OldTools Archive
Recent | Bios | FAQ |
259628 | paul womack <pwomack@p...> | 2016‑07‑20 | Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Apart from the old canard about this tool being used for butcher's blocks, the origin of Stanley's "Block Plane" is vague. I was searching for "straight/strike block plane" (a low angle wooden bodied plane), which I though might be a precursor. I found this page in a 1864 French-English-German dictionary; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_z4KAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA293&dq=%22block+p lane%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig18m9oYLOAhUrJcAKHfLEArwQ6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=%22 block%20plane%22&f=false">https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_z4KAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA 293&dq=%22block+plane%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig18m9oYLOAhUrJcAKHfLEArwQ6AEILDA A#v=onepage&q=%22block%20plane%22&f=false It is the page for Rabot (of course) and includes my search target Rabot à écorner - straight block plane - Vergatthobel But a little further up I see; Rabot debout - small plane of block makers - Shruffhobel SMALL PLANE OF BLOCK MAKERS!! Can anyone more linguistically advantaged than me comment on the French or German names here? BugBear |
|||
259629 | paul womack <pwomack@p...> | 2016‑07‑20 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
paul womack wrote: > Rabot debout - small plane of block makers - Shruffhobel > > SMALL PLANE OF BLOCK MAKERS!! > > Can anyone more linguistically advantaged than me comment on the French > or German names here? Diderot (1780) has; >Le rabot debout est celui dont le fer n'a aucune inclinaison, et sert pour les bois de racine et des Indes, et autres bois durs. > >Le rabot denté est celui dont le fer est cannelé et aussi debout ; il a le même usage que le rabot debout. Which google renders as; >The plane standing is one whose iron has no inclination, and is used for the root wood and India, and other hardwoods. > >The toothed plane is one whose iron is also fluted and standing; it has the same use as the standing plane. BugBear |
|||
259630 | paul womack <pwomack@p...> | 2016‑07‑20 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
paul womack wrote: > >The toothed plane is one whose iron is also fluted and standing; it has the same use as the standing plane. There is a need to tread carefully; it appears the modern translation of "(Rabot) Debout" is Fillister (plane). This meaning cannot be made to fit with "small plane of block makers" BugBear |
|||
259631 | Ed Minch <ruby1638@a...> | 2016‑07‑20 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Paul Having made (marine) blocks, I can’t imagine that any steps needed a unique plane to accomplish. Recently there was posted an 1696 wooden window sign of a Dutch block maker, and on that sign were several carved workers, one of them shaping a block with an axe. I was involve in this discussion somewhere a few years ago, and someone presented evidence that “blocking” was an operation to square up pieces?? and this small plane was developed for that. Ed Minch |
|||
259632 | paul womack <pwomack@p...> | 2016‑07‑20 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
paul womack wrote: > > Rabot debout - small plane of block makers - Shruffhobel > > SMALL PLANE OF BLOCK MAKERS!! > > Can anyone more linguistically advantaged than me comment on the French > or German names here? I have now found the MILITARY DICTIONARY German - English - French by Sir George Floyd Duckett, 1848, which has; > Harthobel, m. > > Plane for cleaning-off hard wood, in which > the angle of the bed is at 30° with a line perpendicular to the sole. > > Rabot dont l'inclinaison du fer avec la perpendiculaire à la > semelle est de 30 degrés; (rabot debout). Looking interesting. BugBear |
|||
259633 | paul womack <pwomack@p...> | 2016‑07‑20 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Ed Minch wrote: > Paul > > Having made (marine) blocks, I can’t imagine that any steps needed a unique plane to accomplish. Recently there was posted an 1696 wooden window sign of a Dutch block maker, and on that sign were several carved workers, one of them shaping a block with an axe. > > I was involve in this discussion somewhere a few years ago, and someone presented evidence that “blocking” was an operation to square up pieces?? and this small plane was developed for that. Given the references to "hard wood", I think we may be talking about printers' blocks, and old directories certainly list "printers' block makers". BugBear |
|||
