OldTools Archive

Recent Search Bios FAQ

93584 "Mike DeLong" <mdelong@p... 2001‑06‑04 My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
Fellow Tool Lusters,

This is undoubtedly the biggest and best tool gloat I've ever had. While not
a $5 Stanley #1 in terms of cash out lay, it certainly far exceeds that
plane in usefulness, beauty, and rarity.

WARNING: Drooling is inevitable. Please protect your clothes and keyboards
appropriately before clicking on the following urls. Behold a one-of-a-kind
Clark & Williams Razee Smoother....

(FYI, there are underscores in the names, though they don't show here)
www.smu.edu/~mdelong/Side_view2.jpg
www.smu.edu/~mdelong/Heel_view2.jpg
www.smu.edu/~mdelong/Toe_view2.jpg

This beauty is modeled after a Scioto Works razee I picked up for $15 at
last years MWTCA meeting in Omaha. I have a monkey on my back who has a
Jones for razee planes, and although I believe Scioto Works were lessor
grade planes, this one had perfect weight and balance, and just seemed to be
an extension of my arm. The mouth is gigantic, but I had planed to rectify
that problem when I came up with the idea of using it as a model for C&W. I
was already the proud owner of another one-of-a-kind C&W plane, a small (a
little larger that a block plane) square-sided smoother modeled after a
plane in the Dominy collection, so I knew the great quality to expect.
Though it is not the type or style of plane they prefer to make, I
successfully begged Bill Clark into taking on the project at last August's
SWTCA meeting in Arlington, TX. The design was changed slightly to
accommodate a 55d angle.

Bill told me what the mouth opening was, but it didn't register in the gray
matter up top (not much does anymore). All I know is it's tighter than a
gnat-a%&, takes a tissue-paper thin shaving, and leaves a glass-smooth
surface in its wake. This weekend I slapped it to some of Paul Taran's
Select Grade Curly Maple, that has previously only been tamed by a hand
scraper, and the maple just melted into a glassy finish. This is one of
those tools that causes epiphanies.

When Bill called to tell me the plane was ready, he congratulated me for
having a one-of-a-kind Clark & Williams plane. The one-piece construction
proved to be a real challenge and he said he was not eager to ever make
another. That's good news for me but really bad news for all Galoots who
lust after toted woodies. With Clintonesque heart-felt feeling...I feel your
pain....neener, neener.

Shamelessly submitted,
Mike
------------------------------
Mike DeLong
Southern Methodist University
Director of Investment Systems


93586 "Brent Beach" <ub359@v... 2001‑06‑04 Re: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
That shaving is unreal. Is that from curly maple?

Ouch!

> (FYI, there are underscores in the names, though they don't show here)
> www.smu.edu/~mdelong/Side_view2.jpg
> www.smu.edu/~mdelong/Heel_view2.jpg
> www.smu.edu/~mdelong/Toe_view2.jpg



93588 "Bill Taggart" <ilikerust@w... 2001‑06‑04 RE: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
> WARNING: Drooling is inevitable. Please protect your clothes and keyboards
> appropriately before clicking on the following urls. Behold a
> one-of-a-kind Clark & Williams Razee Smoother....
>
> (FYI, there are underscores in the names, though they don't show here)
> www.smu.edu/~mdelong/Side_view2.jpg
> www.smu.edu/~mdelong/Heel_view2.jpg
> www.smu.edu/~mdelong/Toe_view2.jpg

Alright - everyone? Everyone! Ready? All together now...

1... 2... 3...

YOU SUCK!

Thank you.

So - ya gonna make a fitted, velvet-lined case, or what?

;-)

I'd think you might want to document just what it is, how it was made, it's
one-of-a-kindness, etc., for future information as to its "specialness"...

- Bill Taggart


93624 "Mike DeLong" <mdelong@p... 2001‑06‑05 RE: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
Brent Beach asked:

> That shaving is unreal. Is that from curly maple?

