Official Luthiers Forum!

Hello everyone,

I'm looking for a bit of an advice on a topic that seems to be one of the most difficult ones for me to grasp, the topic being which plane is suited best for different tasks - specifically the thicknessing of guitar sides and backs. This must have been discussed already somewhere, I just couldn't really find anything though. Feel free to put a link, anything helps.
I've been comtemplating getting into luthiery for as long as I've been working with wood, it's acutally what made me purchase my first set of tools. Back then I've had little to no idea how to go about the whole idea, where to start, what tools to use and what not. That has been some 10+ years ago and at some point I've sort of set the idea aside figuring that I'd come back to it when I feel that I might be up for the challenge. A few days ago I've finally desided on what wood I'd like the guitar to be made out of (I've settled on rosewood for the back and sides, sitka spruce as top wood - both of them staight grained). I'm aware that rosewood is proably not the most beginner friendly choice, it is however what I'd like my first guitar to be made of.

I do own a couple of planes and have used them to thickness and smooth pretty much everything I've worked on: bigger and smaller projects like furniture making, things that I usually refear to as accessories and even a / the wooden bandsaw by Matthias Wandel. What I mean to say is, that I feel like I know my way around planes - and then again I seem not to. I think I might have searched to whole of the internet, read as many books as I could get my hands on and still don't seem to be getting a final answer to what plane is best suited for a specific task.

I do own a No4, a No7, a low angle block plane, a spokeshave and a wooden smoothing smoothing plane that I've modified to work as a scrub plane.

I've long thought that what I'm still missing is a No62, not because of the hype that seems to have developed around them, but because of the ease of use and the results that I've been getting when using my low angle block plane. The world of woodworkers and luthiers alike seems not to be in complete agreement on the matter - my thoughts went along the line that wood which is hard and brittle, possibly including diffcult grain might actually best be planed with a No 62 - as long as the ajustable mouth is tightly set and one is not plaining against the grain. A lot of luthiers that I've read and watched seem to disagree though; most of them are using bevel down planes of different varieties (most of the time anyways).

Steep angles seem to work in a way, that is more related to how scrapers work - thus seem to be the right choice for diffcult grain of brittle wood.
Low angles are more of less cutting into / peeling of the wood, so as long as one planes WITH the grain, this seems to work fine on almost any kind of wood. And if the wood still tears, I tend to ajust the mouth opening which seems to work on most problems.

My No 4 has the original Stanley blade, whereas my No7 has a Hook replacement blade, which seems to make somewhat of a difference too.

Paul Seller said somewhere that bevel down planes where made popular because they where invented at a time when this was the only tool that carpenters and cabinet makers had available and it did most of the task equally well - whereas low angle planes only works for specific tasks. Also multiple planes might have been a bit less affordable at the time.
He also states that guitarmakers might prefer a low angle plane:

Which made me wonder: Might he be up to something?

I'd be thankful if anyone had any advice as to which plane might be suited best for planing those rosewood backs and sides by hand - and which plane might be a helpful addition to what I alread have. I've even thought about just getting a Veritas No4 for the superior quality, maybe a No 5.
No 62 after all? I'm at a loss.

There is a book called Guitarmaking: Tradition and Technology, by William Cumpiano and Jonathan Natelson. That book has extensive information on how to hand plane backs, sides, and tops for guitars. You already have hand planes; what you now need is task-specific knowledge. I recommend buying that book and reading the sections on hand planing.

Most folks these days opt for abrasive planing of backs, sides and tops, but that means buying or borrowing time on a drum sander or a wide belt sander.

While the Cumpiano and Natelson book is not reflective of how most guitar builders do things these days, it was the most important text of its time, and if you want to use hand methods, it is still a very important resource, as is true in this instance.

Hi Philipp, welcome to the forum.

I figured I'd answer because I do thickness with planes and scrapers. #62 jack plane? I had to look it up! I have a 18" Craftsman, with a "corrugated" sole. It works great for joining backs and bellies. Never thought of using it for sides; it's kinda big. I have walnut sides that I thought I cut to thickness, but never did. I might try that today and see what it does.

I would venture to guess that most here thickness with a drum sander. I don't have one. Get things close with a planer. I don''t have one. Bend on a bender, with silicon belts. I don't have one.