259634 | Mark Pfeifer <markpfeifer@i...> | 2016‑07‑20 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Block = nautical Block = flooring I may be the only one who read "block" in a paving context. Used to be much more common to make floors of blocks.......end grain up. Or maybe someone has already confirmed the meaning of the compound word "schruffhobel"? All Google is telling me is "dross of metals". "Hobel" of course is "slicer". For giggles, I sent the thread to mein Vater, who while not Galootish at all, ist ein fluent and native Deutsche spracher. Will post if he has anything interesting to observe. |
|||
259635 | paul womack <pwomack@p...> | 2016‑07‑20 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
paul womack wrote: > Ed Minch wrote: >> Paul >> >> Having made (marine) blocks, I can’t imagine that any steps needed a unique plane to accomplish. Recently there was posted an 1696 wooden window sign of a Dutch block maker, and on that sign were several carved workers, one of them shaping a block with an axe. >> >> I was involve in this discussion somewhere a few years ago, and someone presented evidence that “blocking” was an operation to square up pieces?? and this small plane was developed for that. > > Given the references to "hard wood", I think we may be talking about printers' blocks, > and old directories certainly list "printers' block makers". Here's a partnership being dissolved of "William and Pyne" in 1846 Perry's Bankrupt Gazette - Saturday 12 September 1846 http://galootcentral.com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152 /Perry_s_Bankrupt_Gazette_-_Saturday_12_September_1846.jpg">http://galootcentral .com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152/Perry_s_Bankrupt_Gazette_- _Saturday_12_September_1846.jpg BugBear |
|||
259636 | paul womack <pwomack@p...> | 2016‑07‑20 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
paul womack wrote: > paul womack wrote: >> Ed Minch wrote: >>> Paul >>> >>> Having made (marine) blocks, I can’t imagine that any steps needed a unique plane to accomplish. Recently there was posted an 1696 wooden window sign of a Dutch block maker, and on that sign were several carved workers, one of them shaping a block with an axe. >>> >>> I was involve in this discussion somewhere a few years ago, and someone presented evidence that “blocking” was an operation to square up pieces?? and this small plane was developed for that. >> >> Given the references to "hard wood", I think we may be talking about printers' blocks, >> and old directories certainly list "printers' block makers". This one's even better (apart from the scan quality) from Manchester Times - Saturday 15 September 1849 http://galootcentral.com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152 /Manchester_Times_-_Saturday_15_September_1849.jpg">http://galootcentral.com/com ponents/cpgalbums/userpics/10152/Manchester_Times_- _Saturday_15_September_1849.jpg Look at the woods; Holly, Pear (Oak, Sycamore). Also the interchangeable language; "block makers" and the more specific "printers block makers" are both used. BugBear |
|||
259637 | "yorkshireman@y..." <yorkshireman@y...> | 2016‑07‑20 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Great question - the thread will run and run… So we have the choice of printing blocks butcher blocks floor blocks pulley blocks any of which could use a low angle plane. Personally, I discount pulley blocks, as there isn’t a straight line on one. Ditto butcher blocks (after some use) and a fine surface isn’t needed. The chaps in Alley 3 of Grainger market use a scraper most of the time, and I can’t see them taking the time to flatten a block with a plane, nowadays or in the past. Floor blocks is more hopeful, but again, would a small plane be used for something that big? and if being manufactured, surely a saw to cut to length at 90 degrees, and maybe a floor scraper when they’re down (and a large mallet) so my vote goes to printing blocks, coming from the home of Thomas Bewick’s prints, I can see the need for a fine surface finish to be cretaed, used, planed off and repeated, in a size that is conducive to bench work and a fine set plane. Any blemish is instantly visible on the page, so perfection in the surface is requirement. and that musing is worth exactly what you paid for it. Richard Wilson Yorkshireman Galoot in Northumberland Alnmouth Rowing - off to the Skiffy Worlds in Ireland next week |
|||
259638 | Kirk Eppler <eppler.kirk@g...> | 2016‑07‑20 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Mark Pfeifer |
|||
