauged iron depicted at Fig 4.
in this case the iron is parallel in thickness and the
back of the blade is ground and polished perfectly flat
and out of winding. All American pattern iron planes have
this gauged type of iron to ensure that they bed evenly on
the frog and to prevent any increase in the opening of the
mouth as the blade is worn shorter in length. This method
is of course, theoretically correct.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

paul womack wrote:
>> And by 1928 Woodworker said that soaking was wrong - so wrong
> that manufacturers would not warrent a tool so treated
>> I certainly recall a reference speaking of a plane being weighed,
> soaked in oil, weighed again, and the weight of the taken-up oil being
> charged by the shop that owned the barrel of oil, but I can't remember
> which reference :-(

My memory is failing me. The reference was Woodworker 1930, not 1928,
and included the notion of dipping and weighing.

Herewith:

Forty years ago it was the general practice to take a new beechwood
plane to the chandler's or oil stores to have it soaked in raw linseed
oil. The oilman generally weighed the plane minus the blades and then
proceeded to tie a piece of strong twine to it, after which he threw it
bodily into the drum of linseed oil. In a week or ten days the owner,
usually an apprentice, would call and the oilman would withdraw the
plane from the drum by hauling in the twine. After the plane was drained
the oilman again weighed it and charged the owner for the oil absorbed
plus his labour. The plane was left for a few days to allow for
oxidation of the oil, after which the blade, etc. was adjusted and the
plane put into action. Another method was to putty up the mouth of the
plane and then to pour raw linseed oil into the escapement, after which
the plane as allowed to soak up the oil, which was, if necessary,
replenished once or twice.

Nowadays the plane makers decry such treatment, and at least one firm
issues a danger label printed in red which distinctly states that if the
plane be soaked in oil their warranty ceases. The accepted treatment at
the moment is to wipe the plane over thoroughly with a freely charged
linseed oil rag every day for from seven to ten day's, after which the
plane is fadded-in with french polish. One is apt to refer to work done
in the "good old days" so why this alteration in treatment?

First of all let us examine the end of a plane and we shall see that,
if a careful selection of timber has been made. the annual rings and
the medullary rays wll run approximately as shown at Fig 1. In other
words, the blocks from which the plane is made has been quarter sawn.
If cut as at Fig. I the sole stands up to the wear better and the
tendency for shrink is minimised because it is more or less in the
direction of the arrow. To illustrate this this more forcibly look at
Fig. 2, where the effect of circumferential shrinkave is shown, and it
will be obvious that, if the plane block were cut like this, the side
of the plane and its sole would soon cease to be at right angles and
this shape would be practically useless when used in conjunction with
the shooting board. Soaking the plane in oil has a tendency to swell
the wood and cause undue distortion, whereas if the plane is gradually
oiled the pores are filled gradually as the oxidation of the oil takes
place. The appli- cation of a little french polish as a finishing
process further seals the pores and makes for cleanliness. Swelling the
wood with oil also causes the frog (or the part on which the blade
beds) to become twisted, and this produces "chattering" and imperfect
cutting when the plane is in use.

Another cause of chattering i(s a faulty blade. Most planes are fitted
with a tapered blade, as at Fig 3, consisting of a small piece of steel
which is forged on to a wrought iron blade, The idea being that it is
easier to grind ha1f-and-half steel and iron than to grind a solid steel
blade. Many of these irons are left rough forged at the back and
consequently they do not bed accu- rately on to the frog of the plane.
Furthermore, as this type of tapered blade is ground away to, say, the
line A it increases the opening at the mouth of the plane. This, of
course, is obvious owing to its tapered length. A much better type of
blade is the gauged iron depicted at Fig 4. in this case the iron is
parallel in thickness and the back of the blade is ground and polished
perfectly flat and out of winding. All American pattern iron planes have
this gauged type of iron to ensure that they bed evenly on the frog and
to prevent any increase in the opening of the mouth as the blade is worn
shorter in length. This method is of course, theoretically correct.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen Shepphard has discussed laid steel blades on his blog (several
times I think). I have no experience with them, but found it interesting
reading.... so thought I'd mention it.

http://www.fullchisel.com/blog/?cat Bill Taggart wrote:
> I dunno that I would characterize such a thing "A much better type of
> blade"... Especially in a woodie.
>
> And the assertion that the reason there was a steel bit forged onto an
> iron back was because "it is easier to grind ha1f-and-half steel and
> iron than to grind a solid steel blade"? I have always understood it
> was because (1) steel was a more precious commodity back then and (2)
> the iron absorbed the shock better, while the steel held an edge
> better, so the combination of the two made a better blade.
>
> And as far as the back being "left rough-forged"? That doesn't always
> have to be the case. I'll have to pull a few irons in some of the
> wooden planes I have at home, but as I recall, they're all pretty well
> smooth and flat.
>
> - Bill T.
> - Age-old questions that remain debatable still, I guess...
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Sullivan writes:

> The problem with the use of oils to stabilize wood is that they don't
> do it. What oils actually do, for a short period of time, is to add
> bulk to the cells of desiccated material. However, the oils tend over
> time to weaken the wood, and to chemically react to things present in
> the wood (such as tannins) and to outside influences (such as air
> pollutants and who knows what that comes in contact with the wood).
> These reactions can under some circumstances be very bad for the
> wood. It is a question of longevity. Oil today may help today, but
> may assure that the tool does not last another full generation. Does
> one care?

and

> Indeed. However, the treatments I mentioned are quite a bit different
> from the stuff the boat guys use.

I daresay it is a terrible pity that John Leather, Fellow of the Royal
Institution of Naval Architects, member of the Society for Nautical
Research and author of the book that launched, around these parts at
least, a thousand? small boats, did not have the benefit of the theology
founding the above proclamation in all its binding infallibility.

In his "Clinker Boatbuilding" of 1973 he clearly badly misguides himself
and his readers and sends men down to the sea in death-trap dinghies
when he heretically states:

"With all possible waste and dust removed ........ the boat may be given
a preservative coating. Traditionally, this was a coat of linseed oil
and paraffin (kerosene), mixed in proportions of two of paraffin to one
of oil. This can be brushed on liberally and will soak well into most
timbers forming effective and cheap preservative."

There must be a first class miracle or two still in prolonged operation,
however, or some form of naval exorcism has been undertaken, as some
clinker dinghies, built after John Leather's style in the eighties, are
still furnishing enjoyment to their owners who sail them.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners

------------------------------------------------------------------------