I apologize for miss-leading you. No, the shaving in the picture is not from
the Curly Maple I mentioned. Bill included a couple of test shavings in the
package (possibly Beech). I had the picture taken at a friends house (I'm
digitally challenged) on the way home and used Bill's shaving to stage the
picture. However, the later Curly Maple shavings were just as thin and
transparent. Because of the tear-out from my earlier attempts, and I think
the nature of Curly Maple, shavings from the 'board from Hell' were not
quite as even and picture perfect; but they still took a long time to float
to the floor.

And Bill Taggart expressed:

> Alright - everyone? Everyone! Ready? All together now...
>
> 1... 2... 3...
>
> YOU SUCK!
>
> Thank you.

[Galoot with head down, stubbing toe in dirt] Aw, gee guys. Thanks.

> So - ya gonna make a fitted, velvet-lined case, or what?

Perhaps a little later after the newness wears off. I bought it as a user.
For the time being my wife has graciously made a display, err storage, spot
for it the living room. When I finish some cabinets in my new shop area it
will find a protected spot just above my workbench. A storage container may
be in order at that time.

> I'd think you might want to document just what it is, how it
> was made, it's one-of-a-kindness, etc., for future information
> as to its "specialness"...

Good idea Bill. Thanks.

And finally, Charlie Rodgers closed with:

> Who wonders if SMU knows where Mike is _really_ directing their
> investments (???)

Hey, the University is all about education. I plan on learning a lot from
this investment 8^)

Mike
------------------------------
Mike DeLong
Southern Methodist University
Director of Investment Systems


93659 "Mike DeLong" <mdelong@p... 2001‑06‑06 RE: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
BugBear,
There was some logic in my request for a one-piece construction, although my
logic isn't always digestible by others. When it comes to planing I'm not
much of a theorist, but here goes. First, I feel razee style planes are
easier to use because of the lower position of my hand and arm in relation
to the cutting edge; and, because that hand only has to push and guide the
plane, leaving the bulk of the downward pressure to the hand placed just in
front of the blade. Probably not everyone's cup-a-tea, but it works for me.

This lower tote position requires the sole below the tote to be fairly thin.
On the Scioto Works model it was a hair under 3/4". I also have a Copeland
one-piece razee smoother and it is just short of 1" thick below the tote.
The C&W it is exactly 1". In initial talks with Bill he was concerned about
this area and chose to make it thicker than the model. The model had a blade
angle of 45d while the C&W is 55d (my request). This caused the C&W plane
body to also be higher than the model. The two changes evidently worked well
with each other because the only difference I can tell between the two
planes is the slightly increased weight of the C&W, which I like. Too make
the tote separate during the days when the model was made would have
required a dado in this thin area and I assume Scioto Works felt such a
joint would have weakened the plane and possibly caused warping. This is
purely speculation on my part, based on my observation that my razee styled
jacks and jointer are much thicker below the tote and have separate totes
let into dados. With today's wood glues the dado could probably be much
shallower or even eliminated. Well, that's it. If none of that reasoning
works for you, how about ... it just looks cool as one piece.

BTW, based on Bill's comments concerning his efforts in carving my tote, I
have no doubt a two-piece construction would have been cheaper.
Mike
------------------------------
Mike DeLong
Southern Methodist University
Director of Investment Systems

> OK, lets get the formalities over with: you suck!
>
> Moving on...
>
> Why one-piece construction? It seems needlessly difficult.
> The "natural" (to this 'umble wood-butcher) way is a solid
> body with inserted tote. Certinaly all the razee jacks
> I've seen are built this way.
>
> I'm currently dreaming/scheming a razee scrub; I have
> an old saw (with "dead" blade) with is going to donate
> a comfortable handle, and a 1 3/4" laminated Marples blade
> (from a wormed coffin shaped body).
>
> 	BugBear


93647 paul womack <pwomack@e... 2001‑06‑06 Re: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
Mike DeLong wrote:

> 
> When Bill called to tell me the plane was ready, he congratulated me for
> having a one-of-a-kind Clark & Williams plane. The one-piece construction
> proved to be a real challenge and he said he was not eager to ever make
> another.