259639 | Thomas Conroy | 2016‑07‑21 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Richard Wilson wrote: "....so my vote goes to printing blocks, coming from the home of Thomas Bewick?s prints, I can see the need for a fine surface finish to be cretaed, used, planed off and repeated, in a size that is conducive to bench work and a fine set plane. Any blemish is instantly visible on the page, so perfection in the surface is requirement." I don't think it would be printing blocks, at least not for use on a press. One absolute requirement of a boxwood block for end-grain engraving, Bewick's technique and the dominant illustration technique for most of the 19th century, was that the block had to be absolutely even in thickness and exactly type-high, in order to register with the type. Of course, for most ot the 19th century every typecaster had his own type height, so the printer would have to adjust the blocks to the type he was using. But the way to do this would not have been to use a small plane; it would have been to place the block between type-high runners and use a plane long enough to span from runner to runner, working perpendicular or perhaps at 45 degrees to the axis of the plane. I don't know that this was done for surfacing woodblocks, but the basic process was that used in making type, planing the bottoms of many individual types at once to bring them all to type-height. At the end of the 19th century, printers' suppliers offered sets of plane and support table for doing this. The low angle would be fine, but neither the strike block nor the block plane seems well adapted to the planing-down of printers' blocks using fixed-height supports. Blocks for textile printing were different. These were cut with knives, chisels, and gouges "on the plank," not with burins on the endgrain. Then a handle was screwed to the back, and the block was inked and inverted, printed while held in the printer's hand, just like a [very large] rubber stamp. You wouldn't need precise type-high blocks fo this. But you wouldn't have any particular difficulty in planing the working surface, either, since it was just radial or tangential surfaces. I still haven't heard any convincing explanation of either "strike bock" or "block" as a name. And I suspect that there may not be one. Tom Conroy. |
|||
259640 | paul womack <pwomack@p...> | 2016‑07‑21 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Thomas Conroy wrote: > I don't think it would be printing blocks, at least not for use on a press. One absolute requirement of a boxwood block for end-grain engraving, Bewick's technique and the dominant illustration technique for most of the 19th century, was that the block had to be absolutely even in thickness and exactly type-high, in order to register with the type. Of course, for most ot the 19th century every typecaster had his own type height, so the printer would have to adjust the blocks to the type he was > using. But the way to do this would not have been to use a small plane; it would have been to place the block between type-high runners and use a plane long enough to span from runner to runner, working perpendicular or perhaps at 45 degrees to the axis of the plane. I don't know that this was done for surfacing woodblocks, but the basic process was that used in making type, planing the bottoms of many individual types at once to bring them all to type- height. At the end of the 19th century, > printers' suppliers offered sets of plane and support table for doing this. The low angle would be fine, but neither the strike block nor the block plane seems well adapted to the planing-down of printers' blocks using fixed-height supports. > > Blocks for textile printing were different. These were cut with knives, chisels, and gouges "on the plank," not with burins on the endgrain. Then a handle was screwed to the back, and the block was inked and inverted, printed while held in the printer's hand, just like a [very large] rubber stamp. You wouldn't need precise type-high blocks fo this. But you wouldn't have any particular difficulty in planing the working surface, either, since it was just radial or tangential surfaces. Interesting - I shall (for exposition, and google) transcribe the second advert; Manchester Times - Saturday 15 September 1849 Removed for Convenience of Sale - To Calico Printers, block makers, Cutters and others - Sale of Holly, Pear-tree, Oak and Sycamore Boards, Planks, Printers' Press and Blocks, Tools, &c. &c. By Mr CANDELET, on Wednesday, September 19th 1849, in a Warehouse situate in Hodson's Square, Cannon-street Man- chester (where the property has been removed for convenience of sale): A LARGE Qauntity of Half-inch Holly, Pear- tree, Oak and Sycamore BOARDS, two-inch sycamore planks, one-inch sycamore boards, printers' presses, about 200 new blocks, and a variety of other articles used by printers' block makers. Also a 200 gallon pan, quite new. The sale to commence at eleven o'clock There are two keywords in all this that confirm Mr Conroy's interpretation; the list of timbers does not include boxwood, and the first line specifically mentions Calico Printers. So - further to the qualification of "block makers" to "printers' block makers" it seems we must further qualify to "textile printers' block makers".1 (as an aside, it is not beyond possibility that the boxwood blocks were finish-surfaced on their cut surface using a small low angle plane, and thicknessed to type height on their rear face, using a large plane) BugBear |
