OldTools Archive
Recent | 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 | Bios | FAQ |