I’m a retired custom furniture maker and woodworking instructor, formerly at Cerritos College. Prior to that I designed mechanisms for communication satellites and did a brief stint as a middle school math teacher.
My goal here is to provide detailed instruction to design and build various woodworking projects. Much of the content is derived from my 20+ years teaching hand tools and other furniture-making related topics. Please visit my website for more information.
A very informative video. I found it because I’m interested in buying some old hand tools to start my retirement with. Clearly it pays to be particular and to know what you are looking for. n
Carl, Thanks for the videos. I am cleaning an old Stanley Bailey #6, fluted bottom. The debris is tough enough for a dental pick. Is there a solvent that I can use? Thanks.
Hard to know if there's a solvent that would work with something that hard. It's probably a combination of rust, wood, and dirt. Mechanical removal is most likely your best option. Fortunately it's easy to reach.
It's wonderful to see a neglected tool returned to its glory. Shellac on the japanning is a great idea, thank you! I have a No. 7 that I want to use, however, the sole is cupped so that the heel and toe are high on the ends leaving a rather large gap in the middle when the sole is flat on a surface. I don't know what happened to the sole in its past, but I'm afraid I would have to remove too much metal on the ends to make it usable. Right now it leaves a nice smooth hump along the length of a board, not ideal for jointing. As usual, I digress, thank you for sharing.
I've never seen one that's as bad as you describe. Even if you could fix it, sounds like it might take a while to sand it flat. Too bad it's not warped the other direction; you could easily create a spring joint!
I found your channel a couple of weeks ago and have been binge watching. Still got a few to go to get them all watched. I like your teaching style so keep the videos coming. I've cleaned up a few planes myself but have never seen the shellac trick. Looks great!
Excellent setup video! Question: recently saved Bailey#5(type9). Set blade&chipbreaker too 1/16-1/32 spacing, frog set proper, would not make shaving. No room in mouth for chip. Set chipreaker back too about 3/16+, and we get a nice 1"+wide shaving. What is wrong with my plane? Thanks in advance.
Sorry for the delayed response... Most likely problem with your plane - the chipbreaker may not be seating well on the blade or is too blunt. Possible fix - carlstammerjohn.com/2017/09/18/plane-tune-up-6/ Or the forward part of the mouth has burrs or is not shaped correctly. See this - carlstammerjohn.com/2017/09/17/plane-tune-up-4/ Good luck and thanks for the nice comment!
I encountered a similar problem with a 24” fore plane. Using maple, I did the same repair you described here with great success. Maple does a fine job.
I completely disagree with your statement that an old plane will never work as good as a new one. In fact, I'd like to see a new plane work as nice as my vintage one.
I'm curious to know if you are using the original blade. In my experience that seems to be a big factor in how well the plane works. I have done every "trick" of which I'm aware in tuning up an old plane and have never gotten one to take as good a shaving on difficult grain (like curly maple) as I can get with my #4 Lie-Nielsen. My wood planes can do it, but not an old Stanley. If you can do that I'm very impressed.
if you don't have veneer laying around, medium cut plane shavings work just fine for this type of stabilization. i like using the edge of fast growing oak where the harder grain is really thick. makes for a very strong spline and you can keep adding shavings until you fill the kerf instead of trying to cut a veneer that is just the right thicknesss.
Thank you so much for this video, my Dad was a Carpenter and I have his Stanley Jack and Block Planes. Dad would be118 years old today..so I am trying to put a date on his Jack Plane first, then his 2 Block Planes which are different from each other. I also have his Brace and Bitt..hopping to restore all of them.
This saved me! I struggled getting my joints square with my #62 and a straight blade. The resulting surface would always lean one way. I got a new #5 yesterday and cambered the blade because I recalled your explanation in this video. So much easier to square! I think what works for me now is #62 for initial jointing, #5 to make corrections to square, then #62 again for final light passes.
Very good video. I’m a new subscriber and have spent the evening watching several of your videos and have learned a lot. I too am a hand tool only woodworker but enjoy your presentation. Also have you done a video on your shooting plane? It’s very intriguing. Thank you for sharing.
