# Restoring History-Auburn Tool Co Try Plane



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

*A look into the past*

I normally don't buy old wooden planes, since I can make wood planes much better that are suited to my purposes. However, like any other hand tool addict (lets face it, we're addicts not casual users) I occasionally adopt things that need a good home.

What could need a home more than a former inmate?

























Auburn Tool Co repeatedly used prison labor within Auburn correctional facility in New York to create their tools. The contracts to do this constantly changed hands but A Howland and Company held the contracts between 1869 and 1874 (sources seem to disagree as to if this company did in fact use prison labor or not…further research on this point is needed on my end….). If the design of the plane seems familiar it's because the company will eventually evolve into Ohio Tool.

The quality on the plane is amazing, I can't help but think that the world would be a better place if we were giving prisoners skills to to earn an honest living but that's another post for another forum. Le's start messing with the wood.









First issue I noticed was the insane tightness of the iron I could not safely fit the iron into the plane once I got it out. 137 years will remove a lot of moisture from wood, so this is not so much a manufactures' defect as time taking it's toll on things. A small split developed in the sole but it's not going to mess anything up as long as I don't let it get any bigger. Let's give the plane some breathing room so this does not happen.

Details like this make a difference. This raised section really speeds up the matching of the iron and the breaker but as you can imagine is very expensive to produce. Because of this quality feature it best to work the Iron and chip breaker as a set. 

















I start by carefully filing the sides with a mill file. A saw vise makes a very gentle clamp for the Iron -Breaker assembly. Alternate the sides you file and try to maintain square with the cutting edge. Smooth up the edges on sandpaper, use a good flat reference surface, and use a grip that you can keep the whole works at a 90 degree angle.


















Using an auger bit file (keep one of these in your shop…trust me) I clean off some of the goop that has accumulated over the years, once I do that, I use a sharp and I mean SHARP chisel to remove a lump I noticed during the fitting. Very small but between that and the adjustments to the blade I think I bought another 100 years of movement. 









Now that we have the Iron fitting in the plane, lets get the iron working again. I love taking a once over on a tool and learning things. This is one time where I learned a great deal. 









A tale of two edges, at one point this tool was used as a try plane (to make work try'ed and true), this is evidenced by the lower curved bevel, the blade itself is now flat, meaning that someone changed the plane to a jointer (flat blades make better glue joints, curved blades make rapid adjustments to stock.). I feel like bringing this plane back to it's heritage. But before I start messing around with re-cambering the blade I need to get the breaker and the iron seating correctly.

This is my technique for getting a prefect knife edge on a chip breaker. The height of the sandpaper on the glass makes for an angle where the tip of the breaker can touch the blade before anything else. This keeps shavings from jamming or sneaking under the breaker.










On a smoother I would go further than this as the ultra fine shavings might sneak under the breaker, but a try takes thick enough shavings in use that I will stop here (take as little steel as you have to).










Blech, some work to do on the back side of the iron. No I will NOT use the ruler trick, it does not save time in the long run especially on cambered Irons.


















Good enough for now. As some of the depression on the right hand side is going to come off during the cambering process I see no need to get this dead flat right now.










This is a good seat, I sight against a bright light (not photographed here) and check for any gaps; there are not any so I am ready to camber.

But as I am starting not nod off I will post that blog tomorrow…but as a preview I gave my dirty work plane a promotion to a scrub. Here are the pics.


----------



## WayneC (Mar 8, 2007)

RGtools said:


> *A look into the past*
> 
> I normally don't buy old wooden planes, since I can make wood planes much better that are suited to my purposes. However, like any other hand tool addict (lets face it, we're addicts not casual users) I occasionally adopt things that need a good home.
> 
> ...


Looks like it will be a wonderful addition to your suite of tools.


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *A look into the past*
> 
> I normally don't buy old wooden planes, since I can make wood planes much better that are suited to my purposes. However, like any other hand tool addict (lets face it, we're addicts not casual users) I occasionally adopt things that need a good home.
> 
> ...


Thanks Wayne, I hope to add the finished project to the hand-planes of your dreams forum and then use the thing to make stuff until I croak.

August, thanks a lot, I read a book recently that kind of nudged me to be more detailed on sharing, so I will take strides to be quite thorough on this restore, since there are quite a bit of basic concepts to cover. Not a father, just a farmer, but thanks very much for the sentiment. Hope you had a good fathers day as well.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *A look into the past*
> 
> I normally don't buy old wooden planes, since I can make wood planes much better that are suited to my purposes. However, like any other hand tool addict (lets face it, we're addicts not casual users) I occasionally adopt things that need a good home.
> 
> ...


Awesome rescue! Thanks for that journey.


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *A look into the past*
> 
> I normally don't buy old wooden planes, since I can make wood planes much better that are suited to my purposes. However, like any other hand tool addict (lets face it, we're addicts not casual users) I occasionally adopt things that need a good home.
> 
> ...


