ok thanks !! That does make some things clearer to me now. I mean in that video, looking at the winding sticks, he says it’s done but there seems to be a good bit of twist remaining. It could be the camera angle I suppose.
Personally I prefer the Paul approach 🙂

yeah, I noticed the twist remaining too, but wondered if it looked differently from his side.

On the topic of preparing stock you need to differentiate between hobbyists and (old) commercial methods.

If you have 5 shelves, a tabletop and some drawers to make with a deadline to keep you just cant get hellbent on perfect surfaces and accuracy.
Time just doesnt allow it, its why on period pieces you see relatively crude surfaces on pieces that are not gonna be seen (often), or joints that might not be spaced perfectly.

As a Hobbyist you have all the time in the world and can do those perfect surfaces if you want to.
In the modern commercial world its no issue since jointers and planers ensure dead square and flat surfaces anyways.
Just something to think about.

Nevyn
Ultimately it is all about feel and usability for you. Years ago I went to the college of the Redwoods, I have 8-9 Krenov planes that pretty much sit in a drawer. I could never get used to using them, particularly compared to my 1930’s Stanley #4. But that’s me.

As for the planes you have the first 5 listed are all bench planes. The last 6 are specialty planes.

If I were instructing a new woodworker where to begin (and I taught adults for 13 years), I’d say use either the #4 or #5 (605) for your only plane until you build up your skill level. Between those two I’d choose the one in better condition and the one that feels better. Specifically choose the one that has a flat sole. And the plane that is square on an edge to use in a shooting board. Put the other bench planes aside until you gain more skill. You will know when it’s time to start using them. Tuning up planes is a necessary skill, fixing planes is a more advanced skill–takes some time to learn.

Paul not only recommends #4 bench plane but also the use of a router plane in his essential tools. He also works with plow and rebate planes. I’d keep the #71 handy.

Bench Plane Stanley 4
Bench Plane Bedrock 605
Bench Plane Record 5 1/2
Bench Plane Stanley 6
Bench Plane Stanley 7
Bench Plane Stanley 10
Shoulder Plane Stanley 78
Circular Plane Record 020c
Scraper Plane Stanley 80
Small Hand Router Stanley 271
Hand Router Stanley 71

tim

wolfhound wrote:

In the video, is it me or is that face clearly not flat when he planes the first edge ??
Also, when he marks the reference face, track marks are clearly visible. How can the face be perfectly flat if you can see track lines !? And it follows that the edge will not be at a perfect 90° all along the face.

Actually this is quite good because having started woodworking just a few months ago, I have been wondering how flat should flat be ? How square should square be ? So when I am preparing a board as in this video and I take a look using a flat edge, if any – and I really mean any – light shows between the board and the straight edge, then I will continue working on it. Same goes with squaring up the edges, etc. Am I being a little (or way too much) too finicky. Should I allow some sort of tolerance ?

Coming from an engineering background, I went through this exact issue. Thinking that I needed something as close to perfect as I could ever get it. I bought fancy straight edges and surface plates for ultra-flat plane soles and spent ridiculous amounts of time flattening boards to within silly tolerances. To this day, I have never found a resource for beginners on “what’s flat / square / good enough for this or that woodworking context?” At least in the Chris Shwarz video above, he somewhat touches on the subject.

For me, Paul’s frequent exclamations “that’s dead on” made the problem worse. To an engineer, such a term implies a very high level of precision, so I thought I had to achieve that in order to have good results in my woodworking. With no other context to correct me, I misinterpreted what Paul meant, and therefore mis-spent a fair bit of time chasing unnecessary levels of precision.

Sadly, I still can’t express what is “good enough”, and for most woodworking contexts, I simply don’t yet know. I can say it appears you never need to flatten to within a thou. Some joinery needs to be precise to a few thou, but there’s a great video by William Ng, where he demonstrates that box joints that are made to within 1 or 2 thou simply won’t go together because they’re too tight, so that was a big help.

Perhaps Philipp or Ed or one of the more experienced woodworkers can share their insights, but it appears to be something learned generally through experience.

I consider myself to just be a beginner to intermediate woodworker. With that disclaimer, one interpretation of, “dead on,” is, “I have a big enough hammer and clamp to put this together.” More seriously, when Paul says, “dead on,” I think he means more like, “This meets my intention,” than, This is perfect to 0.0001″. I rather like what Charlesworth says when he inspects things, which is along the lines of, “I am well satisfied by this.” (It’s been awhile since I saw one of his video, though).

Three quotes another of my teachers, Charles Neil, are, 1- “Put away the calipers: Looks good is good.” 2- “Sneak up on it” and 3- “Never trust a man who doesn’t have glue on his shoes.” When I took a class with him, he commented that the engineers get sorted out as soon as they have to make a cabriole leg. They want to measure and make perfect duplicates. He wants them to train their eyes and get therapy.

Philipp and both Eds, thank you !! I did find that Paul (and others) often say “that’s dead on”, seemingly without checking the whole length. I had just put that down to their experience. But it also makes sense to not seek engineering precision where it’s not necessary. Suddenly my output may increase 🙂

And Nevyn… sorry for highjacking your thread 🙂