Reader Tim Williams writes: I have a number of old Stanley planes that I’ve spent a lot of hours cleaning and refurbishing. I’ve read multiple places about how when tuning up a plane, it’s a good idea to flatten the mating surfaces of the frog so the iron beds well, with lots of contact, to avoid chattering.
However, I find that whenever I take a flat iron and attach a chipbreaker to it, the tension of the chipbreaker on the iron puts a very gentle curve on the iron. So, when I attach the chipbreaker and iron to the frog, there’s a very slight gap under the middle of the iron (just enough to see light through if I hold it up to a light). I’ve tried loosening the bolt holding the chipbreaker and iron together to reduce the tension, but if I loosen it enough to remove the tension, the iron slides against chipbreaker.
On one plane, I’m using a Hock chipbreaker. It mates more fully against the iron and doesn’t curve the iron, so it appears to bed better on the frog. Finally, I’ve not really used these enough to notice much chattering. Should I even be worrying about this?
What's happening here is that you have too much curvature in your chipbreaker. When you cinch down the iron, it bends to match the shape of the breaker. There are several solutions to this: You can remove some of the curvature in your chipbreaker. Place one end of the breaker in a vise and push against it gently. It will bend easily. Then try again.
Another solution is to replace the iron with a thicker aftermarket iron. This is always a good idea. The thicker iron will resist bending. Or you can replace both the iron and chipbreaker, which is what I like to do with vintage handplanes that I am going to use for high-tolerance planing (jointing or smoothing).
The bigger question is if the bending is even a problem. It depends. With some forms of planes (such as infill planes) the lever cap puts so much pressure on the iron and breaker right up by the mouth that it doesn't matter if the iron ouches the frog or not.
In Bailey-style planes, the more contact you get between the frog and iron the more stable the whole assembly will be and the less likely that bad things will happen, such chattering or the plane going out of adjustment while planing.
When I set up a Bailey plane, what I shoot for is a flat sandwich of frog, iron and breaker, as shown in the photo above. That works best.
— Christopher Schwarz
P.S. Our RSS feed has been bockety this week. If you like this post, you might also like my post earlier this week on how to understand the system of bench planes which is here.
If you haven't surmised it yet, one of the themes running through the Spring 2008 issue is the fact that accurate sawing has a lot more to do with accurate chisel work than anything else. When you cut a tenon shoulder, it's the chisel that cuts the part of the joint that shows – the saw just removes the waste below.
Several readers have picked up on this theme, and they've also pointed out (politely, I might add) what looks like a contradiction in my instructions about chiseling.
In the article on the Stickley Tabourets, I'm chiseling the joint line for the half-lap joint with the bevel of the chisel facing away from the waste (you can see this on page 10). A few pages later (page 19) I'm chiseling the shoulder for a tenon with the bevel of the chisel facing into the waste.
Have I finally taken one too many sips of La Fin Du Monde?
Perhaps, but I did have a good reason for what I did – I just didn't have the room in the issue to explain it. So here goes:
When you deepen a knife line by striking it with a chisel, there are two important things to consider. First is what shape the resulting knife line will be, and second is how much the chisel will shift when you rap its handle with a mallet.
The first part is easy to understand. Chisels are wedge-shaped. They have a flat face and a bevel. So when you knock the tool straight down into your work it makes a "V"-shaped cut that is a photocopy of this shape. One side of the V is straight up and down. The other side of the V is sloped. 
The second part also has to do with the fact that chisels are wedges. When you drive a chisel with a mallet, it doesn't want to travel straight down in a line that's parallel to the flat face of the chisel. Instead, it wants to travel at an angle that is halfway between the bevel and the flat face. So if you have a 20° bevel on your chisel (as I do in the paring chisel shown in the articles), the chisel doesn't want to travel at 90° (straight down), it wants to move at 80°. (This assumes you have wood pushing back equally on the bevel and the face of the chisel.)
This is why when you are chiseling out your waste between dovetails that the chisel is always trying to move toward (and even cross) your baseline.
Whew. With all that on the table, I can now explain why I did what I did.
When chiseling a tenon shoulder, the shape of the line created by the chisel is critical. I want it perfectly square so it will close tight with the stile. So I chisel the joint with the bevel facing the waste. If this so happens to shrink the overall length of the tenoned part by 1/128", I can live with that. I want the joint to be tight more than I care about its final length.
When chiseling a half-lap joint, my considerations are different. This isn't a show joint, so I just want it to be tight and structural. The shoulder line isn't as critical. That's why I chisel with the bevel facing away from the waste. The chisel will then drift into the waste a tad. So when I saw the joint, the notch made by the chisel will encourage the saw to cut a half-lap that is just a tad tight. Then I can plane the piece's mate to get a perfect fit.