Thanks Al. I told you I would do a cambering entry soon. So i hope it helps when I am done.


----------



## mafe (Dec 10, 2009)

RGtools said:


> *A look into the past*
> 
> I normally don't buy old wooden planes, since I can make wood planes much better that are suited to my purposes. However, like any other hand tool addict (lets face it, we're addicts not casual users) I occasionally adopt things that need a good home.
> 
> ...


Wauuu, she is a beauty and made by prison labor, this makes her even sweeter.
I love the nice curves on that handle, her old beautiful patina and che curves on her throath… Ok I am sick.
Nice job on the plane.
You will love to make shaves with that baby.
Best thoughts,
Mads


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *A look into the past*
> 
> I normally don't buy old wooden planes, since I can make wood planes much better that are suited to my purposes. However, like any other hand tool addict (lets face it, we're addicts not casual users) I occasionally adopt things that need a good home.
> 
> ...


I had all the same thoughts you did Mads, which is why she followed me home. Hope this find you well in your part of the world.


----------



## swedefarmer (Feb 16, 2013)

RGtools said:


> *A look into the past*
> 
> I normally don't buy old wooden planes, since I can make wood planes much better that are suited to my purposes. However, like any other hand tool addict (lets face it, we're addicts not casual users) I occasionally adopt things that need a good home.
> 
> ...


I'm new to this group… I just acquired over 100 hand woodworking tools, and began to look at manufacturers. One is Auburn Tool Company, another is Bemis and Call, and a third is Spear and Jackson. I saw the description of RGtools above, and I have many of those planes in this group. There are also curved planes, and hand gougers… many sharpening tools, and measuring devices. This must have come from a large woodworking shop. The tools are in wonderful condition. There are even pennies dated 1846 and 1849 used as washers holding the moulding planes together. Is anyone interested in my posting pictures of these on this site? I haven't a clue…


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *A look into the past*
> 
> I normally don't buy old wooden planes, since I can make wood planes much better that are suited to my purposes. However, like any other hand tool addict (lets face it, we're addicts not casual users) I occasionally adopt things that need a good home.
> 
> ...


You better believe it. Post those beauties..


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *A look into the past*
> 
> I normally don't buy old wooden planes, since I can make wood planes much better that are suited to my purposes. However, like any other hand tool addict (lets face it, we're addicts not casual users) I occasionally adopt things that need a good home.
> 
> ...


I for one would love to see those. Especially the washers.


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

*Cambering the Iron*

Never try to outsmart a dead guy. If you see something that worked a hundred years ago, don't try to improve it, that's not your job. Your job is just not to mess things up. Moderns tend to put way more aggressive a camber on there irons than needed, Lee Valley and Lie Nielson put a 3 in radius on their scrub planes. A camber that size is great for removing wood in a hurry, and on it's own a 3 inch camber sounds like a great idea. But our ancestors realized that each tool was part of a system of tools used to get them to a finished product quickly. A plane with a 3 inch camber leaves deeper troughs and higher valleys that take more time to remove with a try and smoother than I like. As a result, I like a camber of about 5"-7" on a scrub and 8"-10" on a fore. Both of these will remove wood in a hurry going cross grain, but they leave very little work for the progressively finer planes that follow them.

But what about a try plane? What kind of camber should it use. According to the clue I showed you in the previous entry, it's about a 12.5. Before I show you how to figure that out. I missed a few things yesterday.

When it comes to the chipbreaker smooth is more important than machined perfection. So do this freehand.

Start the cut on a narrow angle, resting the back of the chip breaker pull the breaker towards you, and rotate the breaker up as you do so to finish the cut on the knife edge of the breaker. 

















Once the very tip is shiny from end to end, you can smooth up any hollows further back with progressively finer paper. 



























By the way for most restoration My progression from rough to fine sandpaper, goes as follows. 80, 220 400, 1500, 2000. I only go up to 400 on not cutting components as it gives things a dull shine without being to attractive to fingerprints. Another finer point is I start with 220 to get an idea of the material I have to remove before I decide to hog off waste with 80 grit.

But I hate sandpaper let's talk about steel. To figure out the arc the the original blade was ground at, I use this ridiculously simple jig. Yep, just a nail, a stick a string, and a pen. You can adjust the length of the string by winding it around either the pen or the nail. You don't need a ruler, although it helps if you don't have an existing camber to go off of. To find a camber pull the string as tight as it will go and set the tip of the pen on the farthest edge of the center of the arc. While holding the pen vertical rotate the pen to an outside edge of the arc (it is easier to hold the pen vertical if the sting is low on the pen). If the tip is past the blade then you need to shorten your sting of it is on the metal you need to lengthen it. When the pen follows the arc you are ready to trace an arc on the back of the blade (this shows up better on a clean blade, which is one of the reasons I start flattening the back at this stage…the other reason is flatting the back all at one is mind numbingly boring).




