I started by making violins. I just thicknessed, and bent, and glued on Wenge sides for a 5 string viola. The wood is cut right on the quarter; that's why I bought it. It is probably as hard, or harder than the Rosewood, but maybe less curl in it. It does seem to have interlocked grain, so you have that weaving thing that changes grain direction; but it didn't seem to be a problem. I had some Birch with REALLY deep curls, and that was a lot of trouble.

Thinning the Wenge sides I had real good luck with my baby plane I got last winter, a Woodriver #1 (I got a great price! ) Tiny thing. Worked great. I didn't even have to shim the blade, because it has a adjustable frog? to keep the gap small.

My little brass finger plane worked good too, but it is too small.

If the baby bench plane worked, a well set up larger one would too. I just have the big one and the small one, and the finger plane with a flat bottom. I have another, but i have it set up with a toothed blade for real problems. I haven't worked with Rosewood sides, or backs. I've planed a lot of hard fingerboards, with figure, and I just get them close, and do all the finishing with a plane blade used as a scraper.

Best of luck. I'll try the walnut with that big plane today. It is just a conventional bevel down. But it has a good blade, and a VERY thick backer, patterned after a Hock.

_________________
Why be normal?

A plane close to the length of the work piece works well for jointing the top and back, so jack, fore or jointer planes would all seem appropriate for the work. That said, I find the jack to be the most generally useful of those choices, with my favorite the #5-1/4 junior jack and the 5-1/2 high angle wider jack lovely for longer jointing work. The #5-1/2 is often called out as a substitute for the English-style panel plane in cabinet work, but I found the extra mass and robust construction of the Bedrock-style bench plane variants worked well for working figured grain on both face and edge. I always found the #7 to be a bit cumbersome on narrow stock when used on a jointing fixture, but I am of below average height... although I might have to try a #6 if I can find one... it seems to be the closest to top and back length.

The first planes I used for smoothing and jointing work at Greenridge were the bevel-up #62 variants from Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley/Veritas. Removing the cap iron setup task from the mix of set-up and use concerns was useful to understanding exactly what honed angle did for cutting action and overall effort. I ended up preferring standard and high angle-frogged planes for this work, but still think a nice set of first planes for a luthier's bench might well be a small bevel-up modelmaker's plane, a #60-1/2 low angle block, and a #62 - all bevel up.

To get to the point of the post, the usual progression of scrub, jack, and panel plane or smoother in cabinetmaking is unlikely to be needed with most stock coming from the vendor at around 1/4" - 3/16" thickness and more or less flat. We always joined plates in the rough or lightly scraped as needed to identify problems, then worked the plate to thickness by hand (during early training) or on the 22/44 ODS sander. A jack with a very slight radius and a nearly dead-flat radius on a second jack blade or smooth plane (a nice #3 in spruce and a #4 with high angle frog in figured stuff to wrap up) finished up. On wildly rowed or figured stuff, we had two bench scrapers available - a #85 bench-plane-style and a #80 cabinet scraper... the #85 was a bit fussy, so I learned to put a good edge on the #80 and work to a decent surface with that.

The most important characteristic of planes used to work guitar timbers is that they be sharp. My early struggles with using a hand plane for thicknessing and jointing were perhaps three-quarters sharpness and the rest tool set-up and form. Flawless setup of the plane combined with excellent form still yields poor results in most timbers with a dull blade. On steep angle bevel-up planes and high-angle (50 degree, 55 degree) frogs, my understanding from the near-lifetime plane users I worked with was that the higher angle was more about turning the chip quickly to avoid it generating greater leverage than duplicating a scraper's cut. That aside, there was no denying the somewhat greater effort and need to resharpen the blade more frequently with a higher honed angle on the bevel-up jacks or high angle frogs on the bench planes, suggesting that the operation must be similar to card or jigged scraper use in terms of increased friction and edge wear.

Finally, having a good bench to hold the work at the right height is also a factor in achieving acceptable results. We had three different bench heights at Greenridge: too high, much too high, and "may I borrow a ladder?' high. A bench height set for a lanky six-foot-plus gentleman will not suit for a more normal-sized sort of person, so consider the traditional guidance of making a joiner's bench no higher than wrist height when standing with arms relaxed and at one's sides. Besides better leverage on the plane, a longer work stroke may be made when jointing or planing without that little skip of a dance step done when working a longer piece of work.

I burst out laughing at that
Frightened the wife sat next to me.