This might be a little fussy for you. If so, I apologize. A chisel seems so simple (it's a steel and wooden corndog!), but it actually is a subtle instrument (like a corndog with chorizo inside). Play around with the tool. Try it with the bevel out and then with the bevel in. And let us know what you discover.
— Christopher Schwarz
Reader Michael Holcomb writes: I'm writing to ask your advice about an old Pennsylvania cabinet maker's workbench I was lucky enough to buy a couple of years ago. It came from the shop of a Berks County, Penn., cabinet maker and has many of the features of the line drawing in Eric Sloane's book on early American tools. It's massive: The top is just shy of 9' and is made of two planks of 3" chestnut (I think). It has a leg vise on one end, an end vise on the other, and a board jack which slides the entire length of the front. I sent photos to a friend, Ernie Conover, who thought its construction techniques might date it to the 1830s.
My question is, should I do anything to plane and resurface the top, which has the normal nicks, dings, holes and abrasions from almost two centuries of use? There is slight warpage on one end of one of the planks, but otherwise the surface is certainly usable, due mainly to its substantial construction and weight. Would I destroy its historical value by planing the surface? Or is it better just left alone?
Answer: It's a good question that deserves some consideration and debate.
Here's my take: If you are going to use the bench for hand work, then you don't have much of a choice. You should flatten the top. Otherwise, handplaning will be impossible. I find that once the top goes out of flat by .006" or so, then my work tends to spring on the top unacceptably.
I take flattening to be routine maintenance for a piece that is in service -- like waxing the top of a dining table that is in use in your home.
While I'm sure there are some workbenches that are truly "museum pieces" (such as the Dominy bench at Winterthur), most benches should be put to use in workshops so they avoid a worse fate -- being used as houseplant holders or decorative accents by sellers of antiques. Maybe someday there will be a "workbench museum" and I'll change my tune. Until then, do your best to bring this bench back to life.
— Christopher Schwarz
Mark L. Wells writes: I've read your book and the extra chapterr. Both are great. You provide so
much more detail than anything else I've read, and I almost feel guilty
for not having to work it out myself.
Anyway, I am going to rebuild my bench soon and I plan to put a leg
vise on the front. When attaching the top, I assumed I would have to
use mortise-and-tenon joints because of the tremendous shearing force
generated by the leg vise. I'm concerned that the vise would just push
the workbench top right off the legs. However, when I saw the simple L-brackets in this chapter, I started wondering if those would be sturdy
enough to resist the force of the vise. The L-brackets would certainly
be a lot less work!
Have you tried attaching the workbench top using L brackets when the bench has a leg vise?
Answer: Good question. My gut says that two L-brackets on the leg with the leg vise would
probably do the trick. However, just be safe, I would probably put one
stout 1"- or 1-1/4"-diameter dowel in the top of that leg. That should
provide all the protection against shear forces that you need.
Hope this helps, and good luck with your bench design.
— Christopher Schwarz
Reader Greg Peel writes: I'm glad to see that the latest issue of Woodworking Magazine is a great one like the others. I was wondering if there is color picture of the pumpkin pine samples that you did for the issue? It looks very intriguing to me. I've always used some version of golden oak for my pine pieces and I like their color very much, but I'm always interested to working with antique wood and achieving an aged finish on new wood.
By the way, I miss the sepia toned look of the previous issues that was so rich and beautiful.
Greg: Below is a link so you can download a color-correct image of the bucket – the image above has more brown in it than the real finish. Of course, if your monitor stinks, then it probably has too much baby-poo green in it, as well. On your comment about the sepia color in the current issues: For the next issue we'll be back on the same paper, our old printing press and the same color set-up. So... wish granted.
PumpkinPineBucket.jpg (87.5 KB) — Christopher Schwarz
Adrian Mariano writes: I just watched your DVD ("Forgotten Hand Tools" from Lie-Nielsen Toolworks) in which you advocate the use of nails and drawbores to overcome the flaws in the glue. And there were a couple things I was wondering about.
One is the question of glue longevity. If I glue together a tabletop with hide glue will it fall apart in 100 years? Two hundred? Or do glue joints only fail if they are stressed? (Presumably the side-grain-to-side-grain joint of a tabletop creates very little stress in the joint.) I haven't heard of people, say, putting together tabletops using sliding dovetails to ensure strength.
Answer: Any good glue joint can last centuries. Its life will be shortened by moisture, heat and stress. Moisture on a tabletop is a common factor. Heat can be. And tabletop joints are stressed at the ends by the migration of moisture through the end grain -- that's why antique tops split on the ends typically.
Breadboard ends and cross-battens are typical and historically correct methods of helping to keep a top together.