I will not grind to these lines but I will use them to create my new arc. The secret to doing this smoothly is to grind a flat that you use as a reference surface for the rest of the grind. Make sure that your support is tall enough that the tool touches the stone slightly above the center line. This helps save steel and prevents tool grab. Don't be temped to take the corners off all at once, you'll just gouge your stone. Instead keep the blade flat on the stone and and feather the grind so that You work more on the corners than in the center.









When done the end looks like this.










But this is the more important part.










By using this edge as a guide you can tell where material needs to be removed through the grind to create an even arc on the bevel. All you have to do is make this arc look straight when you look at it on end. To do that more material needs to be removed from the ends than the center. Once it's straight, you can work this while keeping things even until you have created a bur on the entire back of the blade. This takes some time and some steal so I don't recommend changing arcs often, I would rather just have spare blades with differing arcs if I need them.

The joys of working with vintage gear. I think I spun my hand around a few times after the handle fell off.









A quick repair.









And I get back to work. The same tips for grinding the end apply on the bevel but as you are removing more steel take you time and don't overheat the tool. I keep my fingers close to the edge so I can tell when I need to do something else for a moment. Sharpening two irons at the same time is a good way to keep you steel cool and keep working (which is why I got a scrub in the last post)










As you can see the edge is flat across the bevel which means I have a nice even bevel at this point.










Now I just need to get a burr, and we are well on our way to making shavings.


----------



## WayneC (Mar 8, 2007)

RGtools said:


> *Cambering the Iron*
> 
> Never try to outsmart a dead guy. If you see something that worked a hundred years ago, don't try to improve it, that's not your job. Your job is just not to mess things up. Moderns tend to put way more aggressive a camber on there irons than needed, Lee Valley and Lie Nielson put a 3 in radius on their scrub planes. A camber that size is great for removing wood in a hurry, and on it's own a 3 inch camber sounds like a great idea. But our ancestors realized that each tool was part of a system of tools used to get them to a finished product quickly. A plane with a 3 inch camber leaves deeper troughs and higher valleys that take more time to remove with a try and smoother than I like. As a result, I like a camber of about 5"-7" on a scrub and 8"-10" on a fore. Both of these will remove wood in a hurry going cross grain, but they leave very little work for the progressively finer planes that follow them.
> 
> ...


Great post. Looking forward to the next entry. Like your little anvil.


----------



## mafe (Dec 10, 2009)

RGtools said:


> *Cambering the Iron*
> 
> Never try to outsmart a dead guy. If you see something that worked a hundred years ago, don't try to improve it, that's not your job. Your job is just not to mess things up. Moderns tend to put way more aggressive a camber on there irons than needed, Lee Valley and Lie Nielson put a 3 in radius on their scrub planes. A camber that size is great for removing wood in a hurry, and on it's own a 3 inch camber sounds like a great idea. But our ancestors realized that each tool was part of a system of tools used to get them to a finished product quickly. A plane with a 3 inch camber leaves deeper troughs and higher valleys that take more time to remove with a try and smoother than I like. As a result, I like a camber of about 5"-7" on a scrub and 8"-10" on a fore. Both of these will remove wood in a hurry going cross grain, but they leave very little work for the progressively finer planes that follow them.
> 
> ...


Wonderful view to the garden.
Wonderful anvil.
Wonderful to see you work.
Best thoughts,
Mads


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Cambering the Iron*
> 
> Never try to outsmart a dead guy. If you see something that worked a hundred years ago, don't try to improve it, that's not your job. Your job is just not to mess things up. Moderns tend to put way more aggressive a camber on there irons than needed, Lee Valley and Lie Nielson put a 3 in radius on their scrub planes. A camber that size is great for removing wood in a hurry, and on it's own a 3 inch camber sounds like a great idea. But our ancestors realized that each tool was part of a system of tools used to get them to a finished product quickly. A plane with a 3 inch camber leaves deeper troughs and higher valleys that take more time to remove with a try and smoother than I like. As a result, I like a camber of about 5"-7" on a scrub and 8"-10" on a fore. Both of these will remove wood in a hurry going cross grain, but they leave very little work for the progressively finer planes that follow them.
> 
> ...


Hey Wayne, that little anvil is prefect for the odd metal working tasks that show up in a wood-shop. if you find one grab it. It's one of those "nice to have" tools that can really get you out of a bind.

Mads, I love the view too, one things about my shop I can say, a window seat makes all the difference.

Thanks for looking you guys.