OK, lets get the formalities over with: you suck!

Moving on...

Why one-piece construction? It seems needlessly difficult.
The "natural" (to this 'umble wood-butcher) way is a solid
body with inserted tote. Certinaly all the razee jacks
I've seen are built this way.

I'm currently dreaming/scheming a razee scrub; I have
an old saw (with "dead" blade) with is going to donate
a comfortable handle, and a 1 3/4" laminated Marples blade
(from a wormed coffin shaped body).

	BugBear


93678 Louis Michaud <louis_michaud@u... 2001‑06‑06 RE: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
Mike wrote: 

>.. a dado in this thin area and I assume Scioto Works felt 
>such a joint would have weakened the plane and possibly 
>caused warping...

I agree with Mike: razees "feel" better in the hand, balance,
directions of trust, etc. I had a new old stock tapered double
iron 2 1/4 wide and wanted a 55 deg. bed to plane quirky woods
so I made one:

http://www.geocities.com/cottonsox.geo/tools/bsjointxcut.jpg

It's not near a C&W but it works great!!! Sole is 9" long, bed 55
and mouth .007. Could have been smaller but I screwed up when
shaping the wear... I considered making the tote integral but that
would have meant wasting a lot of precious beech that has been
drying for 7 years. The rear area of the sole is 1" thick an the dado
for the tote is 1/4 deep. Because that area is only 2" long and 
narowing towards the back I don't think warping will be a problem.

The other possible problem, I only realized after completing the 
plane, is the sole becoming thinner and thinner because of the
regular wear and truing the plane after seasonal changes. There's 
only 3/4" at the rear but the wear area of the mouth is also 3/4.
Since the plane is not my work horse it should last if I don't true 
up the sole too agressively. 

By the way, what is the wear angle on a C&W 55 deg. bed?
Checking if I was close to the real thing in my plane.

Bon rabotage,
Louis Michaud


93688 Scott Post <sepost@h... 2001‑06‑06 Re: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
> Mike DeLong wrote:
>
> 
> BTW, based on Bill's comments concerning his efforts in carving my tote, I
> have no doubt a two-piece construction would have been cheaper.
> Mike

When I made my lefty plow plane I probably spent twice as much time on
the enclosed tote as I did on the rest of the plane.  Enclosed totes
win plenty of coolness points with me, but I probably won't do it again.
The open tote (let into a groove) on my panel raiser took about 1/4 the
time.  Of course, my carving skills are close to nil which had a lot to
do with how long the enclosed tote took. 

-- 
Scott Post  sepost@h... http://members.home.net/sepost


93711 paul womack <pwomack@e... 2001‑06‑07 Re: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
Mike DeLong wrote:
> 
> BugBear,
> There was some logic in my request for a one-piece construction, although my
> logic isn't always digestible by others. When it comes to planing I'm not
> much of a theorist, but here goes. First, I feel razee style planes are
> easier to use because of the lower position of my hand and arm in relation
> to the cutting edge; and, because that hand only has to push and guide the
> plane, leaving the bulk of the downward pressure to the hand placed just in
> front of the blade. Probably not everyone's cup-a-tea, but it works for me.

I think razee planes are fairly universally held to be easier to use.
Certainly in England, the catalogues list "technical jacks" intended
for beginners. These are razee jacks.

Your comments about thinness of sole by the time you've cut a dado
for a separate tote make sense. With modern glues I suspect you
could dispense with the dado. Depending on your sense of
"rightness" you might put a large woodscrew (or 2) though the sole...
(recessed, naturally)

The ultimate "punt" is laminated body. In this case, you cut the tote
from the centre piece (bed and tote), and then glue away.

