>ssalb@l... writes:
><< So this raises the obvious question:  What is "sprung"?

To throw in my two-bits on this perennial topic, among the reasons I've
heard for spring --all of them reasonable-- are:

1] Economy
(Since quarter-sawn wood --with its radial grain-- is prefered for a wooden
plane, spring gives you a wider sole for the same width of the expensive
wood.)

2] Consistency of the mouth
(The throat on a wooden plane gets wider away from the sole.  As a result
at the bottom of a "deep" groove in the sole the mouth will be wider than
it would be at a "shallower" point in the sole.  The spring is choosen to
give the narrowest "average" width of the mouth.)

3] Restricted by the shape.
(Some complex profiles would be hard, if not impossible, to cut if the
plane were held vertically.)

4] Ease of use #1
(Easier to hold a plane of this type against the wood by pressing down at
an angle.)

5] Ease of use #2
(Easier to hold the fence against the edge of the work, given the possible
weird shape of the sole.)

In short, I don't think there's "a" answer.  Also, the reason probably
changes for different types of planes and different sole-profiles.

N

>  >ssalb@l... writes:
>  ><< So this raises the obvious question:  What is "sprung"?
>
>To throw in my two-bits on this perennial topic, among the reasons I've
>heard for spring --all of them reasonable-- are:

Allow me to through my two-bits in, too.

>1] Economy
>(Since quarter-sawn wood --with its radial grain-- is prefered for a wooden
>plane, spring gives you a wider sole for the same width of the expensive
>wood.)

A mute question in the case of hornbeam sine the tress don't
generally get that big. Especially for a whooper like a panel raiser,
also called badger plane. Not a single one of my several historic
planes pay the least heed to the lay of the grain.  Not the horbeam
and not the pear, least of all the live oak.  Someone mentioned a
boxwood plane a day or two ago;  I would be curious where the plane
was from and how big it really was. Boxwood doesn't get very big. I
have made a couple of small planes of box and fine it totally
unsatifactory inspite of my love of the wood. Sexy it looks - a
breaks it does easily, not to mention warp.

>2] Consistency of the mouth
>(The throat on a wooden plane gets wider away from the sole.  As a result
>at the bottom of a "deep" groove in the sole the mouth will be wider than
>it would be at a "shallower" point in the sole.  The spring is choosen to
>give the narrowest "average" width of the mouth.)

This is untrue.  It depends solely on the geometry of the box (is
that the right term; in German Kasten). MY Drautz/Heilbronn badger ,
late 196th.c is not spring and is heavily skewed and the mouth is
parallel and reasonbly narrow.  This is one of the historic planes I
use routinely, not for panels, but for keyboards which have a wide
cross-gain rebate at the front for the coverings (generally of box).

>3] Restricted by the shape.
>(Some complex profiles would be hard, if not impossible, to cut if the
>plane were held vertically.)

True - and untrue. I don't own a single historic molding plane with a
side fench that is held at an angle, and they are very uncommon. Up
to a certain size of course. Very large ogees etc were planed "flat",
sprung if you wish. Large stuff , as on organ cases was assembled and
not planed at all in one piece. Many victorian moldings , epecially
English planes were sprung, but as you say, because of the shape, not
because of the mouth. The problem is the different in height that
makes a convoluted shaving. For this reason the mouth must be big,
not for geometrical reasons, and this "tortured" shaving is very hard
to shove. The larger the height difference, the harder. This is the
main reason for a sprung plane. On the other hand, this convolution
keeps the wood from tearing as readily as it might otherwise.
Complicated renaissance and baroque profiles were almost always made
with a scratch stock, making each part separately.

>4] Ease of use #1
>(Easier to hold a plane of this type against the wood by pressing down at
>an angle.)

and
>5] Ease of use #2
>(Easier to hold the fence against the edge of the work, given the possible
>weird shape of the sole.)

True and untrue again. It depends entirely on what you are planing.
Bear in mund that the bench vise and the German bench dog system are
a mid nineteenth c.invention. Before that, the bench had a dog at the
far end to plane against, a few holes for holdfasts in the top, and
maybe a vise against one of the legs. There was also usually a hook
on the far end front edge to accept panels on end on the floor.  Now
if your work piece is resting on the surface against the dog, it is
easier to press down against the bench vertically than  sprung, at an
angle to the bench surface.  there are always ways to work around the
piece sliding to the side (save nailing it to the bench) so both
types, sprung and unsprung, could be used. Since  the straight
variety can more often be used "out of the tool box" it was  probaby
more generally used.

>In short, I don't think there's "a" answer.  Also, the reason probably
>changes for different types of planes and different sole-profiles.
>
>N

I entirely agree.  The width and shape of the mouth are entirely the
result of the geometrical layout of the plane. As good as Krenovian
(pseudo Japanese) planes can be for simple designs, you cannot
extrapolate from them about how classic wooden planes were designed
and made.

regards,

b

William Jurgenson
http://www.zabernet.de/bill/index.html

At 09:48 AM 1/22/00 +0100, William Jurgenson wrote:
>boxwood plane a day or two ago;  I would be curious where the plane
>was from and how big it really was. Boxwood doesn't get very big. I

I'm sitting here looking at an Auburn Tools coffin bodied smoother, 8 1/2 x
3 and an H. Chapin smoother that is 7 1/2 x 2 3/4 made of box wood.  Some
of the older boxwoods got fairly big...considering all the 100's of
thousands of boxwood rules that were made plus the fact that the boxing on
a wooden molder isn't cut with the grain but at an angle to the end
grain...to get 5 1/2 pieces of endgrain, you need a tree with at least 11"
of heartwood.