|||
259641 | paul womack <pwomack@p...> | 2016‑07‑21 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
paul womack wrote: > So - further to the qualification of "block makers" to "printers' block makers" > it seems we must further qualify to "textile printers' block makers". In my readings of the WONDERFUL British Newspaper Archive, it seems that "Printers' Block" invariably refers to the wooden blocks used for textiles, and later for decorative papers (which we call wallpaper). So - does anyone know what the prepared pieces of boxwood used for wood engraving were called? I am now 95% certain it is not "printing blocks". BugBear |
|||
259642 | <peter_mcbride@b...> | 2016‑07‑21 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Woodblock printing? Peter |
|||
259643 | Dave Caroline <dave.thearchivist@g...> | 2016‑07‑21 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
It has been around for a "while" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodblock_printing Dave Caroline |
|||
259644 | Thomas Conroy | 2016‑07‑21 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Bugbear wrote: > >So - does anyone know what the prepared pieces of boxwood >used for wood engraving were called? In the "American Dictionary of Printing and Bookmaking" (1894), an incredible resource that is readily available in both original copies and reprints, the second paragraph of the article "Wood-Engraving" starts "The pieces of wood used are called blocks. Mahogany, maple and pear-wood are sometimes used, and pine is a good medium for theatre cuts; but the best engravings are always upon boxwood, the work being upon the end of the grain. They are exactly the height of type, and are made very smooth upon the surface....The surface of the block being too smooth to receive the markings of a pencil, it is roughened and at the same time delicately whitened all over with moistened powder of fine brick and flake white..." (p. 585). There is a lot more, but I didn't see anything about manufacturing the blocks or the tools used for manufacturing. At the end of the separate article "Wood-cut Printing" it says: "Wood-cuts rarely go on a press, except for proving. Cuts are electrotyped as soon as made, and the electrotypes are used instead of the original, thus providing against accident." Electrotyping was invented in 1838, but my impression is that it didn't become really widespread until the 1850s or 1860s. I suspect that the earlier process of stereotyping wouldn't have reproduced the fine lines of a wood-engraving clearly enough. However, once they were printing from electros rather than directly from the blocks, the need to bring blocks to exact type- height would no longer exist. (Stereos and electros were mounted on wood to bring them type-high, but they were dismounted for storage between editions). May have wandered from the point a bit.... Tom Conroy |
|||
259645 | Tom Ellis | 2016‑07‑22 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
>-----Original Message----- >From: paul womack Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 10:53 AM To: old tools >Subject: [OldTools] Block Plane - 1864 reference >Apart from the old canard about this tool being used for butcher's blocks, >the origin of Stanley's "Block Plane" is vague. This started out as a question about Stanley's Block Plane, and quickly digressed into very interesting posts about pre-Stanley use of the term "block." (Or am I misunderstanding what's been going on here?) To get back to Stanley and its planes, I read somewhere about using these planes for trimming the blocking between the framing posts (2x4) of a house. The use was light-weight, and being able to fit in the pockets of workman overalls was important. Now while there may well have been pre-Stanley "block planes," it seems to me that Stanley would not have continued the plane type if there wasn't some contemporary use for it. Tom Ellis Jackson, GA |
|||
259646 | paul womack <pwomack@p...> | 2016‑07‑22 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Tom Ellis wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- From: paul womack Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 10:53 AM To: old tools Subject: [OldTools] Block Plane - 1864 reference > >> Apart from the old canard about this tool being used for butcher's blocks, >> the origin of Stanley's "Block Plane" is vague. > > This started out as a question about Stanley's Block Plane, and quickly digressed into very interesting posts about pre-Stanley use of the term "block." (Or am I misunderstanding what's been going on here?) > > To get back to Stanley and its planes, I read somewhere about using these planes for trimming the blocking between the framing posts (2x4) of a house. The use was light-weight, and being able to fit in the pockets of workman overalls was important. Now while there may well have been pre-Stanley "block planes," it seems to me that Stanley would not have continued the plane type if there wasn't some contemporary use for it. I'm trying to look into why Stanley called it a "block plane", and earlier uses of the same term seems a useful avenue of research. Especially since the trail of evidence in this thread seems to speak (in aggregate) of a small, low angle plane, used for preparing (printing) blocks. If the Stanley design is a descendant of this lineage, the name might be too. BugBear |