(paging Steve Knight, paging Steve Knight...)

	BugBear


93903 Steve Knight <stevek@k... 2001‑06‑11 Re: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother

>I must admit to being completely ignorant of breast and wear angles - can
>someone define these or point me towards the appropriate reference please?

the way this has been described makes it hard to understand. what is going on
here is what angle is the mouth at? say the iron bed is set at 55 degrees. the
mouth has to have a angle too. the ideal one would match the angle of the iron
so as the sole wore it would not open. there is a simplified look if they were
the same from the side // but it is closer to !/ the ! would be at 85 degrees
facing the iron bed. the more the angle matches the iron bed and is parallel to
it the less wear opens the mouth. but more chance of a clog.
	If you need a picture I can take one of my infill and show it to you
since it is set up the same way it is easy to see down onto the infill.


Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes 
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com 
For prices and ordering instructions.
To subscribe to my good deals/beta testing/seconds email list send a email to
gooddeal-request@k... 
Subject: subscribe  


93906 "Mike DeLong" <mdelong@p... 2001‑06‑11 RE: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
>  Mike wrote:
>
> >I finally remembered to check on this. The wear angle on my
> C&W razee is
> >also 55d.
>
> Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing here.
>
>  A section trough the throat
>
> front of plane
> _____________                __________
>                            /
>                           /
>                          / bed
>           wear /         /   55 deg.
> ______________/         /_______________

            10d/
            | /
            |/__80d
>
> The wear would have the same angle, parallele to,
> as the bed ?
>
> Louis Michaud

DUH!

I apologise for the confusion. I should have paid more attention to what I
was measuring and typing. It's Monday, I'm swamped with work and all I can
think about is the MWTCA meeting in Battle Creek later this week. My mind
doesn't seem to stay focused on any one thing for very long today 8^)

First, the area above the wear is what is 55d (as Louis shows above). The
C&W razee wear is obviously not parallel with the bed. A little cardboard
and a protractor tells me it is about 10d off vertical (about 80d when view
in the same plane as the bed angle. I've modified Louis' ASCII art above to
help clarify. I'm sure my measurements are not exact, but I'm bound to be
pretty close. Hopefully Larry or Bill will correct me if I'm way out in left
field on this.

Mike
Just say (tmPL), I seem to be putting out fires with gasoline today.


93878 "Mike DeLong" <mdelong@p... 2001‑06‑11 RE: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
> By the way, what is the wear angle on a C&W 55 deg. bed?
> Checking if I was close to the real thing in my plane.
>
> Bon rabotage,
> Louis Michaud

Louis,
I finally remembered to check on this. The wear angle on my C&W razee is
also 55d.

BTW, that's a great looking razee smoother you made for yourself.

Mike
------------------------------
Mike DeLong
Southern Methodist University
Director of Investment Systems


93884 esther.heller@k... 2001‑06‑11 Re: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother


From: Esther Heller


Bugbear asked:
> Louis,
> I finally remembered to check on this. The wear angle on my C&W razee is
> also 55d.

OK. Now I'm confused. With a 55d bed and a 55d wear, and a 3 thou
mouth - shouldn't the shaving aperture be a 3 thou parallel
walled slit, incapable of passing a shaving?




Ascii art alert!!!

  ware     __Bed___
|       /        |
|______/_________|  Both are 55 from vertical, but in

opposite directions.  Or possibly:

 ware     __Bed___
|       /        |
|_____//__________|  But in this case the parallel part would
be short vertically.  But I vote for the first picture.





Esther



93887 "Larry Williams" <williams@i... 2001‑06‑11 Re: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
 
>Mike DeLong wrote:
> 
>> > By the way, what is the wear angle on a C&W 55 deg. bed?
>> > Checking if I was close to the real thing in my plane.
>> >
>> > Bon rabotage,
>> > Louis Michaud
>> 
>> Louis,
>> I finally remembered to check on this. The wear angle on my C&W razee is
>> also 55d.