Very good demonstration video. Also your instructional aided showing the sole and blade along with the inset video was very helpful. So often many RU-vidrs just pass their hand over the blade and expects the viewer to understand what they are feeling. I look forward to watching more hand tool videos. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Hello Carl, Just found your channel and watched the first episode of the miter box. I very much enjoyed your video and your instruction style is very encouraging. However, I am a hand tool woodworker so I don’t use anything electric (I think you would find this funny if you knew that I am a retired electrical engineer) but I still appreciated your approach to the project and will continue to watch. Would you consider including how each step which uses power tools could also be accomplished using hand tools? Just a friendly suggestion from a new subscriber. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
I have considered including more handtool-only options in my videos, but I think it would make the videos too long. They already tend towards the long side, as I try to include processes that most people leave out. Also, I tend to use handtools more as an adjunct to my machine-centered processes; the machines do the heavy lifting and the handtools do the fine-tuning. If there is something in particular that you're interested in, let me know. I may be able to do it in the future. It's best if you do that via the contact info on my website.
Carl, I just came across your channel, and I'm very interested in the information you are providing. I also use hand tools quite a bit, mainly due to the small size of my shop with very little floor space. As I watch you create this wooden tool with such great precision, I'm wondering if the early woodworkers, using wooden planes and other self-made tools, tried for such precision. I think sometimes good is good enough. Granted, a tri-square can be checked for a perfect 90 degree angle against itself using a straight edge, so why does the handle (or reference portion) need to have such precision. I'm thinking the pioneers in woodworking would say: it checks square so go with it. Thanks for posting, I'm enjoying the tutorials.
I have thought and read about this a bit. Woodworkers in the past did not have access to the tools we have today, so they weren't concerned about that level of precision. But if they did, who's to say they wouldn't have wanted it? With the tools we have, it's not that difficult to get that level of accuracy, so why not? But I do agree, it's not as important as it may seem.
Yes, to me tri indicates three (as in triangle). Try, as in try square means to test an angle for squareness. Similarly, try planes test board edges for straightness prior to jointing.
I see some people spelling it that way in old archived forum posts. Guessed it was an across the pond deal but other way around. English woodworkers said try and sometime in America we named tri-square to say triangle square like speed squares but the name stuck for whatever reason. That is basing the tri being short for triangle. Best guess anyways but it isn’t just Carl saying it by mistake. There are record of it being spelt that way.
@robertcartman3502 I think you're correct, along with @georgenewlands9760. Fortunately, they are pronounced the same so no changes necessary to the video...
Thank you so much for a well thought out, concise and effective lesson. For such a simple device, the nuances are plentiful. Also, may I ask about your end vise? I am going to start on a new bench. I like the traditional end vise more than a wagon vise as it seems to have more applications. Which hardware are you using? I am waiting on Lie Nielsen to reintroduce theirs (they say they are close), and I am unaware of any other viable alternatives. Once again, you've given me plenty to work on in my plane use, thank you.
You are welcome! My end vise (or tail vise) was designed by John Nyquist and was featured in The Workbench Book by John Landis. I took Nyquist's workbench class at Cerritos College, where he showed us how to make and install the vise. After he retired from teaching (around 2001), I started teaching the class and taught many students how to make his style of workbench. It requires this screw (www.woodcraft.com/products/woodriver-diameter-screw-1-1-4-32-mm) and a length of 3/4" x 1" rectangular steel bar. The rest is shop-made (and a lot of work). If you're interested, email me via the contact info on my website and I'll send you what I have. I have installed the L-N tail vise many times and would recommend it if they still made it. Note that there were some problems with that vise, which I assume they are fixing with the new release.
@@CarlStammerjohn Thank you for the response. I pulled out my copy of "The Workbench Book" and found the Nyquist tail vise with no problems. I will follow this with an email shortly. Thank you.
One of the best videos on plane use I have watched. Your mild mannered personality and clear voice are appreciated. I look forward to watching more and learning. Thank you.