----------



## WayneC (Mar 8, 2007)

RGtools said:


> *Cambering the Iron*
> 
> Never try to outsmart a dead guy. If you see something that worked a hundred years ago, don't try to improve it, that's not your job. Your job is just not to mess things up. Moderns tend to put way more aggressive a camber on there irons than needed, Lee Valley and Lie Nielson put a 3 in radius on their scrub planes. A camber that size is great for removing wood in a hurry, and on it's own a 3 inch camber sounds like a great idea. But our ancestors realized that each tool was part of a system of tools used to get them to a finished product quickly. A plane with a 3 inch camber leaves deeper troughs and higher valleys that take more time to remove with a try and smoother than I like. As a result, I like a camber of about 5"-7" on a scrub and 8"-10" on a fore. Both of these will remove wood in a hurry going cross grain, but they leave very little work for the progressively finer planes that follow them.
> 
> ...


I have one. Not sure it is quite as nice as your. I also just got another small bench vice with an anvil. The nice think about it is that it can be mounted. I am going to mount it to a board so that it can be clamped or perhaps put an attachment on it so it can be clamped in the face vice on my bench.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Cambering the Iron*
> 
> Never try to outsmart a dead guy. If you see something that worked a hundred years ago, don't try to improve it, that's not your job. Your job is just not to mess things up. Moderns tend to put way more aggressive a camber on there irons than needed, Lee Valley and Lie Nielson put a 3 in radius on their scrub planes. A camber that size is great for removing wood in a hurry, and on it's own a 3 inch camber sounds like a great idea. But our ancestors realized that each tool was part of a system of tools used to get them to a finished product quickly. A plane with a 3 inch camber leaves deeper troughs and higher valleys that take more time to remove with a try and smoother than I like. As a result, I like a camber of about 5"-7" on a scrub and 8"-10" on a fore. Both of these will remove wood in a hurry going cross grain, but they leave very little work for the progressively finer planes that follow them.
> 
> ...


i use a piece of railroad tie. I'm not ready to shell out the $100+/- i've seen for the anvils.


----------



## WayneC (Mar 8, 2007)

RGtools said:


> *Cambering the Iron*
> 
> Never try to outsmart a dead guy. If you see something that worked a hundred years ago, don't try to improve it, that's not your job. Your job is just not to mess things up. Moderns tend to put way more aggressive a camber on there irons than needed, Lee Valley and Lie Nielson put a 3 in radius on their scrub planes. A camber that size is great for removing wood in a hurry, and on it's own a 3 inch camber sounds like a great idea. But our ancestors realized that each tool was part of a system of tools used to get them to a finished product quickly. A plane with a 3 inch camber leaves deeper troughs and higher valleys that take more time to remove with a try and smoother than I like. As a result, I like a camber of about 5"-7" on a scrub and 8"-10" on a fore. Both of these will remove wood in a hurry going cross grain, but they leave very little work for the progressively finer planes that follow them.
> 
> ...


I think I paid $15 for mine. There is a guy selling small anvils on ebay. He bought a group of anvils from an old factory. Think they are $20 each.


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Cambering the Iron*
> 
> Never try to outsmart a dead guy. If you see something that worked a hundred years ago, don't try to improve it, that's not your job. Your job is just not to mess things up. Moderns tend to put way more aggressive a camber on there irons than needed, Lee Valley and Lie Nielson put a 3 in radius on their scrub planes. A camber that size is great for removing wood in a hurry, and on it's own a 3 inch camber sounds like a great idea. But our ancestors realized that each tool was part of a system of tools used to get them to a finished product quickly. A plane with a 3 inch camber leaves deeper troughs and higher valleys that take more time to remove with a try and smoother than I like. As a result, I like a camber of about 5"-7" on a scrub and 8"-10" on a fore. Both of these will remove wood in a hurry going cross grain, but they leave very little work for the progressively finer planes that follow them.
> 
> ...


Wayne and Don, the anvil cost me $20. I want to find some hardie tools for it, but I may have to farm that bit of work out. A railroad tie woks quite well though, The "Anvil" in the Japan woodworker catalog is testament to that. I love this one because it ways enough to stay put for odd jobs but I can toss it on a shelf when I am done. It also makes a good bucking iron for cinching nails.

August, I think you comment got cut off, thanks though. (wish my camera focused better, need to invest in a better one but I keep buying tools and wood). I'll let you know if I ever decide to part with the anvil but I won't promise that will ever happen


----------



## WayneC (Mar 8, 2007)

RGtools said:


> *Cambering the Iron*
> 
> Never try to outsmart a dead guy. If you see something that worked a hundred years ago, don't try to improve it, that's not your job. Your job is just not to mess things up. Moderns tend to put way more aggressive a camber on there irons than needed, Lee Valley and Lie Nielson put a 3 in radius on their scrub planes. A camber that size is great for removing wood in a hurry, and on it's own a 3 inch camber sounds like a great idea. But our ancestors realized that each tool was part of a system of tools used to get them to a finished product quickly. A plane with a 3 inch camber leaves deeper troughs and higher valleys that take more time to remove with a try and smoother than I like. As a result, I like a camber of about 5"-7" on a scrub and 8"-10" on a fore. Both of these will remove wood in a hurry going cross grain, but they leave very little work for the progressively finer planes that follow them.
> 
> ...