Question No. 2: Why are nails better than screws? I haven't tried to use nails in cabinetry, but I've tried to use them in carpentry and my experience has led me to hate nails and to use screws instead whenever possible. They bend over, they split the work (sometimes even with a pilot hold), and hammering them in can be very loud, and it subjects the work to stresses, possibly causing parts to move or shift. Maybe a screw head is harder to hide than a nail head. But is there some other reason to prefer nails?
Answer: Hmmm. I don't consider nails to be better than screws for all occasions. But there are some advantages to using nails at times. Nails will bend to accommodate wood movement. Screws won't bend. They'll split the work. Nails are smaller and can be used in places that screws would be ugly (nailing on face frames and moulding). They are inserted faster than screws (removing them sure is slower!). And they can be historically correct in pieces, which can be important to some woodworkers (such as myself).
Question No. 3: Another thing I was wondering about is that I saw an article a few months ago (which, alas, I have not been able to find again). This was an article by Bob Flexner on furniture repair and restoration in which he claims that the use of metal fasteners guarantees problems down the road, and I recall that he said pinning a mortise-and-tenon joint would cause it to split eventually. He seems almost directly in opposition to the use of nails and the drawbore, and justifies his position based on the types of damage he sees in old furniture. Do you have any thoughts on how to reconcile this with your claims in the DVD?
Answer: Bob is one of the people I highly respect in this business. He also comes at this problem from a restorer's viewpoint. It's more difficult for him to disassemble a joint pinned with a mechanical fastener, be it a wooden or metal one. His comment was aimed also at people who nail a loose joint instead of disassembling it and regluing. That is indeed bad practice.
I don't think a pinned joint guarantees joint failure at all. I have seen pinned joints that are 400 years old and are completely sound. Drawboring is a sound practice for certain kinds of applications where mechanical strength is key or you are working under unusual conditions (wet wood, long spans and no clamps) or you are striving for historical accuracy.
-- Christopher Schwarz
John Griffin-Wiesner writes: Thanks to your blog posting last week which alerted me to the closing of Auriou, I purchased my only three Auriou rasps. While explaining them to a non-woodworker friend on the phone he asked if rasps ever wear out or need sharpening.
Huh. I never thought of sharpening a rasp.
But rasps are metal, and all my other metal woodworking edges need replacing or sharpening at some point. I can't fathom the sharpening of a rasp. But my friend couldn't fathom the sharpening of a saw blade either -- which I know is not too big a deal. Will these fine rasps wear out one day, or need sharpening, or ... ?
Answer: There are (at least) two schools of thought on resharpening files and rasps.
1. Don't be a snapperhead. Use it and throw it away.
2. Send it to Boggs Tool & File Sharpening Co. in California. Boggs uses a "liquid honing process" to remove material from the back of the teeth, exposing a sharp edge. I've used rasps sharpened by Boggs and I can attest that they work better than the tool did when new. These were not Auriou products, however; they were Nicholson patternmaker's rasps. So I cannot say how the Aurious would do. It wouldn't hurt to give Boggs a call and ask. Last time I checked, resharpening a cabinet-sized rasp was less than $10.
— Christopher Schwarz
Reader Wendell Wilkerson is designing a workbench and has combined elements of the Roubo-style Workbench from Issue 4 and the Holtzapffel Workbench from Issue 8. I think it looks a lot like the Dominy workbench at Winterthur (if you took off the iron end vise). He has a couple good questions, which are below, but I also wanted to share his Google SketchUp drawing above and give you a link to a SketchUp drawing of the Holtzapffel. Plus, Wendell has graciously agreed to post his SketchUp drawing of the bench shown above: roubzapffel.zip (691.62 KB)
Question: I always knew procrastination would pay off someday. I never got around to building the Roubo bench. If I had, I would've have been upset after seeing the Holtzapffel bench. I was always drawn to benches with twin-screw front vises, and the Holtzapffel bench finally clinched it for me. I ordered my wooden bench screws pretty much as soon as you posted Stephen Fee's e-mail on WoodCentral. Luckily for you, I used my tool allowance to buy them so WivesAgainstSchwarz won't be getting involved, this time!
Anyway I put together a Google SketchUp model of what I want to build. I am planning to use Southern yellow pine (SYP) for the whole bench so I married the Holtzapffel top and vises to the Roubo base. Assuming I get 1-1/4"-thick boards of the SYP construction lumber, the Roubo base dimensions looked easier to put together. I will freely admit that I wimped out and decided to add upper end stretchers to the base so I can screw the top to the base rather than mortise it. In putting the model together, I came up with some questions:
Question 1: My main concern is the vise I plan to use for the end vise. I have a 7" Record vise that I bought when Lee Valley was closing them out. Do you think there would be any issue with using this vise instead of its larger sibling that you used? In my drawing, I worked out a chop size that would avoid the dog holes going over the legs, but using 3-3/8" spacing I couldn't avoid the upper end stretcher I added. Related question: Which do you like better – the wagon vise you added to the Roubo bench or the end vise on the Holtzapffel?
