I had originally quoted from David Denning's _The Art and Craft
of Cabinet-Making_, c. 1891:

>>      "... Then there are the various little details in connexion
>>with cabinet-making which are different from the methods practised
>>in joinery. For instance, our friend the joiner, working, as has
>>been said, principally in pine, would find that the fillister is
>>not so suitable as the rabbet-plane for making a rabbet in hard-
>>wood furniture, a fact which the trained cabinet-maker is aware
>>of, and so very probably does not even possess a fillister, the
>>use of which would be somewhat inconvenient to him, on that
>>account ... . ... "

Steve Reynolds replied, in part:

> P.S.  I just re-read this post and Scott's reply. I think Denning
>poorly worded the first paragraph.  I think he intended to say
>that the joiner would not find a fillister as useful as the
>cabinetmaker finds a fillister useful.  Maybe his point is that a
>joiner could get by with a cheaper rabbet plane.

I agree that Denning's wording is a bit convoluted. [Something I'm
never guilty of.  :-) ] However, I think that Denning  intends to
say that the cabinet-maker "very probably does not even possess a
fillister ... ." This is corroborated by the fact that farther into
the text, Denning includes a rabbet plane, but not a fillister
plane, in a list of tools for budding cabinet-makers. Additionally,
when discussing specific techniques, as I quoted previously, he
discusses various ways to use a rabbet plane. The fillister plane
does not appear again in the text.

In other words, the more expensive fillister plane (2-3 times as
expensive as a skew rabbet plane in a couple of catalogues I
looked at) is seen by Denning as part of a joiner's kit of tools;
while the simpler, and less expensive, rabbet plane is seen as an
essential part of a cabinet-maker's kit of tools.

Martin Harriman responded, in part:

>[quoting from George Ellis' _Modern Practical Joinery_, c. 1902]
>                     ... Narrow and special rebates, such as
>those on the backs of sashes, are worked with the Side Fillister
>and the Sash Fillister.
>
>So Ellis sort of corroborates Denning:  Ellis is a carpenter, and
>he doesn't say "oh, by the way, the fillister plane is
>inconvenient for hardwoods."  So he is perhaps one of those
>ignorant joiner savages of Denning's text.  But on the other hand,
>he suggests that the fillister plane is used for "narrow and
>special rebates," and that jointers cut other rebates using the
>same tools as those sophisticated cabinetmakers.

I'm aware, from looking through Ellis' book and Hasluck's
_Carpentry & Joinery_, c. 1912, that joiners did/do use materials
other than pine. And, in this regard, Denning may have made use of
a somewhat unfortunate generalization. However, his primary purpose
in this section of the text was to point out that the two wood-
working trades, joinery and cabinetry, had developed somewhat
different conventions and methods. This despite the fact that
their trades were closely associated and they often used the same
or similar tools.

I can't speak for any underlying prejudices on Denning's part, but
I certainly didn't take his meaning that cabinetmakers were
"trained" [sophisticated] while joiners were not [savages].
Another way to look at his decision to focus on cabinet-making is
that he was intending to speak only of the trade in which he,
apparently, had first-hand knowledge and experience. In a
certain sense, this shows  some sense of respect for the joiners'
trade, in that he wasn't going to presume to discuss a trade and
its conventions in which he had no direct experience or training.
At least, I took it that way.

Martin's quote from Ellis, however, may contain a hint concerning
the origin of the association of fillister planes with joiners'
work. I think I can see where a fillister plane, with its nicker
and skew iron, would be quite useful in aspects of sash work where
the sash fillister would not be applicable. The preliminary forming
of tenons on the material for the bars comes to mind. *If* sash
and moving fillisters both arose in the context of sash work, the
association of fillister planes with the joiners' trade would
certainly make sense.

As I said previously, I plan to continue to use a moving fillister
in any cabinet work I undertake. It's just that Denning's associa-
tion of the fillister with joiners' work surprised me. Thought it
might be interesting to explore the origin and meaning of the
distinction. I would still be interested in other thoughts along
this line.

Indeed, there is another area in which Denning challenges my
presumptions. As time and inclination allow, I may explore this in
a post to the list.

Don McConnell
Knox County, Ohio