Them storms settled down some August?


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Cambering the Iron*
> 
> Never try to outsmart a dead guy. If you see something that worked a hundred years ago, don't try to improve it, that's not your job. Your job is just not to mess things up. Moderns tend to put way more aggressive a camber on there irons than needed, Lee Valley and Lie Nielson put a 3 in radius on their scrub planes. A camber that size is great for removing wood in a hurry, and on it's own a 3 inch camber sounds like a great idea. But our ancestors realized that each tool was part of a system of tools used to get them to a finished product quickly. A plane with a 3 inch camber leaves deeper troughs and higher valleys that take more time to remove with a try and smoother than I like. As a result, I like a camber of about 5"-7" on a scrub and 8"-10" on a fore. Both of these will remove wood in a hurry going cross grain, but they leave very little work for the progressively finer planes that follow them.
> 
> ...


It's more of a space thing I don't know where I would put it. I work in the same shop as my grampa. He brought 82 years worth of tools with him (and the inherited tools of several neighbors and relatives that have passed away) with of course none of the organization. He does not use any of the tools, but he won't sell them either, so half of my shop is a total mess.

Bit by bit though I am getting it organized. And I did manage to convince him to sell the enormous Radial arm saw last year. So I have some hope of having an uncluttered shop one day.

The I-phone explains some.

When stuff breaks, repair it, and keep working. I am calmer that way.

No trade but I can offer some advice. Look for a grinder with a good gear ratio that can BOLT down as opposed to clamp like mine. I think I paid, 17 for mine, eventually I plan to put a Norton 80 friable bond stone on it, but the vintage stone works well enough for now. Ebay is not your friend here, go to antique store that sell a hodge podge of stuff because they have multiple vendors, eventually you will see one that you can TEST, lying in a corner.


----------



## WayneC (Mar 8, 2007)

RGtools said:


> *Cambering the Iron*
> 
> Never try to outsmart a dead guy. If you see something that worked a hundred years ago, don't try to improve it, that's not your job. Your job is just not to mess things up. Moderns tend to put way more aggressive a camber on there irons than needed, Lee Valley and Lie Nielson put a 3 in radius on their scrub planes. A camber that size is great for removing wood in a hurry, and on it's own a 3 inch camber sounds like a great idea. But our ancestors realized that each tool was part of a system of tools used to get them to a finished product quickly. A plane with a 3 inch camber leaves deeper troughs and higher valleys that take more time to remove with a try and smoother than I like. As a result, I like a camber of about 5"-7" on a scrub and 8"-10" on a fore. Both of these will remove wood in a hurry going cross grain, but they leave very little work for the progressively finer planes that follow them.
> 
> ...


Here is a small anvil on ebay for $20. I believe this guy has a bunch of em…

http://cgi.ebay.com/Small-Unique-Anvil-1-Polished-Up-/360376051766?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53e8162836


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Cambering the Iron*
> 
> Never try to outsmart a dead guy. If you see something that worked a hundred years ago, don't try to improve it, that's not your job. Your job is just not to mess things up. Moderns tend to put way more aggressive a camber on there irons than needed, Lee Valley and Lie Nielson put a 3 in radius on their scrub planes. A camber that size is great for removing wood in a hurry, and on it's own a 3 inch camber sounds like a great idea. But our ancestors realized that each tool was part of a system of tools used to get them to a finished product quickly. A plane with a 3 inch camber leaves deeper troughs and higher valleys that take more time to remove with a try and smoother than I like. As a result, I like a camber of about 5"-7" on a scrub and 8"-10" on a fore. Both of these will remove wood in a hurry going cross grain, but they leave very little work for the progressively finer planes that follow them.
> 
> ...


Good find Wayne. I repaired yet another tool today 100 buck saved by my count.


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Cambering the Iron*
> 
> Never try to outsmart a dead guy. If you see something that worked a hundred years ago, don't try to improve it, that's not your job. Your job is just not to mess things up. Moderns tend to put way more aggressive a camber on there irons than needed, Lee Valley and Lie Nielson put a 3 in radius on their scrub planes. A camber that size is great for removing wood in a hurry, and on it's own a 3 inch camber sounds like a great idea. But our ancestors realized that each tool was part of a system of tools used to get them to a finished product quickly. A plane with a 3 inch camber leaves deeper troughs and higher valleys that take more time to remove with a try and smoother than I like. As a result, I like a camber of about 5"-7" on a scrub and 8"-10" on a fore. Both of these will remove wood in a hurry going cross grain, but they leave very little work for the progressively finer planes that follow them.
> 
> ...


Hope you had fun August.