|||
259647 | Michael Blair <branson2@s...> | 2016‑07‑22 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
> I'm trying to look into why Stanley called it a "block plane", and earlier uses of the same term seems a useful avenue of research. From Stanley Blood and Gore: Stanley, in their marketing propaganda, claimed that "_A Block Plane was first made to meet the demand for a Plane which could be easily held in one hand while planing across the grain, particularly the ends of boards, etc. This latter work many Carpenters call 'Blocking in', hence the name 'Block' Plane._" The 9 1/2 was manufactured from 1873 to 1981. SB&G doesn't give a hard date for the Stanley marketing propaganda, but the article ( http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan2.htm#num9.25 ) implies that Stanley is responsible for the designation, "block plane." I've found them addictive. No idea how many I have, only that I don't have (yet) one of the earliest styles. Mike in Woodland |
|||
259648 | Ed Minch <ruby1638@a...> | 2016‑07‑22 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
I have seen the description “block plane” used on transitional planes in antique shops presumably because of the body/block being wood. The Stanley 25: http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan4.htm Is the only transitional with a bevel up, so is the one that I have always thought of as a block plane, and Mr. Leach agrees. Ed Minch |
|||
259649 | Michael Blair <branson2@s...> | 2016‑07‑22 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
> I have seen the description "block plane" used on transitional planes in antique shops presumably because of the body/block being wood. I've seen that as well. To some antique dealers, and some eBay sellers, any plane made from a "block of wood" is a block plane. > The Stanley 25: http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan4.htm Is the only transitional with a bevel up, so is the one that I have always thought of as a block plane, and Mr. Leach agrees. I'd have to agree with Mr. Leach. Bevel up, and (relatively) low angle seem to be the defining characteristics. And relatively short. My D.R. Barton cooper's long jointer's blade is set at approximately 30 degrees, but is not short (g), and is set bevel down for all that it is made from a block of wood. Mike in Woodland |
|||
259650 | Mark Pfeifer <markpfeifer@i...> | 2016‑07‑22 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
For the record (if anyone’s keeping on) my personal opinion (which I own for myself and encourage all others to ignore) is that “block planes” are so called not because of any unique trade, but because you use them to square up the ends of boards. “Squaring Plane” sounds terrible. So the marketing geniuses invent the “block plane”. I suspect they marketed it to carpenters and tradesmen based on the premise that you can square stock with them without a bench or a shooting board. This would explain why all “block planes” are small, even though we all know that all other things being equal the longer and straighter the bed, the more precise the line. But if I’m squaring a 1” floorboard to meet a baseboard, or cutting miters on mill-produced mouldings in a new house, being able to have a palm sized way to trim up my panel saw or miter box work is kinda nice. In fact, while I know some people detest the tiny little “trimming planes” that can fit in your pocket, I have 2 that I absolutely love and won’t work without. One is 100 years old. The other 20. Both are Stanley. The old one I save for special occasions like removing the arris on a piece of furniture. The “new” one is always with me when I’m working on the house, and I can’t imagine installing flooring or molding without it. It’s been my experience that even among old tool people, planes tend to be viewed as finishing tools. Since I started out in carving and forestry and came through that route to furniture, planes are tools that hog off wood just not as much as my hatchet or hewing axe. If plane = mirror finish on walnut or cherry, precise straight lines, you’d never think of holding the board in one hand and the plane in the other. But if you’ve grown up using the reflection in your saw plate to make a “good enough” 90 degree on the end of a wall stud, using a Stanley 220 to clean up a little slop in your saw work makes perfect sense. You’re blocking the end of the board. But forget all that . . . . lets