I like a my no6 Stanley plane (blade microbevelled at 40 degrees) for plain Back and Sides, and I've used a #62 bevel up standard angle for tops.
Figured woods, you might look at a no 80 scraper of a scraper plane (I have a Veritas bought second hand) - some people find it a bit trick to set up, but I just followed the instructions.

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.

Many thanks for the instant replies!
As it is, one of the two books on guitar making that I own is the one by Cumpiano and Natelson. I found it to be a little overwhelming, but I went through occasionally. As you mentioned, it was written in a different time and I don't plan to work with a workboard but rather with a mold and a CNCed radius disc. Not everthing in it is outdated of course, especially when working with hand tools. It is a bit of an encyclopedia tough, which is probably why I bought the other one by Jonathan Kinkead - very different, more hands on. I will take your advice though and dig it up again.

I've decided to bend my sides the old fashioned way (have I mentioned that I like hand tools?), I've gifted myself a caramillo bending iron so I don't have any excuses left as not to get started. So far, I've used it for bending inlays for woodturning projects and it works wonderfully, Andy really knows what he's doing! It seems a tad small tough, we'll see how it work on larger pieces like guitar sides.

I've heard of toothed irons but I've never used them. The idea behind it seems to be deviding the shavings and thereby the different grain directions into seperate, smaller sections. Almost like having several blades next to each other. Never heard of the use of a plane blade as a scraper, stands to reason tough. What angle do you put on the blade, 30°?

I'm sharpering my blades on waterstones with a lie nielsen honing guide. Occasionally I have to sharpen my smallest chisels by hand, they don't get anywhere close to the results I get by using the guide. I'm starting a 1000, 6000 after that and finish on a strop with diamond paste on it. I though about maybe getting an even finer waterstone (8000 - 10000) if that makes any difference at all? I never seemed to be in the need of it, but then again I've never had it so far.

I don't consider myself lanky, I am 1,82 m or 6?ish ft though. I'm usually working on a table with a thick mdf workboard on top and have build myself a mini workbench for applications that require a vice. Their about the height that you've mentioned. I might have to figure sth out as soon as get to the neck work though. I've never used a cabinet scraper, they seem to be used all over the field so that might be an option. Also they're more on the affordable side of things. The question then is what scrapers actually do? They seem to turn the chips / shavings almost in an instant.


So in conclusion one can never have to many different planes, the No 62 is not really needed though and more of a bonus. With what I already have, the No 7 and No 4 are the way to go, maybe a high angled plane for difficult grain. A cabinet scraper like the No80 might be a sensible addition and I've always planned on finishing with scrapers, might get a thicker one though. Mine are 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 mm ... that is.... 0.08, 0.16 and 0.24" I think?

Why do you use the No 62 for tops? Any specific reason? For me softwoods usually plane fairly easily with a regular bevel down plane. My line of thoughts was that the No62 might be better suited for more difficult, exotic wood. Mostly because of the adjustable mouth and the possibility of put a different presentation angle on the blade.
I don't mean to reprimand, I'm merely curious.

Check out a safety planer. You can buy used ones for ebay and or buy a new one from StewMac. I pretty easy way to thickness materials.

I used a belt sander and random orbital for the first 4 Ukuleles I made. Fyi I've been utilizing woodworking tools my whole life so this was pretty easy.

_________________
https://www.instagram.com/fostinoguitars/
https://www.facebook.com/PuraVidaUkuleles/

The point on discussing the #62 low angle bevel up jacks was more to illustrate that that different grind/hone angles could support both work in forgiving timbers and in highly figured stuff, and that eliminating the cap iron can reduce the overall learning curve without sacrificing meaningful performance. The bedding angle of the blade on a #62 is about 12 degrees, so if a blade is ground at 25 degrees and honed to 30 degrees, the cutting angle is 12 + 30, or 42 degrees - just shy of the 45 degrees which is standard for bench planes with bevel-down blade and cap irons configuration and as useful in end grain as on well-behaved face grain. A second blade ground to 35 degrees and honed to 40 degrees gives a 52 degree cutting angle, which is about mid way between the 50 and 55 degree high angle frogs available from Lie Nielsen which is quite useful on figured stock. So one plane may be used for several tasks with either spare blades or a new grind and hone cycle. As the cost of a good low angle jack runs about $300 and a spare blade between $50 and $65, this makes for a more affordable option than something like a jack and dedicated smoother (my preferred #3 is about $350 from Lie-Nielsen).