Answer: On the end vise, a smaller vise is fine. Just do everything you can to keep the line of dog holes in your top as close to the front edge as possible. About 4" is the maximum distance. Anywhere between 3" to 4" would be fine. I hope you can use a quick-release vise in that position because that is one place where a quick-release really shines.
As to the wagon vise v. iron vise question, I like the extra support provided by the wagon vise, but I like the quick and easy installation of the iron vise. Were I to build another bench (shudder), I'd use the iron vise in the tail position again.
Question 2: I am planning to make my bench 8' long, 2' longer than your Holtzapffel. With the added length, do think you think it would be useful to add the deadman back into the design? The nuts for the face vise block about one third of the distance between the front legs but there is about 38" from the right end of the face vise to the right leg.
Answer: With the extra length of your benchtop, I would add the deadman back in, just as you've done on your drawings. That will be an awesome setup.
3) How much extra thickness do you generally add when you're gluing up thinner stock to make your bench parts? I am particularly interested in your strategy for the top since reducing by hand is about the only option once it is glued up.
Answer: On the lamination question, I usually add about 1/4" to 3/8" extra in width to each board when laminating a top. That might be a little heavier than needed. But I'd rather end up with a slightly over-thick top. It will get thinner as the years progress.
— Christopher Schwarz
Question: When is your book on workbenches coming out? I read the excerpts in your magazine this weekend and decided to purchase it before I attempt a bench of my own, I can’t wait. I have acquired some Southern Yellow Pine that I intend to use on my bench (it's fire-rated 2 x 12 x 8’). It has been in my climate-controlled garage for about three months. The last time I used construction grade (non-rated) SYP she moved all over the place once cut. What do you recommend?
— Andy Scott
Answer: Southern Yellow Pine moves a lot as it dries, but once it’s dry, it is quite stable. How stable? Download the pdf below that explains how to figure wood movement for a variety of species.
Here’s what I do when I use yellow pine in any project:
1. Crosscut and rip everything to close size. Moisture migrates through the end grain, so cutting it close to size will make it dry faster.
2. Use a moisture meter to check your progress. Some SYP comes nearly dry (9 percent moisture content (MC)). I’ve seen some boards at 17 percent MC. It usually takes a few months for things to equalize with big projects such as this. Patience pays.
3. Only surface the wood for one assembly at a time. Work rapidly. When you glue up the top, clear the day. Surface and rip all the stock and glue it that day. When you glue up the legs, use the same strategy. It takes more time, but it really pays off.
4. When you glue it up, let it sit in the clamps at least five hours. The resins in the wood prevent the water in yellow glue from pentrating as quickly – this tip is from the chemists at Titebond.
On a final note: With Southern Yellow Pine that has been in my shop for a year or so, I can deal with it just like I deal with hardwoods. So it really is about managing the moisture because waiting a year is not a reasonable solution for most woodworkers.
I'm sure there are other good tips that I'm forgetting. If you have one, please leave it in the Comments section below (click on Comments and you'll see how this works).
The book comes out Oct. 10. You can read more about it here.
— Christopher Schwarz
WoodMovement.pdf (272.5 KB)
Question: I'm watching your commentary on this one quite carefully: I'm planning to build a bench this year or next and have wondered about torsion boxes instead of slabs. Also, could you post a picture of the hinge at the bottom of that leg vise?
— Karl Rookey
It's not really a hinge at the bottom of the leg vise, but it does pivot. The piece of wood pierced with holes is called a parallel guide. It prevents the vise's jaw from twirling like a helicopter blade and acts as a pivot point for the vise.
To use the guide, you place the steel pin in one of the holes that matches (as close as possible) the thickness of the work you are securing. As you screw the vise closed, the pin butts against the leg (as shown above) and the top of the jaw pivots toward your work. It's remarkably efficient and strong.
Some details: The parallel guide is slightly smaller (11/16" thick) than the mortise through the leg (3/4"). The closer the fit, the smoother the action. The parallel guide is secured to the vise jaw with a wedged through-tenon. The countersunk holes in the guide are 3/8" in diameter and are on 1" centers. Each row of holes is offset by ½", so you essentially get a hole every ½". The hole positioned between the two rows is ½" from the vise jaw.
The pin is 3/8" in diameter, 6" long and steel. It has a rubber O-ring on it that has a 5/16" interior dimension (the 3/8" I.D. O-rings will slip off your pin).
The leg vise is a remarkable piece of engineering that I enjoy working with. It's inexpensive, easy to make and grippy as all get-out.