Technically yes, but if you search the web you'll find that most people call it a flow chart, and that's the title that was on it when I found it. You must be an engineer. (Takes one to know one...) ;-)
I bought my Stanley no.7 for 35aud ($23.50usd ) from a local market and it was in almost mint condition just need sharping . My Stanley no.4 was from the same guy for $5aud ($3.25usd ) only need sharpening and just a little bit of rust
Thanks, Carl, for another great teaching session. I always enjoy your videos. BTW, awesome camera work and editing. It made the lesson easy to understand and visualize. Can't wait for the next video.😊
You have quickly became my favorite woodworker. The chair horse build was amazing. Seeing your shop and life with it. I’m very interested in any sit down talking videos or articles about the woodworkers you followed and learned from. In-person fellowship or from published media authored by them. The John Nyquist chair horse made me think your knowledge is part of many others absorbed and then made to your own style. That interests me the most. Your experience with greater woodworking world. Thank you for creating a RU-vid channel to share your knowledge.
Wow! Thanks! The video you suggest would be difficult to do. So much of what I've learned is just snippets here and there, from classes, seminars, books, and magazines. When I was teaching, our student club would bring in various woodworkers to discuss their work and techniques. They included Garrett Hack, John Cederquist, Brian Boggs, Gary Rogowski, Patrick Edwards, Sam Maloof, Jim Ipekjian, and many more. Seminars during conventions included presenters like Michael Fortune. And John Nyquist taught at Cerritos College, where I taught. It would be a real challenge to put it all together, assuming I could even remember who taught me what...
@@CarlStammerjohn Maybe some bite-sized things come to mind or an overall concept that you took in and adopted. I just think it’s cool you’re sharing and have all that experience with others on your path to mastery. I’m sure any videos you make will delight. All of those guys are amazing but Michael Fortune really gets me. Any of his tables with leaf designs and inlays blow my mind.
Best explanation of how to setup and use a plane that I've seen. Showing the blade protrusion so clearly and wheel adjustment at the same time was especially helpful.
Back dragging doesnt dull blades singnificantly enough to matter. For finely set plane, sure the shaving might gets stuck, but for normal material removal back dragging is completely fine.
Good point. I'm sure it doesn't make much of a difference, but the bigger issue for me is the shaving getting stuck. When it does, it rarely just pulls out cleanly. You then need to get a small stick or similar to pry it out of the mouth. When that doesn't work, you have to take the blade out. Not worth the benefit of dragging the plane back along the wood (for me...).
Hi Carl, Greetings from the UK, do you have any information on where Record planes fit into the story? Most of my planes are Record Bailey pattern, don’t know how old they are, only that they are copies of Stanley models. Thanks for the video, regards, Steve
I have wondered about that myself. I think you know as much about it as do I. Copies for sure, with the only real difference being the words cast into the bed.
A very good video. I think the frog is the critical component of these planes. The more solid (no excavations) the blade mating surface, the better the quality in my opinion. Thanks for making this video and supplying the flow chart. Much appreciated.
You are welcome! There's no doubt that solid support near the cutting edge is critical, although I'm not sure if the cavities on the frog higher up make much of a difference. For those not clear what we're referring to, see the frog surface at 05:47 and 24:27.
How useful is the flowchart for UK Stanley planes? I have seen a few attempts at linking the two. Any thoughts - could make an interesting video. Thanks for the effort you have put into this video.
I'm not sure. I've seen so few UK planes and most of those were from the 1960's or later. It would be an interesting video, but I don't have the knowledge to do it.
Wow, that was awesome, although it would have been great to find it a week ago - as I’ve just purchased my first Stanley Bench Plane (5½). I now need to check whether it is a keeper! But the information here, along with the detailed knowledge Carl has included, is going to make identification so much easier, thank you very much sir… 👏🏻
What a WONDERFUL PROFESSOR! I wish that this was the first video I ever saw when starting my woodworking hobby. You mentioned sooo many of the most important layout & marking pointers in video 1. Also mortise techniques so helpful for someone to shoot for so they don’t just have a big hole instead of a proper mortise. Not only what to shoot for, but also how to check and confirm that you are doing it correctly while pursuing the goal. Thank you so much for this particular video because it is also helpful for me being able to make a Mortise/ measuring gauge that is comfortable to use (instead of the harbor, freight knock-off where everything moves while trying to lock it down) Again, thank you so much. Well done!