On bench height, it is relatively easy to set a bench up for appropriate height for the work to be done using additional extension shoes to add height or reduction in the base height for shorter users. The point there was more the importance of getting the correct setup for the work to be done and the person doing the work than to complain about how the Greenridge benches were set up as for 'Land of the Giants' sets. And yes - I do have a little platform I use to correct the injustice of the thing when I visit, but YOU should not tolerate a bad match between your own benches and whatever dizzying heights you have achieved in terms of stature.

On sharpening: so many options and so, so many people that claim their approach is the only method approved by the Madalorians as 'Way Compliant'... or similar nonsense. We used a simple system which was built around quick return of the plane to service: grind to 5 degrees less than the desired honing angle using a CBN 8" wheel, then hone on a coarse DMT DuoSharp diamond stone followed by an 8000 grit Norton waterstone. The Norton stone worked for this despite the huge grit size gap because of a relatively soft formulation that was fast cutting, but broke down to a fine paste as the surface dried just a bit. The large C/XC DMT plate does double duty in flattening the waterstones and quickly stripping off the dead edge of a dull blade. A softer stone needs more frequent dressing, but when I last checked, Greenridge had been using their latest 4000 and 8000 grit nortons for well over 15 years, while my own is barely broken in after about 5 years of use. When I am at Greenridge, I change the water in the stone containers first thing in the morning and flatten both the 4000 and 8000 stones as part of the process. By the end of the day, the 8000 may need it again, but often we went several day unless someone was working a furniture project with a lot of edges to maintain. We did not strop, as honing on the 8000 stone removed the wire edge and refined the edge sufficient for the work of the shop. I should mention that we had Shapton Kuromaku 8000 and 12000 stones available as well as soft, translucent, and hard black Arkansas, but 99% of our sharpening was in-system.

13" wooden plane for jointing, card scraper to clean up the show face, coat with shellac to keep it clean, then thickness from the other side using a toothed block plane (4 notches cut into the edge with a dremel wheel), and scrape smooth. Hardwoods tend to work best if you point the plane directly across the grain and move at 45 degrees in whichever direction causes less tearout. Softwoods can usually go more in-line with the grain. Try not to let chips get underneath where they can indent the show face.

Card scraper is hard on the hands, so a scraper plane might help to do the bulk of the smoothing. But I'd still go with card scraper for the final finish.

I worked a little on the walnut side yesterday. I got stuck on my Sunday Killer Sudoku from krazydad, and wasted the afternoon! Didn't even get it done.

Like Dennis, I like to get one side without problems first, and then do the other side. This walnut has more curl than I thought, and a bunch of small eyes; at least on this side. The curls made a "nice" spaced out diagonal fuzz. I had my best luck with the #1. It might be somewhat not real sharp after doing the Wenge for the viola, but that wasn't that much planing. I pulled it out and felt it this morning, and it feels pretty sharp. The 18" was just too much blade. It wanted to dig in.

For scraping I like plane blades. I lost one plane when it fell off the folding workshop bench! Another just fell apart. But the old 3/4" Craftsman chisel, with the clear plastic handle, is a great scraper, and chisel. I need more blades of this steel; whatever it is. Easy to sharpen, and it lasts forever.

_________________
Why be normal?

My takeaway is that there is nothing a BU plane can do, that a BD plan can't do (except for endgrain work maybe). BD's are more specific planes in that sense, that the angle at which the blade is presented to the wood is fixed, so one might end up finding themself in the need of more than one plane if they wanted to be just as versatile as with a single say #62.
In the end it's probably more a matter of the skills of the user rather than the range of his tools anyway - I've heard similar rumours about playing a guitar although I'm shure their merely just that

My No4 is a older model I got some time ago on eBay and it still has it's factory balde in it. It does work, the steel quality is not the best tought and it's fairly thin so I could simply get a better quality one like I did with my No 7. The thing is that I find myself using the No 7 a lot more often than the No 4, not quite shure why though. But then again one of my main goals so far was to flatten longer and thicker board designated for furniture...

Lie Nielsen plans are hard to get in Germany or Europe for that matter - ever since covid their out of stock pretty much everywhere and quite pricey should you be able to find a shop that still delivers them. Vertias might be an option, I was thinking about getting a nice plane anyway, maybe a No 5? Their custom models allow for changing the bed / frog angle.