— Christopher Schwarz
 Question: Looking over the current and past issues of Woodworking Magazine , I see how drawboring or wedging a mortise and tenon joint will improve the strength and fit of the joint. But is there a reason to pick either drawboring or wedging over the other technique in terms of the strength or durability of the joint?
The only advantage I can think of so far is that it might be easier to disassemble a drawbored joint.
— Wilbur PanAnswer: I'm not aware of any studies that compare the relative strengths of these two joints. For me, they both fit into the category of "stronger than typically required." And that is probably why both joints show up frequently in chairs, which are the most-abused category of furniture. I think that choosing one joint over the other depends on your materials, your tools at hand, the fit of the components and your desire for being able to disassemble the joint. Materials: I would choose drawboring if my wood was a little wet and hadn't reached equilibrium with my shop. Drawboring will keep things tighter as the wood dries and shrinks. I would choose wedging if my material was less stout than oak (say, cherry or walnut). Drawboring is more likely to result in a split during assembly.  A drawbore joint, split open for your inspection.Tools: I would choose drawboring if I had a set of drawbore pins. I don't like drawboring without them in typical frame construction -- though you can do it with small hole offsets. I would choose wedging if I had a band saw. Nothing makes wedges faster than a band saw and the wedge sled we showed in the magazine. Also, I would choose wedging if I had lots of clamps; I would choose drawboring if I didn't. The Fit of Your Components: Drawboring is more accommodating to a joint that isn't as perfect. It will draw up tenon shoulders tightly more than wedging will. Wedging a through-tenon requires particular attention to the way the tenon and mortise fit.  A wedged through-tenon. Note that this is but one way to wedge this joint.
Reversibility: I actually think that a wedged joint (with hide glue) is more reversible than a drawbored joint. If you drill out a drawbore pin, you are generally going to make it so that the joint cannot be reassembled in the same way without some serious fussing. I know some people have assembled their drawbored joints without glue and then knocked out their pins later. I haven't had much luck with this, but I've only tried it a couple times. Early accounts of wedging recommended that the craftsman glue only the wedges when assembling the joint -- no other glue in the mortise. So with a little steam and heat, the wedges could be worked loose to repair the joint. — Christopher Schwarz
Question: A couple of questions regards to my Roubo bench project:
1. Regarding laminating the top: I'm not the best laminator in the world. I
have about a dozen small cracks on both top and bottom of the Southern
yellow pine top. Tried filling them first with Titebond III, then Hot Stuff
Special T (sold at Lee Valley), and the Veritas cabinetmaker's glue. Mixed
results from all three products. Most common result is a crack that's mostly
filled with small "swiss cheese" type holes in the dried glue. Can you
recommend anything for this dilemma that looks good once planed down?
2. Phil Koontz holdfast diameters: Just ordered the large holdfasts from
Phil Koontz and his (Jake) the Russian buddy. According to your article,
these work best in a 11/16" diameter hole. According to one of Phil's galoot
bulletin board messages, he recommends the large holdfasts go in a 3/4"
hole, and the regular-sized holdfast in a 11/16" hole. Before drilling, I
called Phil. His bottom line is that hole size doesn't matter; that if I use
a 11/16" hole, I'll wind up knocking the holdfast around a bit, till the wear
and tear of the hole loosens it up a bit. What say you?
Thanks again for your helpful advice, and the tremendous work you and your
team do at Woodworking Magazine! I'll be in Afghanistan for the next year
(starting in January – I'm an Army Colonel –trying to get this project
completed!), and won't be able to do much woodworking, but know that your
magazine will keep me informed and entertained.
Mark in La Crosse, Wisconsin
Answer: On my first workbench I had an area where the top either delaminated or I didn't fit the parts well. I filled the area with epoxy (you can buy it in a variety of viscosities). Once the epoxy dries, you can plane it flush with a block plane.
Here are some other strategies:
If the crack is too serious for epoxy, I'd glue a wedge in there. Or, if the crack is irregular, I'd run a handsaw in the split and then glue a wedge in there.
If the crack is too serious for a wedge, I saw the top apart at the lamination, dress the two edges and glue them back together.
Or (final option) accept the crack as a lesson learned on a workbench instead of a lesson learned it on a highboy. Every time you see the crack, you'll be reminded to do better.
On Phil's holdfasts: You need a tight hole on a thick workbench or one with softwood. If your bench is a la Roubo (4" thick), then use the tight hole. If your benchtop is more ... uh... modern in thickness (2-3/4" or so and made from beech) then 3/4" will work.
Here's my best advice on that: Make a sample hole in a sample chunk that matches your benchtop in species and thickness. Clamp the chunk in a vise and try out the holdfasts.
But don't worry too much. Phil's holdfasts work great in almost any conditions.
