Talk:Plane (tool)/Archive 1

Hand plane makers?

What's everyone's opinion on having a list of *active* plane makers? Lie-Nielsen, Stanley (of course), Lee Valley (Veritas), HNT Gordon, Clifton...

I know that, generally, commercial 'advertising' is discouraged on Wiki, but with hand planes being relatively small-scale these days, it might be helpful for a person researching....

Dunno, I'm on the fence about it. boinger 20:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with it. There's plenty of precedent for mentioning manufacturers. As long as we don't link to their shopping page, I'd be OK with it. SilentC 21:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to help you by saying I'm also on the fence. Could be useful, but Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_not_be_linked_to does say that "Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" should not be linked. Take a look at the links on the Lutherie article for an example of where it might lead. I dunno too. Luigizanasi 01:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although, the manufacturers are themselves noteable and either have or should have Wiki articles in their own right: Stanley Works, Lee Valley Tools, Lie-Nielsen. Does that help at all? SilentC 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this after seeing a change on the page (the plane naming below), and wonder if the truly notable makers might not be piped in links during a history of plan manufacture after the industrial revolution? (Which should be it's own section on the page). ThuranX 15:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A section on modern plane makers could allow this, with external links. Such a history could be hard to write though, and keep neutral; descending into arguments about the relative qualities of modern Stanley and Record planes, US and UK Stanleys, and even between Lie-Nielsen and Clifton. I doubt the majority of neanders would mind being linked off to the droolworthy Lie-Nielsen site, and Rob Lee's Lee Valley site has loads of goodies too. Clifton would be awkward, since as far as I'm aware there isn't a Clifton/Clico web-site. But where does the line get drawn? Karl Holtey anyone? (Don't all say yes please); Steve Knight's wooden planes? Ron Hock's replacement irons? Carre 15:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, by 'links' I meant the links to the wikipages, not their sites. as to writing that, perhaps something along the lines of ...' Industrial revolution allowed greater speed of manufacture, introducing the nation and soon the world to lasting names such as x, y, and z... after mass production and competition from china through big markets like the despot and the lowdown, specialty dealers and manufacturers like LN, LV, and CC have risen up to fill the high end handcrafting niche...' but you know, longer, more detailed, and more polite, LOL. As part of the WP:WW, we could put in a comment to the effect that the paragraph is meant to reflect upon the history of the plane and not as endorsement NOR as a link repository. ThuranX 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - it seems such a history could split the Bailey/Bedrock makers from the woodies from the infills too; something like "traditional wooden planes continue to be made by specialist manufacturers such as HNT", and "the infill plane survives through the efforts of small manufacturers, although these planes tend to be hand-built, and as such expensive relative to the mass produced metal planes.", maybe with a reference to Holtey. How about mention of LN & Clifton sticking much to the bedrock design, contrasting with the innovations LV have made? Too POV? Similarly, it might be interesting to consider the upsurge in interest in bevel up bench planes. Carre 11:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circular Plane

I added this, but forgot the signature part. sorry. ThuranX 02:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'll be getting a digital Camera soon. I'd like to add a shot of my own Stanley circular plane (it is a #113, type 2) to the article... is this acceptable? ThuranX 06:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! That would be great. Any picture you take and are willing to license under the GFDL is acceptable. I would like to suggest that you upload it to Wikimedia commons so that other language wikipedias can also use it. I uploaded a number of pictures there, notably the transitional plane image used on this page. Luigizanasi 16:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Plane