And should I ever find myself in trouble with a restive grain I might think about getting a plan with a higher angle or at least a cabinet scraper. Also I could simply thickness with scrapers if I'm looking for a really workout.
Low angle planes are not as important in luthiery as I thought they where I suppose.

Oh and then there is the ominous safety planer I've come across here and there, but I'd need a drill press for that and would also like to stick to hand tools for a start

The little plane works good on the walnut. I had a couple of issues, being a new plane, pretty much out of the box. The chips were bunching up. Chipbreaker? Maybe a little. I took it off, and got everything smoother; even the top of the blade, a little further back. The main problem is what I've seen in all my planes:

The area in front of the blade is just too thick.

I file a little angle on all of them to get more chip clearance. I usually do a LOT more than I did here. But this seems to work. I've never seen anyone mention this ever. I even have a couple finger planes that I need to add more width in the open area; they catch there because they need more space than the blade width. They just do.

The chips fly out now!

_________________
Why be normal?

For guitar work, especially thicknessing backs and sides, you’re really looking for control more than raw stock removal. A sharp No. 4 or No. 5 with the mouth set fine will do the job, and a scraper or card scraper is almost always part of the process to tame tricky grain. A No. 62 can definitely shine on rosewood or spruce if you like the feel of a low-angle cut, but it’s not strictly necessary. Most luthiers just stick with what they know sharpens easily and adjusts predictably. In short, your current kit is more than enough, it’s more about setup and technique than adding another plane.

Worth tuning the no.4 so it can make use of the cap iron for no risk of tearout,
aswell as a panel plane.
I learned this from David W's posts, whilst another helpful tip from him, I'll also add below.

On getting the cap iron to work, three rules must be abided by, as it wont work otherwise.
1, The cap iron honed steeply at 50 degrees, or steeper is required.
2. The mouth should be open, or the mouth not obstructing the shaving, as the cap iron is for eliminating tearout.
3. The cutting iron needs the camber to be honed perfectly symmetrical, (no rounded corners)
and such a camber being relative to the steepness of the cap iron...
i.e some rough numbers, for the most conservative user who doesn't wish to hone greater than 50/51 degrees...

For the smoother, That will require the cap iron to be no further back from the edge than 1/64", and as this camber is so slight,
it is only apparent when the cap iron is paired with the freshly sharpened iron.
Hence why 50 deg is the minimum, as any more camber than this will overshoot the corners.

For the panel plane, again with the cap honed at 50 deg, one can hone the camber, so the cap iron is a bit closer than 1/32" away from the edge.

The straight shavings coming up from the plane is the tell tale sign of the cap iron working, as is the burnished, crinkled, and waxy appearance.
If you don't see that, then it ain't working.

The last tip from David I'll mention, getting the camber symmetrical when re-honing, if one corner is needing to match the other, then a finger actually on the spot,
not held close and leaning like Cosman for instance, but one finger on top of the exact spot+hone, pin pointing pressure is very different.
Run this up the length of the hone, much like a honing guide would, this way is faster to make that correction accurately.

Might be worth finding David Charlesworth's videos, especially the older publication titled "hand planing" part two.
You won't see any bad habits like with any other publication to date.

All the best
Tom

I dimension all my wood using planes. I don't own a drum or belt sander as I don't have room for the dust collection.

I could write a whole book on planes and how to use them. There is a lot of confusing information out there. I'll constrain this piece to tops, backs and sides. First thing to note is that size 4 1/2, 5 1/2, 6 and 7 all use the same size of blade, so interchanging them is possible. For panels, the planes I mostly use are size 5 1/2.

Planing tops is easy. You just need a sharp, well set up, standard angle (45 degree) 5 1/2. I'll assume you know how to set up planes. A slight camber on the cutting edge means that the cut will feather out at the edges, but with the 5 1/2 you still have a good width of cut. You shouldn't have to worry about how close the chip breaker is to the cutting edge, but keep the mouth very narrow. One way to do that is to set up narrow on an after-markert blade (usually thicker than standard) and when you want a wider mouth for "scrubbing" revert to the OEM (thin) blade.