Paul then asked:
>OK. Now I'm confused. With a 55d bed and a 55d wear, and a 3 thou
>mouth - shouldn't the shaving aperture be a 3 thou parallel
>walled slit, incapable of passing a shaving?

Actually, I believe Mike measured the breast angle. The wear angle is 85 
degrees.

Larry Williams

 



93893 "Bill - Craftsman Studio" <bill@c... 2001‑06‑11 Re: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother

> >Mike DeLong wrote:
> >
> >> > By the way, what is the wear angle on a C&W 55 deg. bed?
> >> > Checking if I was close to the real thing in my plane.
> >> >
> >> > Bon rabotage,
> >> > Louis Michaud
> >>
> >> Louis,
> >> I finally remembered to check on this. The wear angle on my C&W razee
is
> >> also 55d.
>
> Paul then asked:
> >OK. Now I'm confused. With a 55d bed and a 55d wear, and a 3 thou
> >mouth - shouldn't the shaving aperture be a 3 thou parallel
> >walled slit, incapable of passing a shaving?
>
> Larry Replied:  Actually, I believe Mike measured the breast angle. The
wear angle is 85
> degrees.

I must admit to being completely ignorant of breast and wear angles - can
someone define these or point me towards the appropriate reference please?

Thanks! - Bill in La Mesa



93885 Louis Michaud <louis_michaud@u... 2001‑06‑11 RE: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
 Mike wrote:

>I finally remembered to check on this. The wear angle on my C&W razee is
>also 55d.
 
Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing here.

 A section trough the throat

front of plane           
_____________                    __________
                                         /
                                       /
                                     / bed
                   wear /        /   55 deg.
______________/         /_______________

The wear would have the same angle, parallele to,
as the bed ?  

Louis Michaud


93904 Paul Fuss <pfuss@h... 2001‑06‑11 Re: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother

esther.heller@k... wrote:

> Ascii art alert!!!
>
>    ware     __Bed___
> |             /                 |
> |______/_________|  Both are 55 from vertical, but in
>
> opposite directions.  Or possibly:
>
>  ware         __Bed___
> |             /                  |
> |_____ //__________|  But in this case the parallel part would
> be short vertically.  But I vote for the first picture.

Look at that bottom picture for a moment, and imagine a single
tapered iron in this plane...  Why weren't wooden bench planes
made this way ( i.e. with the lower portion of the ware and the
bed parallel to each other)?  You could joint the sole many many
times without affecting the mouth size in the least.  Would there
be any particular difficulty in its construction?  Or would it result
in the throat jamming too easily on a regular bench plane*?  Seems
to me that as long as that lower portion of the ware weren't too
long, that this wouldn't have to be a problem.

I once bought a wooden plane that was constructed in exactly this
way.   I believe it may be a miter plane; it's the size of an ordinary
smoother but completely squared off on the top.  Don't remember
at the moment the angle of the bed (though I know I measured it
at the time), and I vaguely recall it being slightly, but not a lot, less
than 45 degrees...  The iron was/is missing, but it was a single iron
as there is no mortice in the bed for a cap screw.  What struck me
at the time was the fact that the ware and bed are parallel, and
I'd not seen that before.

*If in fact this is a miter plane, the end grain shavings would
simply crumble if they curled up tightly enough to start to jam,
whereas maybe this would be a problem for along-the-grain
shavings?

Any thoughts/answers from you wooden plane gurus?

Many thanks,
Paul Fuss
(as always, nothing but more questions...)




93897 "Mike DeLong" <mdelong@p... 2001‑06‑11 RE: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
> Actually, I believe Mike measured the breast angle. The wear
> angle is 85
> degrees.
>
> Larry Williams

Thanks Larry. I responded with a guesstimate of 80d earlier today, but it
must have disappeared into the Internet's never-never regions. Breast
angle - I wondered what that was called. My earlier post may show up yet. If
it does ... IGNORE IT!