Good luck overseas!
— Christopher Schwarz
Question: I've noted that you've recently mentioned that you've been looking into scrapers, so I thought that maybe you could answer a question that I have about scraper-plane blades.
Recently I acquired a Stanley #12 scraper plane and the three Lie-Nielsen scraper planes (modern versions of the Stanley #112, #85, and #212). I am in the process of preparing and using these scraper planes to smooth the surfaces of the blanket chest that I made at Chris Gochnour's Marc Adams School of Woodworking course. I intend to thereby avoid sanding.
I intend to paint the chest (which is made of poplar) following the methods given in the painting article in the recent issue of Woodworking Magazine.
I am preparing the scraper-plane blades just as I would plane blades: both back and bevel, five DMT plates of grits from 120 to 1,200 followed by four Shapton water stones of grits from 2,000 to 16,0000. The burnishing of the 45° bevels to produce a burr is being done with a Glen-Drake burnisher following the method of David Charlesworth (which is similar to the method given by Garrett Hack).
It is my understanding that when a scraper plane ceases to proceed shavings and starts to produce "sawdust" that I must go back to honing and redo the burnishing to produce a new burr.
Here is my question: How far back must I go in the honing sequence?
Certainly I need not go back to the DMT plates. But, do I need to go back to the 2,000 grit Shapton water stone? And, can I get away with only re-honing the bevel, or must I re-hone both the back and the bevel?
If you are able to help me understand how to do the refurbishing of defunct scraper-plane burrs I would greatly appreciate it.
— Dave Raeside
Answer: I have indeed been doing a lot of work on their care and feeding this year. In brief, they are like any other edge tool. All the same rules apply. The burr is strongest when it is turned from the intersection of two highly polished planes.
And so resharpening of scrapers involves exactly the same regimen as it would for a plane or chisel.
1. If the edge is only slightly degraded, I'll begin with a polishing stone (8,000) and then turn the burr.
2. If the edge is mostly used up but still unchipped, I'll begin with the 1,000, then polish, then turn the burr.
3. If the edge is chipped or otherwise damaged, I drop back to the diamond stones, grinder or other grinding abrasives. Then the 1,000, 8,000 and burnisher.
What I don't do much of, is to try to resharpen with burnishing alone. My results have always been inconsistent. Occasionally it works. Usually I get a burr that is OK in some places and weak in others. Other times I get nothing but a trip back to the grinder.
I hope this helps more than it muddles....
— Christopher Schwarz
Regarding benchtops, how flat is flat enough? When I use winding sticks on my top, they line up, but it cups down its length by about 1/16" at its center. How anal should I be with this?
— Jason Myre
Benchtop flatness seems more important for hand work than for machine work. If you work mostly with power tools, I'd say a 1/16" cup down the middle is fine. Your machines (a planer and a jointer) will help ensure your wood is flat. You'll mostly be clamping your work to your bench to rout it, biscuit it and so forth.
In handwork, the benchtop is more of a reference surface, so I'd get it as flat as your skills allow.
It's not difficult with a No. 7 handplane, commonly called a jointer plane. Set the iron to take a decent bite – you want shavings that are as thick as two sheets of typing paper. Work directly across the grain of the top to bring the high edges of the top down to the valley in the middle. Then work diagonally with the plane – work 45° one way and then the 45° other. Then finish up with strokes with the grain.
It's quick work.
What is interesting to me about this question is that benchtop flatness doesn't get discussed much in the early texts. I wonder sometimes if we make too much of it (like we do with plane sole flatness and the like). Or perhaps benchtop flatness was so important that it was unspoken. There is indirect evidence that a flat surface was key. George Ellis's "Modern Practical Joinery" gives plans for a "panel board" on page 38. It is essentially a workshop jig that sits on top of your benchtop and holds panels and thin work for planing. Ellis notes that it is useful for providing a "clearer and truer surface than is provided by the ordinary bench top."
My personal habit is to flatten my benchtop once a year or so. Not only does a flat benchtop make my handplaning more predictable, but it also clears off the stains and gunk that accumulate on it, which reduces the chance that the gunk will get on a piece of pristine work.
This letter also prompted me to go out and check my benchtop with a straightedge. I also am developing a cup down the middle. My cup is the thickness of two sheets of paper. I might be due for a quick flattening session/mild aerobic workout.
— Christopher Schwarz
I recently bought your "Coarse, Medium, and Fine" DVD, from Lie-Nielsen. I wanted to thank you for it, I found it very informative and useful. I have two questions:
1. Would a low-angle jack plane qualify as a coarse plane for basic work, if used diagonally cross grain, with a cambered blade, and a wide mouth? I have a Lie-Nielsen scrub plane, but as you mention in the video it is pretty rough, and also rather small. I also have a 5-1/2 Lie-Nielsen jack, but I like that for lots of other stuff. So I was wondering about the low-angle jack ...