For ribbon/curly/flame grained wood (typical back and side wood) a completely different approach is required. Bulk wood removal can be achieved by planing across the grain using a scrub type set up (standard angle 5 1/2). A tough, hard blade is required as this procedure is hard on blades. Keep the chip breaker well back from the cutting edge. Wood can be removed quickly with no tear-out. These are the shavings you will be making:



This is the surface finish you should get:



The surface texture is different from planing in-line, but from here you have options: card scraper, orbital sander or high angle plane. Let's stick with planes. You need a bed angle of at least 60 degrees for a bevel down plane, or use a bevel up to give the same effect. I modified the frog seating on a #6 to give 60 degrees, but a #62 will also work very well. You need to produce a type 2 chip (i.e. the shaving is curled and broken before it tears up grain in front of it). Chip breaker position is not critical. Keep the blade sharp and take light cuts. What you should get is this:



Note the in-line shavings on the floor and no tear-out. This was done with the #6 modified to a high angle (60 degree bed).

The same result can be achieved with a bevel up plane, here using a Veritas standard angle block plane and and a cutting angle of ~ 62 degrees.



Note the shavings under my hand. Again, no tear-out. This planing technique for back and side wood will work on all the species I've used, including EIR, braz, Aus blackwood, koa, bloodwood, various maples, walnut etc. etc.. One more pic:



Plenty more pics on my website.

For joining panels what you need most of all is that very rare thing, a flat plane. Don't bother trying to flatten a plane sole. The locked in stresses that made it out of flat in the first place will just make it out of flat again before very long. So just bite the bullet and buy one; probably a Lie-Neilsen or a Veritas. A size 5 1/2 will work fine for jointing guitar panels. My flattest plane is a Veritas low angle jack (essentially a #62).

So for tops, backs and sides you could get away with just a # 62 (and a few blades with different bevel angles), but a 5 1/2 and a #62 will give a few more options.

_________________
Trevor Gore, Luthier. Australian hand made acoustic guitars, classical guitars; custom guitar design and build; guitar design instruction.

http://www.goreguitars.com.au

Those are some fabulous results, Trevor. I'll have to try a high angle plane for finishing. I'll be amazed if it performs that well in my hands, but perhaps it is as night-and-day different as a flat plane for jointing.

My wooden jointer does need re-flattened periodically, but it's easy to do using an extra-extra-coarse dia-sharp or flat surface with adhesive sandpaper.

How is the wood held in place in that second to last photo? It looks like there must be double-stick tape underneath, but what is the exact arrangement? I've always struggled with holding thin wood. Double stick is a pain to get off, and causes uneven thickness unless you get it shimmed up just right, but I don't see any shim material sticking out from under the side in that photo. Or do you only have tape under the ends, and not worry about them coming out a little thinner since they'll be cut off after bending anyway? But then that probably wouldn't hold well enough for cross-grain rough thicknessing. Unless maybe if you use a couple cam clamps as well, and move them around as you go?

Equally as interesting, is the holding down of the work, and perhaps another thread in itself,
Though for some this heading, possibly being synergistic to the approach.

I see some well known books brought up, so might as well ask, is there mention of the use of hide glue in place of double stick tape, or are other methods mentioned, what
might not involve shifting clamps?
I seen recently, an interesting take on this with the use of some brads..
https://www.thewoodhaven2.co.uk/threads ... 820/page-6
and would be curious to know if some might have tried that?

Cheers folks
Tom

Many thanks for all of the extensive insight, I really do appeciated it! That goes for all of you, I didn't quite expect to get so many responses.
You might give that book on planes and how to use them a second thought, this cleared out a lot of remaining uncertainties. I'm shure there is a demand for it, especially when it comes to exotic woods like the ones used in guitar making.

I'm self thaught so I woundn't consider my knowledge the golden standard. So far I've always honed my blades by a method I picked up from Matt Estlea, starting with a straight edge and then putting a camfer on the blade, that increases towards the edge by pressing on points towards the edge whilest honing on a waterstone - although I've modified this method a bit by verifing the chamfer with a straight edge against the light and taking coutermessures (similar to what Tom wrote.

What the mouth opening is concerned, I've always figured that the finer the shavings, the smaller the opening. As far as I understand the mouth (or the part of the mouth that limits the opening towards the bow of the plane) presses on the wood and thereby prevents the grain from raising to far ahead of the blade while forcing it at the same time to be cut by and "travel up" the blade instead of getting torn out by it.