have some fun snob-riffing on common tool naming gaffes . . . . “Block plane” applied to every single plane makes me want to educate every single person who lists a plane on eBay. “One starfish at a time” they say. I have to say that the mis-use of “planer” for a hand tool used to be one of my eBay bargain finding strategeries. Especially if “planer” and “estate find” appear in the same listing. That used to pretty much guarantee finding a scruffy-enough-to-not-attract-collectors plane. But now it seems that all planes are priced out of reason on eBay, so “planer” bothers me even more. Another irritant is “collectable” applied to every handsaw ever made. I suppose theoretically everything is collectible, so in a literal sense it’s probably accurate to say it regarding Porter era Disstons or BorgWarner era Atkins. But irritating even if accurate. Maybe I should start putting my dogs’ scat in bags and selling it as “collectible dog ephemera”? Or how ‘bout when the uninitiated use “hand drill” to describe what we all know as a brace? A linguist could study why “bit” made its way into the modern vernacular to describe the same thing, but “brace” is a term that only the illuminati know . . . . Does anyone else have a tool-misnomer blooper reel? MPf. In Weddington Wondering about words and usage and human psychology in a way that would make most people catatonic or melancholy |
|||
259659 | "yorkshireman@y..." <yorkshireman@y...> | 2016‑07‑23 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Well, my own ‘personal’ theory having been demolished by Tom (Thanks Tom, as usual your explanatin makes just so much more sense.) I’m going to throw in another ‘possibility’ As we know, in the world of cabinetmaking and hide glue, small blocks of wood are used at joints to strengthen corners, attach tops, and so forth. Anyone who has disassembled an old piece will have come across them. So I offer as yet another use of the word the small and often misshapen, but normally planed glue blocks. “Eh, lad - mak us a couple o’ blocks for yon corners” Hmm, yes - I can see that. grab an offcut, plane one corner square, dab of glue and place it in line with one face, rub and hold until set. replace the plane I used into the pocket. Richard Wilson Yorkshireman Galoot - in Ireland. |
|||
259662 | Gary Roberts <toolemera@m...> | 2016‑07‑25 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
A whole lotta blocks http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=block+pla ne">http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=block+plane <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=block+ plane">http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=block+plane > ............................... Gary Roberts http://toolemera.com "I'ld rather read a good book, than write a poor one." Christopher Morley |
|||
259663 | Gary Roberts <toolemera@m...> | 2016‑07‑25 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
block (n.) "solid piece," c. 1300, from Old French bloc "log, block" of wood (13c.), via Middle Dutch bloc "trunk of a tree" or Old High German bloh, from a common Germanic source, from PIE *bhlugo-, from *bhelg- "a thick plank, beam" (see balk). ............................... Gary Roberts http://toolemera.com "I'ld rather read a good book, than write a poor one." Christopher Morley |
|||
259664 | Ed Minch <ruby1638@a...> | 2016‑07‑25 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Now I have a headache Ed Minch |
|||
259668 | Chuck Taylor | 2016‑07‑25 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Gentle Galoots, The cover photo for the current (July/August 2016) issue of WoodenBoat Magazine shows another good use for a block plane, fitting a plank end into a stem rabbet on a wooden boat: http://www.woodenboat.com/current-issue-woodenboat-magazine [This link will eventually point to a different issue.] Chuck Taylor currently sitting on a wooden boat at Ladysmith, BC, Canada |
|||
259670 | Michael Blair <branson2@s...> | 2016‑07‑26 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Does this indicate these tools are designed using plane geometry? Mike in Woodland |
|||
259685 | Steve Reynolds <s.e.reynolds@v...> | 2016‑07‑27 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
> On Jul 25, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Gary Roberts |
|||
259688 | Ed Minch <ruby1638@a...> | 2016‑07‑27 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Steve I have done blocking/bridging that way before it fell out of fashion, and it is very easy and forgiving to do and there is no need for plane, especially a unique plane. Non-chagrinned Ed Minch Although my sister lives outside of Chagrin Falls |
|||
259691 | neanderman <neanderman@f...> | 2016‑07‑27 | Re: Block Plane - 1864 reference |
Confirms my understanding. :-) Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Steve Reynolds |
|||
Recent | Bios | FAQ |