You are hereBlogs / Luke Townsley's blog / On flat soles- Otherwise titled "Why I don't like my jack plane"
On flat soles- Otherwise titled "Why I don't like my jack plane"
These last couple of weeks, I have been getting well acquainted with my "new" jack plane. I don't really like what I am finding out. For the record, it is an old Sargent that says VBM on it.
I bought it off eBay for a cheap price a few months ago. It seemed to be in fairly good condition with no obvious damage or rusting. The works were a bit tight and needed a bit of lube and a number of other minor issues. The biggest story here was the banana sole. By banana sole, I mean it was high on the ends and low in the middle. Also, the area around the mouth was a bit worn testifying to a good bit of use.
As part of the fettling process, I cleaned it up, sharpened it, and so forth. I also worked on flattening the sole. Actually, I did make a lot of progress on flattening it. Finally, it seemed to me to be reasonably flat, and I was tired of rubbing it across my Norton stone (not the way I would recommend doing it, by the way).
Fast forward to a few weeks ago when I started edge jointing the boards for my workbench with it. I know a jointer plane would be better for the task, but you see, it is like this, I don't have one. If anyone would like to send me one, I will happily give you my address...
Anyway, I realized a few things right away. One, I needed to flatten the edge of the blade that had become rounded(another post).
Second, it seems the blade wasn't sharpened at an acute enough angle for pine as it seemed like it was skipping across the board.
Third, the sole still wasn't really flat. If I started out with pressure on the toe and shifted to the heel, the blade would lift out of the cut or at the least, change the depth of cut. It was bad enough that even if I tried to keep pressure toward the middle of the plane, I still had problems.
I sharpened the blade to a more acute angle and commenced flattening the sole again. I found a cheap piece of glass (everyone seems to recommend plate glass, mine wasn't) and some rough silicon carbide sandpaper with a bit of kerosene for lubricant. Even though my cheap glass would bend under the pressure of the tool, I could shim it up and with a lot of care and careful pressure, it was workable. Finally, several sheets of sandpaper later, I was able to get the plane to the point where I couldn't get a feeler gauge under it anymore and it was completely flat except for a small part behind the tote.
Back to planing, I was getting a tremendous amount of chatter. By chatter, I don't mean light vibrations. I mean you could have washed clothes on the board after a single pass. It seems that part of the problem is that this plane has a Bailey style frog, and I had moved the frog forward in an effort to tighten the gaping wide mouth on my plane a bit. Upon moving the frog backward so the blade was just touching the beveled part on the back of the mouth, it seemed to work a lot better. For whatever reason, on my particular plane, the frog seems to be higher than most and also the angle of the frog does not match the angle of the bevel on the back of the mouth of the sole. Also, the mouth is excessively wide.
I have several other complaints. One is that even though the very back of the plane sole is very close to flat, it still isn't flat. If I lean back on the plane a bit, I can tell that the blade lifts up slightly. I have decided that I really don't like flattening metal plane soles, so I may live with it for a while.
Also, of particular interest since I am edge jointing 1 3/4 inch yellow pine boards is that the tote doesn't really fit my hand. I have fairly big hands and it just seems too small. I can't find a grip that is comfortable for those heavy passes.
On the other end of the plane, the knob on my plane is tiny. If I take a reasonably comfortable hold on it, then I can't see the edge of the board in front of me to guide the plane. If I take a hold so that I can see the board, it is very uncomfortable.
Furthermore, likely due to the ridiculous distance between the bottom of the sole and the bottom of the frog where the blade rests combined with that ridiculous mouth angle on the sole, it seems like I can feel the blade flexing when I cut producing a deeper cut when the going gets tough.
All of that to say, I am convinced I can make a considerably better wooden plane probably even on my first or second try. I intend to give it a go after I get this bench built. Also, I think I can really understand why people go for the bedrock style frogs after using this one on some heavy passes.
If you have any advice or things to try let me know. If you want to send me a woodie or bedrock style plane, I will be waiting at the door to take delivery!
Update Apr. 24, 2008:
I probably should make it clear. I have been getting decent cuts with this plane. A lot of the shavings are coming off a couple feet long or even up to the whole length of the six foot long boards I am jointing. However, I still don't like the plane for the reasons I mentioned above.
Here are some pictures of the plane. Maybe we can make a better ID as to what we are dealing with. The blade is a Stanley. I have my doubts that the frog is original.
Luke Townsley
www.UnpluggedShop.com
The following license applies to this article:
You might try a thicker blade. This will have the effect of closing up the mouth a bit and help eliminate chatter. The Sargent VBM planes were produced from 1908 to 1918 and are generally of good quality, the equal of the comparable Stanley.
Pine is a tough one. It requires a very sharp blade and proper frog alignment. Keep experimenting and you'll get the right formula.
Mike
It is interesting that you suggest that. I actually bought a Hock blade for it, but I can't use it because the screw for the chipbreaker is too long, and won't allow the lever cap to fit properly.
I thought about filing the screw off, but somehow that didn't seem right, besides, it would have taken a lot of filing.
The plane says VBM on the lever cap, but I am not convinced it is really a VBM. I really should do some research, and see if I can track it down. The plane does seem like it was probably made in the first half of the last century though.
Maybe tomorrow I can add a picture of it.
A picture would help a lot. I haver a number of Sargents, both VBM and regular, so maybe we could compare what you have to my "collection" (all users, I swear!).
I'll try to get a picture up tomorrow morning or afternoon.
Thanks for putting up a wonderful web site!