Untrue planes staying untrue makes a lot of sense to me and sort of is what I've eperienced with my No 7. This plan was produces somewhere around 1914 and even though people tend to praise these ancient tools, this one slightly warped again over the last 10 years or so. I still love it and it is a nicely working plane but there is the argument that production possibities and quality in steel might have slightly increased over the last 100 years. That is, if you're buying modern, good quality planes.
Anyway, I suppose I'll get myself a high quality No 5 or 5 1/2 for a start, maybe an extra aftermarket blade for the No 4 or a spare one for the No 5. I'm not planing on getting a collectors amount of planes just now, so I reckon this might be the best approach for now.
Also I might put a high angle at my spare blade thar came with the block plane I own, just to see what it does to diffcult grains.

What I think I'm still missing that I can't manage without is a thickness gauge, so there is that.


Also my boards arrived today! And even though I was tempted, I didn't start with the most curly or flamed wood because I'm aware that these are the most difficult ones to plane and bend without breaking. I couldn't resist getting a fairyl good quality though. My thinking here goes that if I'm putting in the work required to make a musical instrument, I might aswell spend a little more on the raw material.

I'm shure I'll get in touch should I manage to screw something up really badly

A good study on the subject for one who wishes to use... say a nice no.5 1/2, be it an old or new plane,
is watching a youtube from Rob Cosman, where he compares his tight mouth setting with a back bevelled blade,

It's an honest video where you'll get to see the limitations of both those methods,
much more difficult work compared to using the cap iron to it's potential, that of which Rob won't demonstrate,
whilst you can put most other youtuber gurus in that bracket as well unfortunately.




All the best
Tom

The one where I'm using the block plane? The wood is just held by my left hand pressing down onto the bench. The oil finish on the bench is fairly high friction, so things don't tend to squirm around. Another thing, you can only get as flat as your bench is, but flattening a solid wood bench with planes is no real problem.

Mostly, though, I plane into stops. You can see various bench dogs in the pics. I also use custom boards with stops for particular jobs. Finishing sides to final thickness planing in line is not for the faint hearted. You need to keep the total thrust load on the stop as low as possible so you don't buckle the piece. So very sharp blades, light cuts, minimal down force on the plane and waxed soles are the order of the day. That's how the pair of sides ready for the bender were done. I very rarely use clamps when planing, but occasionally that's necessary, usual on wood that won't lie flat and so jumps the stop.

Double sided tape works, too. In the falcate top video I did with Robbie I used tape as that top was jumping its stop. The tape only affects the thickness of bits that get cut off, as you pointed out.

_________________
Trevor Gore, Luthier. Australian hand made acoustic guitars, classical guitars; custom guitar design and build; guitar design instruction.

http://www.goreguitars.com.au

I long ago got into the habit of planing thin stock, such as sides, away from a clamp. I had a couple of dulcimer sides buckle and break back in the day and decided that compression loading was not the best idea. You have to flip them around to get both ends, of course.

My understanding is that the problem of persistent warping in iron planes has to do more with economics than anything else. In the 'old days' they'd make up a bunch of castings of particular parts. while they were at it, and pile them up (probably in the yard) until they were needed. The internal stresses introduced by uneven cooling would have a chance to work themselves out before the parts got sand blasted to get the rust off, and milled down to spec. Storage like that costs money, so most manufacturers don't do that any more.

I had my Stanley #4-1/2 for several years before I realized that many of the problems I was having were not 'operator error', but were due to a warped sole (on the plane...). Once I got it leveled and tuned up things got radically better. Until quite recently I did all of my joining with that plane; for fifty years.

Part of the high price of boutique planes is simply the cost of waiting around for the casting to 'season' properly. We don't think twice about paying extra for properly seasoned wood; we should accept that sort of cost in tools as well.

A solid, heavy, flat bench is one of the most important tools you'll own.

I've finially brought myself to buying the Veritas jack plane along with 2 regual plane blades and a toothed one (I hope this will help with difficult wood should the need ever arise). The idea behind it being that I'll have one blade sharpend to a high angle and one with a more regular one. Next step will be to plane the rough sides of the top and back to what I think will be sufficiently flat for joining them. I've contemplated on the matter of what glue to use and even though I've never worked with hide glue before I think I'll take the risk and just give it a go. I like the idea of a joint that CAN be (not has to be, I hope I'll do a good enough job so the need never arises) repaired should it ever come apart.