Just a slight disagreement with the sentence "Bench planes are sometimes named according to their length:". Surely this is incorrect - the name of the plane is derived from its USE, as is the length: smoothing plane used for smoothing, jack being "jack of all trades" (??), fore being "good fore nothing" (joking), jointer used for... jointing. The function defining the length and the name, not the length defining the name. Carre 14:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Go ahead and fix it. Luigizanasi 15:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before I do that, does anyone actually know the origin of the name "Fore"? I know the plane is supposed to be used for rougher stock removal prior to going to the jointer/try plane, but have no idea where the name comes from. Similarly, is the Jack really named from "jack of all trades" - I had put that jokingly, thinking it was apocryphal. Carre 15:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked through my books, and no one gives an origin for "fore plane". On the jack plane, a number mention "jack-of-all-trades", including Ernest Joyce. However, one — Bernard E. Jones, The practical Woodworker' —says: "If a piece of timber has to be planed the surface is first roughly 'jacked' over, the trying plane is then used to make the surface straight and out of twist ..." Ernest Joyce writes: "The name itself is probably a corruption of 'jackass' or 'Jack of all Trades' and fit for anything; it is therefore reserved for the rougher work although it is as much a precision istrument as any other." Who knows waht the real etymology is. Luigizanasi 06:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done it - have a look. In summary, I moved the scrub up into bench planes, and bundled the fore and jointer into one line (as it usually is mentioned as a sort of smaller try/jointer) - see Tage Frid. Also put a little description of the use (not to detract from the main pages for these planes). Carre 09:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fore planes got their name from being used 'beFORE' the jointer/try planes, I can't remember whether I read this in 'The Handplane Book' (Hack) or 'Working With Handplanes' (Fine Woodworking), it was one of the two that mentioned the origin. Bainzy 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The fore plane is so-called because it was used be-fore the smoother or jointer, according to Joseph Moxon, as cited by the Oxford English dictionary. 129.62.170.107 15:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wood grain as a separate page

Presently there is an underdeveloped page at wood grain that needs to be added to the grain (disambiguation) page (I will do that). It is pretty small and sad, though, and the grain information here is fantastic... some of it should be either copied or moved to the wood grain article, in my opinion. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 02:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, we could also merge Figure (wood) into it. I realize that Hoadley says figure & grain are different, but popular usage confounds the two. The merged article should obviously acknowledge (and reference) the difference. Luigizanasi 02:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Planes

Some planes are technically block planes (bevel up iron and no chipbreaker), but are not generally thought of as such (low angle jointer planes and low angle smooth planes, for example). These planes clearly can't be held in one hand and aren't really for general purpose work. I think the first paragraph of this section needs to be re-written. Any thoughts? blurdo|Talk 04:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two schools of thought on that one. Some people consider BU planes to be an evolution of the block plane, and therefore a member of the block plane family. Others believe they are a development in their own right and should be thought of as a different animal. I suppose it depends on what you believe to be meant by the term 'block plane' ie. does it refer to its use (some say "blocking" - being the dressing of end grain butcher's blocks for example) or to some other arcane principle to do with its physical appearance and characteristics. Personally, I think that a BU smoother is a smoother that happens to be bevel up, not an oversized block plane. It doesn't gel to my mind to have a jointer grouped with a block plane. Whatever the development path of BU planes was, surely the only thing they have in common with a block plane now is the orientation of the blade? SilentC 05:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but the second sentence says "Block planes are characterized by a cutting iron bedded with the bevel up, and the absence of a chipbreaker." It seems that either this sentence or the following ones need to be changed.blurdo|Talk 23:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph on Stanley

That reads an awful lot like ad copy to me. I don't want to yank it outright, but is that section really necessary? It pretty much boils down to "Stanley is a company that makes planes." Any number of companies could fit that description. Errick 21:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It's my impression that Stanley planes are particularly well-know/respected within the field, with a very long history, with several antique collectors focusing on their various models. Possibly it could be trimmed, changing the tone? --Eyrian 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm thinking. The information might well be useful, since I take it Stanley is the most significant manufacturer, but maybe it should stick more to how Stanley is connected to planes in general, instead of that company history stuff, which doesn't seem to pertain much to the topic. It was just something I noticed in my random browsing, anyway, I'm not really familiar with planes and Stanely and whatnot in general. :) I just like to point these things out as I come across them. Errick 21:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict)Actually, there's more on it at the linked site and plenty of other places, but Stanley was one of those rare companies that capitalized on the industrial revolution to buy up smaller plane designs, mass produce the planes, and so on. In addition, for quite a long period, they were the premier makers, both in quality and quantity, of planes. Even now, old Stanleys are pursued by tool collectors and tool users. I may be biased, because I'm both a woodworker AND a wikipedian, but the Stanley component's significnt enough to the plane to be included. Check out the linked website there. (Although, looking at the section now, a year after joining wikipedia, it MIGHT be time to rewrite it. hmmm. ) ThuranX 22:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects?

Can someone explain why 'against the grain' redirects to this page? It doesn't seem to make much sense. Madness 15:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this page discusses the use of a plane, and that naturally involves the term 'against the grain'. Further, as the literal meaning is the origin of the adage, it makes sense to explain it directly. ThuranX 02:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]