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 
wrote:

> 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


Hey gang, pinged one of my German cohorts, and he provided the info below.
Additionally, I have a few older 1890s German tool catalogs at home


Per Joerg:
Will try to help a bit .. as good as I can

I found the following on Vergatthobel:

https://books.google.com/books?id=4u-eSBRj6KMC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=de
r+hirnholzhobel&source=bl&ots=rgkPH6M5UU&sig=OgilQuYtzGeYy5w_neE5bVX1mP8&hl=en&s
a=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ5oXhyILOAhVE5GMKHeCoBQMQ6AEIITAA#v=onepage&q=der%20hirnholzhobe
l&f=false">https://books.google.com/books?id=4u-eSBRj6KMC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=
der+hirnholzhobel&source=bl&ots=rgkPH6M5UU&sig=OgilQuYtzGeYy5w_neE5bVX1mP8&hl=en
&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ5oXhyILOAhVE5GMKHeCoBQMQ6AEIITAA#v=onepage&q=der%20hirnholzho
bel&f=false


This states:

The end grain (=graincut) plane/slicer is called Vergatthobel in old
documents. The source of the word "Vergatten" (my translation: to "marry
something" / to "wed sth."  in "old german") means to joint/ merge /connect
something ... so it obviously was needed to plane two pieces of wood so
that you can perfectly glue them together.

For the other word my explanation is that in the old typing, the P was
mistaken for an F...

The word SCHRUPPHOBEL is very common and means JACKPLANE in E

here is a table of the Old "Sytterlin "german types .. think the mixup of
F&P is a realistic scenario :-) ( I wasn't able to distinguish either :-)
...

http://www.suetterlinschrift.de/Lese/Alphabet.htm


did not find a word on Schruffhobel

And that's all he wrote



-- 
Kirk Eppler in HMB, CA, sitting through a painful telecon
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  wrote:
> 
> 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

	Warning, Ed Minch, put your hands over your ears.

        I’ve mentioned this before, to the chagrin of Ed, but I must mention it
again.  Although Ed is technically correct in that the wooden structural
elements that prevent joist from twisting are known as “bridging”, I often hear
them old dudes refer to it as blocking.  Just this week I was reading an old
book about laying hardwood floors and the author referred to it as bridging when
it is in the form of two sticks crossed in an X-shaped pattern.  He called it
blocking when in the form of a full height cutoff of a joist.  It remains a
possibility, at least in my mind, that the plane was for trimming up said pieces
to fit between joists.

Just say, if you don’t wear a dust mask whilst working wood, you will be
bhlugoing and bhelging all over the place.

Regards,
Steve
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  
Date: 7/26/2016  8:15 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: Gary Roberts  
Cc: old tools  
Subject: Re: [OldTools] Block Plane - 1864 reference 


> On Jul 25, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Gary Roberts  wrote:
> 
> 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

	Warning, Ed Minch, put your hands over your ears.

        I’ve mentioned this before, to the chagrin of Ed, but I must mention it
again.  Although Ed is technically correct in that the wooden structural
elements that prevent joist from twisting are known as “bridging”, I often hear
them old dudes refer to it as blocking.  Just this week I was reading an old
book about laying hardwood floors and the author referred to it as bridging when
it is in the form of two sticks crossed in an X-shaped pattern.  He called it
blocking when in the form of a full height cutoff of a joist.  It remains a
possibility, at least in my mind, that the plane was for trimming up said pieces
to fit between joists.

Just say, if you don’t wear a dust mask whilst working wood, you will be
bhlugoing and bhelging all over the place.

Regards,
Steve

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
https://oldtools.swingleydev.com/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

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

OldTools archive: https://swingleydev.com/ot/

OldTools@s...

Recent Bios FAQ