I think a lot of the planes that were produced in the last mid century did not undergo the process of stress-relief annealing which such manufacturers as Veritas or Lie Nielsen do these days. On top of that comes the fact that the steel quality vastly improved over the last decades, I don't think they've used spheroidal iron on a pre-war stanley planes. There are people out there that will say that they don't make the good quality toolsteel like they used to and I know this is a controversial topic - but I honestly think that's just people being sentimental. That is not to say that every modern tool is better than any old one. I've bought so called HSS tools produced in China before, I might as well have burned the money.

Back to woodworking, as fate would have it a friend of mine asked me if I could try and repair a crack in the top of an old guitar that has seen better days - so there is a chance there to get into the world of animal based glues. I think I've understood how hide glue differs in terms of application in so far as it works with heat and water alongside the fact that it only really works on a well prepared / tight joint. This is a bit of topic I know, I though I'd share it anyway since the discussion and thoughts here have help a me lot on the journey that I'm getting myself into here.

Another side story: One of the best guitars I own is a D18 which has developed the nasty habit of the binding coming loose, shortly followed by cracks on the sides. Since this is a better and more costly guitar I though I'd better let someone repair it who knows what their doing and entrusted it to a larger guitar shop recommended to me - not only did they more or less just fill the gaps on the loose part of the binding with something that I'd guess to be epoxy, but the repaired cracks cracked again and a third one developed only a few days after I'd gotten it back. It's living in it's cases since then, I thinking I'll try saving what's left to save as soon as I trust myself enough on the hide glue topic, I'll probably add some cleats on the inside as well. I've though about removing the binding completely and simply remake them from scratch. This would however mean I'd likely end up having to revarnish the guitar as a whole again and I'm not shure whether or not I'm up to that.

Anyway, if anyone is interested I might post an updated on the current guitar making progress as soon as I get to a part that I think might be worth sharing.

If your instruments are cracking, you need to worry about humidity control. A guitar is happiest when the relative humidity in its environment is above 40%. Please note that indoor humidity and outdoor humidity are usually not the same. When the indoor relative humidity has potential to be below 40%, the guitar needs to be in its case with a case humidifier. A “Dampit” is usually insufficient for a guitar—it holds too little water. Something like the D’Addario Humidipak, or the Boveda version of the same is usually ideal although other devices with sponges where you monitor and add water as necessary also meet the need.

https://www.daddario.com/products/acces ... humidipak/

I know, I've always keep a keen eye on that. The room that it's usually stored in never gets below 60 %. I suppose the first crack was my own fault, even though I can't recall when exactly it happend. I have guesses though, so that one's probably on me. The guy (or girl) who fixed the binding sort of forced the binding in placed using the epoxy. I'm no expert so the following is fairly speculative: Before the repair, the binding stripe came loose in the waist area and you really had to use force to press in back into its channel/place. My guess is that person trying to repair the binding thought they'd get away with gluing it back into place, the binding stripe didn't want to stick though. So next best thing was to start throwing epoxy into the emerging gap and hope it would do the trick. When that didn't help they used more epoxy and simply filled the gap with the already setting epoxy used a couple more tape stripes, maybe a clamp and hoped for the best.
The newer side crack is just below the area where this repair was done. My guess is that the binding works as a leverage on the side since it's pulling away from the guitar and this is what caused the crack. The upper part of the cracked side (towards the rapair) lifts up. This is very speculative as I mentioned, but it works. The damage is done so..

Plastic binding shrinks with age, so it gets shorter. If the guitar was round the binding would get tighter, and eventually crack some place. With the waist it can get shorter by pulling away. Which it does is a measure of the strength of the glue used. The shrinkage is why it takes so much force to push it back.

The most permanent repair is to strip the binding loose from the waist around to the neck end. The binding continues under the fingerboard, and if you can pull it out without breaking it you'll pick up some slack. The binding then gets glued back down, and the finish is touched up. Even if you can't work the end out a gap up by the base of the neck can sometimes be filled in without looking too bad. This is not a trivial repair; finish work is tricky and takes time.

Depending on the material used the binding can keep on shrinking for a long time, so this might need to be done several times in the life of a guitar. If it's done at the same time as a neck reset that facilitates getting the needed slack.