2. Has anybody done a video on planing glued up panels? I can flatten a board OK, and joint an edge. But when it comes to cleaning up a glued up panel, HELP!!!! Some people say to glue up alternating grain, for stability, some people say to have all the boards in the same direction for ease of planing, and some like to consider only appearance. I tend to try to visually compose with grain, which is hard enough without adding the problem of varying grain direction ... In any case, this is one video I keep looking for (hint, hint)!
— Alan Belkin
Thanks for your letter. I'm quite pleased to hear that you liked the DVD. As to your questions: You can indeed you can use a low-angle jack plane as a fore plane. When I taught a class on hand tools last month I set up several low-angle jacks from Veritas and Lie-Nielsen to do this task. Personally, I think it's a bit overkill to purchase all that precision workmanship for such a coarse operation. I usually encourage readers to purchase an older Stanley No. 5 or No. 6 (or a transitional plane, like the one I was using in the DVD), and then put the money they saved toward buying a really nice jointer or smoother. A very good source for used hand planes is Sanford Moss. I see he has several planes that qualify for $50 to $60 on his site right now.  As to glued up panels, I follow two rules for selecting boards: 1. Choose the widest, clearest boards and arrange them for best appearance. 2. Try to move the boards around in position so that all the grain runs uphill in the same direction. A little bit of effort on this can usually produce a top that looks just as good and is easier to plane. After I glue up the top, I asses the joints. If there are some misaligned edges that exceed 1/32" or so, I'll begin flattening them with the fore plane, working at 90° to the grain. This approach to the work reduces tearout and flattens things up quickly. (Note, however, that it will cause some breakout on the edges of your panel; compensate for this by adding a little extra width to your panel.) Then I check the top with winding sticks and proceed to the jointer and treat the assembly just like it's a really wide board: Work diagonally first and then with the grain. And then the smoother and scraper. If you are aware of where the grain changes direction in your top, you can work one section one way and another section the other way. Skewing the plane radically near the boards' seams can sometimes help reduce tear-out at the transition points. If the grain is quite unruly in the top, I will do everything I can with a smoothing plane and then turn to a scraping plane to finish the top. That tool can generally can ignore the grain direction anyway. And if it's a really really bad day (or the top is quartersawn sycamore), I'll sneak over to the drum sander. — Christopher Schwarz
What kind of sprayer do you recommend for applying a lacquer finish: gravity or siphon feed? Could you use the same sprayer for applying a stain? Thanks for your time and keep up the outstanding work on the Woodworking Magazine and blog.
— Andrew Craig, Portland, Oregon
I use a siphon-feed cup-gun sprayer, which has the material cup below the trigger. However, it seems that the world prefers the gravity-feed guns, which have the cup on top of the spray gun. Gravity guns are supposed to be more efficient because you don't need to use air to pressurize the cup below (gravity does all the work). And some people say they are more balanced.
I, however, find them personally awkward. I think they are top-heavy when fully loaded and I seem to ram the cup into everything as I maneuver around the workpiece.
My favorite set-up is what we called a "pressure pot," which is where the material is stored in a remote pressurized drum. Our Binks-brand pressure pot used to hold two gallons, which was really nice for big jobs. Plus the gun could go into really tight spaces because you didn't have any cup to swing around.
Of course, the seals on that pressure pot were kinda bad – it would lose pressure on occasion. We gave up the pressure pot when we moved into our new offices a few years ago and got rid of our spray booth.
And you can apply stain using a spray gun, as long as it's pretty thin (dyes spray quite well). It takes practice and you need to wipe things down pretty quickly after spraying. Perhaps that's why I've stuck with applying color by hand.
— Christopher Schwarz
Louis Bois is a lucky guy. Recently he purchased the beautiful carver's vise shown above, which was made by the French firm Forge Royale. He's been looking for background information on the vise and the manufacturer and has come up empty-handed.
But there's hope.
Back in 1981, The Mid-West Tool Collectors Association reprinted a translated version of the catalog (circa 1927-1930) "At the Royal Forge" that will answer most of our questions about this beautiful piece of work. Thanks to St. Louis tool collector (and dealer) Mike "Rat" Urness, a copy of the reprint will be in my hands next week and I'll post some more information about the Forge Royale, and maybe some other tidbits about French tools.
If you know anything additional about Forge Royale, please send me a note or post a comment below.
But until we shake loose that information, Louis has provided some drawings of the vise that you absolutely must check out. It is how I think woodworking magazines should deliver content in the future. Louis is a mechanical draughtsman by trade with 20 years of experience and has produced two documents that I encourage you to download and view.