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

*Lessons Learned*

So I made a mistake. Not a big one but definitely avoidable. When I set my grinder up, I used a nice thick blade to figure out where may angle should be. Unfortunately I forgot to factor in the tapered blade on the old plane makes a RADICAL 10 degree difference to my grinding angle so I realized that I had a 20 bevel angle about early enough correct it. I tapped the stand forward so I ended up with a second bevel of 30 degrees. Believe it or not the secondary bevel is big enough to reference well for freehand honing (that surprised the hell out of me). I decided to leave this until the natural grinding process slowly corrects this error, rather than lose so much precious steel.



















The bonus is that when I grind it will be a fairly quick task. I think I saw Krenov do this on purpose to a paring chisel, I can see the benefit and may have to toss it in my bag of tricks for later. Though the benefit on a plane iron is negligible. Oh well, wiser for the next time.

I flattened the back and took a look at my bench, what a mess. (not to self, build a separate metalworking area)










I took some time to try a test cut…not really expecting anything…I ended up with a really flat piece of cedar.










I still have some work to do but I still can't believe that a 137 year old plane was stable enough to hold flat for all these years. I also played around a bit with jointing the edge square, what a difference, the curved plane lets you very consistently change the depth of cut from side to side by steering the plane left and right…I can't claim finesse with that yet, but I can tell I am going to like it more than the 3 plane edge truing system I use now.

All these are great things to learn for me, but most importantly. I think I learned that I need to just let my wife have my pliers and buy a new pair for myself.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Lessons Learned*
> 
> So I made a mistake. Not a big one but definitely avoidable. When I set my grinder up, I used a nice thick blade to figure out where may angle should be. Unfortunately I forgot to factor in the tapered blade on the old plane makes a RADICAL 10 degree difference to my grinding angle so I realized that I had a 20 bevel angle about early enough correct it. I tapped the stand forward so I ended up with a second bevel of 30 degrees. Believe it or not the secondary bevel is big enough to reference well for freehand honing (that surprised the hell out of me). I decided to leave this until the natural grinding process slowly corrects this error, rather than lose so much precious steel.
> 
> ...


I get it when it comes to metalworking on the workbench. Drove me nuts, too. Then I went to a nearby countertops company that handles solid surface as well as granite materials. Asked them for a 2'x3' piece of scrap, cut square, any color. Got a wonderful, 2" thick piece for $50. It's now the sharpening / metalwork station. Not that everyone has a place like that nearby, but…

And, beautiful plane! You're doing great work!


----------



## mafe (Dec 10, 2009)

RGtools said:


> *Lessons Learned*
> 
> So I made a mistake. Not a big one but definitely avoidable. When I set my grinder up, I used a nice thick blade to figure out where may angle should be. Unfortunately I forgot to factor in the tapered blade on the old plane makes a RADICAL 10 degree difference to my grinding angle so I realized that I had a 20 bevel angle about early enough correct it. I tapped the stand forward so I ended up with a second bevel of 30 degrees. Believe it or not the secondary bevel is big enough to reference well for freehand honing (that surprised the hell out of me). I decided to leave this until the natural grinding process slowly corrects this error, rather than lose so much precious steel.
> 
> ...


I love that last note!
It looks like you have a wonderful plane going now, congratulation.
If my shop was bigger I would also set up a dedicated sharpening area as the first thing, perhaps I can make a fould out version.
Best thoughts,
Mads


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Lessons Learned*
> 
> So I made a mistake. Not a big one but definitely avoidable. When I set my grinder up, I used a nice thick blade to figure out where may angle should be. Unfortunately I forgot to factor in the tapered blade on the old plane makes a RADICAL 10 degree difference to my grinding angle so I realized that I had a 20 bevel angle about early enough correct it. I tapped the stand forward so I ended up with a second bevel of 30 degrees. Believe it or not the secondary bevel is big enough to reference well for freehand honing (that surprised the hell out of me). I decided to leave this until the natural grinding process slowly corrects this error, rather than lose so much precious steel.
> 
> ...


Smitty. I have the granite slab I just need to re-work my shop so I have more space. I have 462 square foot, no excuses for the clutter I have, (well other than Gramps but that's a whole new can of worms I don't feel like opening at the moment.). I look forward to selling all except the tools I NEED. Thanks for your kinds words and the advice.

Mads, I am sure if you put your mind to it you can fit a sharpening station in there, you did get a router plane into an Altoids box after all.

Happy shavings to all.


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

*Finishing touches*

The bottom was flat enough for rough work but not fine cuts impressive after 137 years and a trip from coast to coast. Now I needed to make it flat enough for fine work. I found it fitting that my old plane was being restored by my newest plane.



















My vise crapped out (my fault, need to give me bench it's yearly tune up…which may be the next next blog) so this is a good improvised set up for planing (yet another reason to make your bench clamp friendly)

I use winding sticks to check for any wind.



