Mike


93879 paul womack <pwomack@e... 2001‑06‑11 Re: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
Mike DeLong wrote:
> 
> > By the way, what is the wear angle on a C&W 55 deg. bed?
> > Checking if I was close to the real thing in my plane.
> >
> > Bon rabotage,
> > Louis Michaud
> 
> Louis,
> I finally remembered to check on this. The wear angle on my C&W razee is
> also 55d.

OK. Now I'm confused. With a 55d bed and a 55d wear, and a 3 thou
mouth - shouldn't the shaving aperture be a 3 thou parallel
walled slit, incapable of passing a shaving?

	BugBear


93899 Louis Michaud <louis_michaud@u... 2001‑06‑11 Re: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
Bill is looking for some answers:
>can someone define these or point me towards the 
>appropriate reference please?

Have a look at Scott Post's great site:

http://members.home.net/sepost/woodwork.html

Go to planemaking, then look at the panel fielder.
In the diagram below it with the surfaces identified
with angles:

50d = bed
70d = wear
65d = breast

Hope this helps.
Louis Michaud


93905 Moses and Meg <myoder@n... 2001‑06‑11 Re: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother

>
>
>
>
>  ware     __Bed___
>|       /        |
>|_____//__________|  But in this case the parallel part would
>be short vertically.

         Galoots,
                 I'm by no means an expert on wooden planes, and wish to 
learn considerably more about them. I just wanted to point out that the 
David Finck book talks very specifically about filing the mouth opening, 
and says the file must be angled towards the toe of the plane. This would 
make the breast angle lean slightly towards the toe of the plane. He and 
Krenov both suggest this. I've tried some planes with the breast angle 
towards the heel of the plane, and it does not plane well at all for me. 
Perhaps my shavings are too thick. But with the breast angled towards the 
toe of the plane I begin getting nice thin shavings with no clogging of the 
mouth. So far as wear at the mouth, I think the Knight idea of the 
adjustable mouth wedge is the greatest thing since fire.

         Moses Yoder
         White Pigeon MI



93929 "Bill - Craftsman Studio" <bill@c... 2001‑06‑11 Re: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
Many thanks to Louis, Steve and the others who described the angles
involved.  I am now sitting here happily with a copy of Scott's fine drawing
annotated with the angle names so I won't forget them.

Bill in La Mesa - Who is now pondering the wear angle on the little bronze
chariot plane he thought he was making...


> Bill is looking for some answers:
> >can someone define these or point me towards the
> >appropriate reference please?
>
> Have a look at Scott Post's great site:
>
> http://members.home.net/sepost/woodwork.html
>
> Go to planemaking, then look at the panel fielder.
> In the diagram below it with the surfaces identified
> with angles:
>
> 50d = bed
> 70d = wear
> 65d = breast
>
> Hope this helps.
> Louis Michaud
>
>


93931 paul womack <pwomack@e... 2001‑06‑12 Re: My Ultimate Gloat - Clark & Williams Razee Smoother
Larry Williams wrote:
> 
> 
> >Mike DeLong wrote:
> >
> >> > By the way, what is the wear angle on a C&W 55 deg. bed?
> >> > Checking if I was close to the real thing in my plane.
> >> >
> >> > Bon rabotage,
> >> > Louis Michaud
> >>
> >> Louis,
> >> I finally remembered to check on this. The wear angle on my C&W razee is
> >> also 55d.
> 
> Paul then asked:
> >OK. Now I'm confused. With a 55d bed and a 55d wear, and a 3 thou
> >mouth - shouldn't the shaving aperture be a 3 thou parallel
> >walled slit, incapable of passing a shaving?
> 
> Actually, I believe Mike measured the breast angle. The wear angle is 85
> degrees.

Jargon, eh? Now I'm less confused. Thank you, Mr. Williams.

	BugBear



Recent Search Bios FAQ