I've had a few planes that seemed to be cursed. Sometimes I liked the plane enough to put in the time to get it to work. Some became doorstops.
It sounds like you have covered most bases. Once I improved a plane by stoning the bottom of the frog and deburring the mating area of the sole so it fit better. That helped reduce chatter and it made it easier to set the blade parallel to the mouth.
I had a beautiful #4 with a mouth that could swallow the Mississippi. Closing the mouth meant moving the frog so far forward that the blade was unsupported and chattered.
I ended up setting the frog as forward as possible while still having the blade supported by the back of the mouth. I then added cardboard shims between the frog and the blade (a Hock) until the mouth was pretty tight. I would have the shims extend through the back of the mouth and then trim them flush with the sole.
This worked beautifully.
And if not there is always another plane....(and another, and another...)
All the best,
Doug
dougberch.com
That is a good idea about shimming the blade all the way to the sole. However, this plane has a mouth opening that has a different angle than the frog angle. It is as though the plane were designed for a lower angle frog. I can't think of any other good reason for doing it that way.
I have always had to file the screws down for Hock blades and chipbreakers, for exactly the reason you mention. It might have even come with instructions to do so, but I can't remember. Anyway, file away and use the Hock blade - you'll be mighty glad you did. The blade will chatter less and the mouth will close up a bit.
John Cashman
I might just try that. I have been in a filing mode recently anyway what with reworking a not-really-that-old Disston handsaw.
I don't really see any practical reason they make the screws so long. I thought maybe my chipbreaker/blade set was an anomaly.
Just came accross your site, very well done and instructive, thanks.
Your Sargent plane could indeed be some sort of Frankenplane.
Its indeed a Sargent throughout, but a few things look wrong:
The rear tote is obvioulsly a user made replacement, way too bulky and squarerish.
The frog is indeed a genuine Sargent, the frog surface opening, the lateral lever, are all unmistakeably Sargent.
But the angle difference between the frog surface and the mating bed surface at the mouth, sound weird. Measure the angle of both, if they are both close to 45, someone probably buggered up the mouth opening, if one or the other is 47, or 50, its correct but definitvely a mismatched frog/bed. Would have to look it up to find out if Sargent ever made York pitch plane (?)
Finally, the lever cap, althought appropriately cast with VBM on it, appear to be a tad narrower for that plane. VBM, does not appear on all Sargent planes, but for the time period suggested earlier and only on their top of the line planes. Could be a wrong size lever cap, from a smaller plane.
The Hock blade and a flat sole would turn it into a much improved tool. I do not subscribe to the plane flat sole society by the way, so take it from there. :-)
Bob, in sunny ?? Bagotville
Bob,
Thanks for the compliment on the site.
I hadn't realized it, but I believe you are exactly right about the user-made tote. It is indeed too thick. That does seem to be part of the discomfort I am having when I push it. Even though my hands are fairly large, it doesn't wedge into my palm correctly.
I will try to figure out a way to measure the angle on the frog and mouth opening and let you know what I figure out.
The blade it came with seems to be a newer Stanley. It sharpens decently, but it dulls quickly.
The angle on the frog seems to be right at 45. The plane mouth is more acute. I don't have a good way to measure it, but it might be at 35-40 degrees.
On further inspection, it appears that there has been some rust on the "inside" of the plane (oddly, not on the outward facing sides or sole). It appears that the rust may have been particularly acute under the blade at the mouth opening and that someone may have (very carefully), filed the mouth. It is hard to tell, but it didn't look perfectly straight and there is still pitting on the top of the mouth opening in the sole that is particularly deep at the top of the mouth.
Luke
Now that you mentioned it, its all falling into places :-)
That plane was pretty well rusted before making its appearance on Ebay (surprise!).
You mentioned that the works were stiff and required oiling, that would be pretty typical, but the dead ringers are the discoloured shiny(?) plane cheek on one of your photos, look were that spot appeared, looks like the the mouth area (bottom, side(s) was heavily rusted, that would perhaps also, helped explained the replacement cutter. My wild guess is that the poor thing got pretty rusted shut together in that area, and someone made an ill attempt at 'cleaning it up' buggering the mouth area in the process. If the frog can be adjusted back enough, you could try refiling the rear of the mouth to match the frog angle, if not, im affraid its doomed to be a so so user. Keep it for rough work.
There should be some markings stamped where the 'shiny cheek spot' appears. Stamped on its side should be a No like 414 on it, and maybe the name Sargent inside a rectangular box.
Sometimes that No,(414),will also be found casted or stamped into the removable parts E.g.: frog, lever cap and blade.
The No 411 was also a jack plane but with one difference: While 414 used a 2 in wide cutter, the 411 used a 1 and 3/4 in cutter.
The 411 was made between 1926-1947, which would be too late to ever sport VBM on it (VBM 1908-1918) and the commun as dirt 414, was made between 1887-1950, practically unchanged.
Your rear tote and knob should be made of Rosewood (1887-1909) or East India Rosewood (1910-1924) That East Indian wood used on most VBM era planes is Soymida febrifuga, a hard closed grained, very dark red-brown with many fine concentric lines of lighter color. Also know as Indian Red wood, and not to be confused with Padouk. Your tote is way too bulky and a definite user made replacement, so go ahead and reshape it to fit your hand. Average price of that plane is between $15-30, so not a valuable plane...
Source of my info is from the most excellent book: Sargent planes identification and value guide, second edition, by David E. Heckel. Highly recommended BTW
Cheers
Bob, where we are slowly shedding our snow tires :-)