Chamfering the edges decreases the surface area of the plane sole and helps protect the edges in case of drops. Don't chamfer the front edge or shavings will be swept under your sole and stop you from cutting (I promise this will make you grumpy)



















I use a oil wax mixture all over the body of the plane. My wife makes it as a hand salve and I get the batches that are not up to par.










Here is the thin projection of the arc.










And a test drive.

http://www.facebook.com/v/10150299999545229


----------



## WayneC (Mar 8, 2007)

RGtools said:


> *Finishing touches*
> 
> The bottom was flat enough for rough work but not fine cuts impressive after 137 years and a trip from coast to coast. Now I needed to make it flat enough for fine work. I found it fitting that my old plane was being restored by my newest plane.
> 
> ...


Looks like you got it flat. Another way I have seen this done is to put a jointer plane upside down in a vice.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Finishing touches*
> 
> The bottom was flat enough for rough work but not fine cuts impressive after 137 years and a trip from coast to coast. Now I needed to make it flat enough for fine work. I found it fitting that my old plane was being restored by my newest plane.
> 
> ...


So far i've been over looking the wooden planes. I have one transition, but haven't found one that calls to me yet. The cocobola one Wayne showed may have done it, but not for the large price tag.

Anyhow, looks like you've done a nice job with this one. Now on to the bench


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Finishing touches*
> 
> The bottom was flat enough for rough work but not fine cuts impressive after 137 years and a trip from coast to coast. Now I needed to make it flat enough for fine work. I found it fitting that my old plane was being restored by my newest plane.
> 
> ...


Thanks guys. Don, I'll get started soon…I promise

Wayne. My bench vise just was not holding stiff enough. My fault I need to take the thing off an install it a bit better. One project at a time though….usually.


----------



## mafe (Dec 10, 2009)

RGtools said:


> *Finishing touches*
> 
> The bottom was flat enough for rough work but not fine cuts impressive after 137 years and a trip from coast to coast. Now I needed to make it flat enough for fine work. I found it fitting that my old plane was being restored by my newest plane.
> 
> ...


What a wonderful video.
Love it!
You rock, and love it.
So happy to see that plane back to life, and beeing treated with love.
Best thoughts my friend,
Mads


----------



## SCOTSMAN (Aug 1, 2008)

RGtools said:


> *Finishing touches*
> 
> The bottom was flat enough for rough work but not fine cuts impressive after 137 years and a trip from coast to coast. Now I needed to make it flat enough for fine work. I found it fitting that my old plane was being restored by my newest plane.
> 
> ...


Really nice to see a woodworker estore these lovely old planes.In the uk we or the market is flooded with thse and they sell for next to nothing here on uk ebay etc still have fun and keep the pics a coming well done again. Alistair


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Finishing touches*
> 
> The bottom was flat enough for rough work but not fine cuts impressive after 137 years and a trip from coast to coast. Now I needed to make it flat enough for fine work. I found it fitting that my old plane was being restored by my newest plane.
> 
> ...


Mads. Glad you liked it. I am kind of grumpy because I keep tearing the edge off the thing on naughty knotty wood, but it tore the edge of of some of my other tools too, two things learned: one I am getting lots of sharpening practice, two I need to pick better material for handwork. I need work but the plane is exceeding my expectations.

Alistar, the tools were made to be used for a lot longer where you are, that's why you have a comparative glut of them. Here we make crap hand-tools so we can sell expensive power-tools to workers who will believe that little can be done without slaying electrons. Sad really, that's why it always makes me happy to work with tools that were built for the people who USED them. Some old, some new, the passion for this work bleeds through them all, it gives my shop a pulse, a life of it's own, and I am thankful to be a part of it.


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

*Disapearing ink*

I noticed something odd about the patina of my plane the other day. It's signed in some way but the cursive ink is illegible at this point. I would like to bring the signature/note out somehow. I have heard that you can use a type of acid to lighten wood that will not affect ink (good for fixing old rulers where the boxwood has darkened) but have never messed with this. If I did this I would like to darken the signature, then restore the original patina on the tool. 









Any ideas?


----------



## WayneC (Mar 8, 2007)

RGtools said:


> *Disapearing ink*
> 
> I noticed something odd about the patina of my plane the other day. It's signed in some way but the cursive ink is illegible at this point. I would like to bring the signature/note out somehow. I have heard that you can use a type of acid to lighten wood that will not affect ink (good for fixing old rulers where the boxwood has darkened) but have never messed with this. If I did this I would like to darken the signature, then restore the original patina on the tool.
> 
> ...


It is a new technique to me….