>Bear in mund that the bench vise and the German bench dog system are
>a mid nineteenth c.invention. Before that, the bench had a dog at the
>far end to plane against, a few holes for holdfasts in the top, and

I have to disagree with this...  I'm on the road tonite and don't have my
materials in front of me but if you are thinking of Roubo as a
source..remember he was 17th century.  I have seen enough benchs from at
least around the Revolutionary War period to disagree just based on my
observations.

Tony

________________________________________________________
        Old tools..don't leave home without them
________________________________________________________

In a message dated 1/22/00 10:36:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tonyseo@m... writes:

> >Bear in mund that the bench vise and the German bench dog system are
>  >a mid nineteenth c.invention. Before that, the bench had a dog at the
>  >far end to plane against, a few holes for holdfasts in the top, and
>
>  I have to disagree with this...  I'm on the road tonite and don't have my
>  materials in front of me but if you are thinking of Roubo as a
>  source..remember he was 17th century.  I have seen enough benchs from at
>  least around the Revolutionary War period to disagree just based on my
>  observations.
>

Actually, there's a drawing by a fellow named Loeffelholz from 1505 that
shows a bench with a face vise, tail vise, and retractable bench dogs - so
the idea is at least that old.  There's a picture on page 9 of Landis' _The
Workbench Book_ and a better one in Heine's _Werkzeug des Schreiners und
Drechslers_.  Both books also have pictures of a Swiss bench dated to c. 1700
that has both face and tail vices.

Gary

*************************************************************
www.medievalwoodworking.com
Articles, book reviews, and more
*************************************************************

William Jurgenson had written:

>> >Bear in mind that the bench vise and the German bench dog system >>
>>>are a mid nineteenth c.invention. Before that, the bench had a
>> >dog at the far end to plane against, a few holes for holdfasts
>> >in the top ...

Tony Seo responded:

>>  I have to disagree with this...  I'm on the road tonite and
>>  don't have my materials in front of me but if you are thinking
>>  of Roubo as a source..remember he was 17th century.  I have
>>  seen enough benchs from at least around the Revolutionary War
>>  period to disagree just based on my observations.

Interesting Tony would bring up the Roubo (1769-1775) reference. The
most commonly reproduced Roubo plate showing a bench, does, indeed,
illustrate it without any kind of a bench vise. Rather, a holdfast
(and stops) is in evidence for holding the wood on the bench
surface as well as along the front of the bench -- much as William
describes.

However, there is another plate, from volume III (reproduced in
_Eighteeenth Century Woodworking Tools_) which shows a full-blown
"German" style bench with both a face vise and tail vise with
appropriate dogs and holes. The only significant difference from a
"modern" Continental-style bench would be that the face vise is of
the leg vise persuasion.  This overall configuration is also shown
 in Bergeron's, _Manuel du Tourneur_, 1816 (still well prior to the
mid-nineteenth date under consideration).

Gary followed up with even earlier precedents:

>Actually, there's a drawing by a fellow named Loeffelholz from 1505
>that shows a bench with a face vise, tail vise, and retractable
>bench dogs - so the idea is at least that old. [references to:] ...
> Landis' _The Workbench Book_ and a better one in Heine's _Werkzeug
>des Schreiners und Drechslers_.  Both books also have pictures of a
>Swiss bench dated to c. 1700 that has both face and tail vices.

William Goodman refers to the Loeffelholz drawings in his _The
History of Woodlworking Tools_, as follows:

     "According to J. M. Greber, in his history of the bench
('Fachblatt fur Holzarbeiten', Berlin, 1937), there is a complete
project for both side and end screw vices in a book in the
Nuremberg Municipal Library, designed by the engineer Loffelholz of
that town in 1505. The side vice is in the usual position at the
left-hand end, and was tightened up by two nuts, the screws being
fixed into the side of the bench-top. The end vice has a long
wooden screw, fitted with a cranked and forked bench-stop, with the
wood held firmly between this and another stop let into one of a
series of holes in the bench. This is a very remarkable anticipation
of the modern vice, but it was not generally adopted for something
like two hundred years."

The Swiss bench mentioned by Gary would seem to confirm Goodman's
timeline for adoption of this idea to be pretty realistic.

As to the screws being fixed into the bench top and the vise jaw
being tightened with nuts, Diderot shows a similar thing on a
splayed leg vise in his mid-eighteenth century Encyclopedia.

Though the full-blown Continental style bench never seems to have
widely caught on in Britain, the "Bench-Screw" (vise) was certainly
in use there by the latter part of the 17th century. Moxon
illustrates two varieties of Bench-Screw (apparently added to the
Felibien plate he copied?) and discusses them in the text as well.

Don McConnell
Knox County, Ohio