----------



## Hayabusa (Jul 7, 2010)

RGtools said:


> *Disapearing ink*
> 
> I noticed something odd about the patina of my plane the other day. It's signed in some way but the cursive ink is illegible at this point. I would like to bring the signature/note out somehow. I have heard that you can use a type of acid to lighten wood that will not affect ink (good for fixing old rulers where the boxwood has darkened) but have never messed with this. If I did this I would like to darken the signature, then restore the original patina on the tool.
> 
> ...


I am sorry I dont know anything about it I have never dealed witgh this matter before but it would be great if someone in LJ would tell us the solution


----------



## rob2 (Nov 27, 2007)

RGtools said:


> *Disapearing ink*
> 
> I noticed something odd about the patina of my plane the other day. It's signed in some way but the cursive ink is illegible at this point. I would like to bring the signature/note out somehow. I have heard that you can use a type of acid to lighten wood that will not affect ink (good for fixing old rulers where the boxwood has darkened) but have never messed with this. If I did this I would like to darken the signature, then restore the original patina on the tool.
> 
> ...


Nice plane. Are you making a user or a collector?


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Disapearing ink*
> 
> I noticed something odd about the patina of my plane the other day. It's signed in some way but the cursive ink is illegible at this point. I would like to bring the signature/note out somehow. I have heard that you can use a type of acid to lighten wood that will not affect ink (good for fixing old rulers where the boxwood has darkened) but have never messed with this. If I did this I would like to darken the signature, then restore the original patina on the tool.
> 
> ...


Wayne and Julio I am sure it's out there I just want to be aware of any pitfallls since I only have one shot to get it right.

Thanks Rob. The restoration is primarily for the user aspect, however with a gem like this I always try to keep it's history intact.


----------



## tsangell (Jan 10, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Disapearing ink*
> 
> I noticed something odd about the patina of my plane the other day. It's signed in some way but the cursive ink is illegible at this point. I would like to bring the signature/note out somehow. I have heard that you can use a type of acid to lighten wood that will not affect ink (good for fixing old rulers where the boxwood has darkened) but have never messed with this. If I did this I would like to darken the signature, then restore the original patina on the tool.
> 
> ...


I think they did something like this in National Treasure. Maybe your plane was built by Benjamin Franklin.


----------



## mafe (Dec 10, 2009)

RGtools said:


> *Disapearing ink*
> 
> I noticed something odd about the patina of my plane the other day. It's signed in some way but the cursive ink is illegible at this point. I would like to bring the signature/note out somehow. I have heard that you can use a type of acid to lighten wood that will not affect ink (good for fixing old rulers where the boxwood has darkened) but have never messed with this. If I did this I would like to darken the signature, then restore the original patina on the tool.
> 
> ...


No I am lost there.
Best thoughts,
Mads


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Disapearing ink*
> 
> I noticed something odd about the patina of my plane the other day. It's signed in some way but the cursive ink is illegible at this point. I would like to bring the signature/note out somehow. I have heard that you can use a type of acid to lighten wood that will not affect ink (good for fixing old rulers where the boxwood has darkened) but have never messed with this. If I did this I would like to darken the signature, then restore the original patina on the tool.
> 
> ...


I will have to figure this out then. I'll use a small test area on the inside of the plane.


----------



## WayneC (Mar 8, 2007)

RGtools said:


> *Disapearing ink*
> 
> I noticed something odd about the patina of my plane the other day. It's signed in some way but the cursive ink is illegible at this point. I would like to bring the signature/note out somehow. I have heard that you can use a type of acid to lighten wood that will not affect ink (good for fixing old rulers where the boxwood has darkened) but have never messed with this. If I did this I would like to darken the signature, then restore the original patina on the tool.
> 
> ...


The reference is in the Anarchist's Tool Chest on page 132. Recommendation is for wood bleach (oxalic acid). Apply with grey pad and gloves. Let sit a few minutes, rinse with water. Wax when dry. Procedure in book is related to restoring boxwood rules.


----------



## SCOTSMAN (Aug 1, 2008)

RGtools said:


> *Disapearing ink*
> 
> I noticed something odd about the patina of my plane the other day. It's signed in some way but the cursive ink is illegible at this point. I would like to bring the signature/note out somehow. I have heard that you can use a type of acid to lighten wood that will not affect ink (good for fixing old rulers where the boxwood has darkened) but have never messed with this. If I did this I would like to darken the signature, then restore the original patina on the tool.
> 
> ...


Are you referring to wood bleach perhaps? I wonder if this woukld work find out on a scrap before trying it out though. Alistair


----------



## RGtools (Feb 18, 2011)

RGtools said:


> *Disapearing ink*
> 
> I noticed something odd about the patina of my plane the other day. It's signed in some way but the cursive ink is illegible at this point. I would like to bring the signature/note out somehow. I have heard that you can use a type of acid to lighten wood that will not affect ink (good for fixing old rulers where the boxwood has darkened) but have never messed with this. If I did this I would like to darken the signature, then restore the original patina on the tool.
> 
> ...


That's the plan.


----------