The first is a pdf of the mechanical drawings for the vise. The drawings include several sheets that detail the individual components and their dimensions. Scaled drawings of the plates are provided, as are additional (color) photos of the vise.
Carver's Chops.pdf (1.21 MB)
The second document is what's called a "live model" – it's a 3D color model of the vise that you can rotate and take apart. You'll be able to see how all the parts relate to one another (and the program will put it back together for you once you take it apart).
The file below has a player enclosed that will work with Windows machines.
Carver's Chops Assembly Without Fastneners.zip (2.65 MB)
Macintosh users can download a free player from SolidWorks called eDrawings that will allow you to view and manipulate the file. Below is a link to a zipped SolidWorks file without the Windows player embedded.
Carver's Chops Assembly Without Fastneners.EASM.zip (671.59 KB) We've been playing with these files in the office all day and have had a blast. I think you'll immediately see the utility of this format. Check it out.
— Christopher Schwarz
Robert Giovannetti of Crystal Lake, Ill., built a Roubo-style workbench like the one featured in the Autumn 2005 issue. He wasn't completely satisfied with its workholding properties and sold the bench to an eager buyer.
Then this week he sent me photos of his latest workbench, which incorporates details from many workbenches. He likes to call it the Rob-O, which Rob says is a "Japanese cabinetmaker's bench modified for western work methods." The bench, which is designed for a workshop that blends hand and power tools, has some interesting features that are worth discussing. Let's take a look.
First, the raw stats: The top is 4" x 31-1/2" x 94-1/2" total, which includes the two slabs and a 10-1/2" w. sliding tray between. The base is a trestle design with all members being 3-1/2" x 4". The bench tips the scales at about 400 pounds.
Workholding details: The Veritas Twin-Screw face vise is 31-1/2" wide (wow) with the vise screws on 24" centers. Rob says this vise is ideal for both dovetailing and edge jointing. He says he can secure a 7'-long piece of stuff for edging. So the fact that the face vise's rear jaw is proud of the top is no big deal, Rob says. If he needs to edge a big door, he can clamp a spacer block to the front edge of the top for additional support. In my book, this is the only weakness of this design – I've worked on benches like this and I much prefer having the legs and top and vise all in the same plane. But that's just me.
Rob's planing stops are cool. They slide into dados in the top. Rob says he has multiple sizes of stops for planing different thicknesses. I think this setup is more versatile than my single planing stop. I've been learning to skew my planes to keep the stock under control against the single planing stop. This system is more like my old planing stop system on a previous workbench, which is easier to use, if not demonstrably better.
For planing doors, panels, frames and drawers (which can involving planing across the width), Rob has devised an ingenious wedging system that I hope he'll send us photos of so I can post them. Essentially, you place the front part of the work against the planing stops. The tail end of the work is wedged between a wedge-shaped bench hook (which drops into a bench dog hole) and another wedge-shaped piece of stock. I think I'm describing it correctly, but Rob will let us know if I'm not.
Another great feature is the removable sliding tool tray in the center of the bench. The centered tool tray is a lot like the Veritas-style workbench. The fact that the tray slides away for clamping on the top is a lot like David Charlesworth's bench, which has been featured in Lon Schleining's "The Workbench Book." The features is also found on the Lie-Nielsen workbenches, which I worked on last week at the Marc Adams School of Woodworking. To true the top of his bench, Rob can remove the two slabs and run them through a drum sander or planer.
All in all, a very interesting bench.
— Christopher Schwarz
I continue to get a letter about every other day about the Roubo-style workbench I built for the Autumn 2005 issue. I've been trying not to clog up the weblog with too much Roubo stuff, but as the glue dries on the web frame in the Creole Table this morning, I thought I should bring up some interesting points from readers and discuss a few modifications I've made since I built the bench a year ago.
Robert W. Mustain pointed out to me that I neglected to discuss how to configure the workbench for left-handed woodworkers (which make up about 13 percent of the population, according to some estimates). A "Sinister Roubo" would need everything reversed, of course. Put the crochet and leg vise on the right side of the bench. Same goes for the planning stop: Put it on the right.
A common question among first-time bench builders is why the accessories are configured the way they are. Why is the bench vise (or crochet) traditionally on the left side of the bench for right-handers? They typically think that having the vise on the right side of the bench would make it more convenient for sawing off stock.
The reason the vise is traditionally on the left is for edge-jointing. You want to plane into the vise and sometimes even brace your boards against the vise's screws or bars. It just makes sense from a physics point of view, really. Think about the alternative: If you clamp the tail end of the board and then plane away from the vise, you could pull the board out of the vise.
Next question: Reader Tim Brun asked if I'd added any more dog holes to my bench than those shown on the illustration in the magazine. The answer is yes. My biggest frustration with planing on the bench has been when I want to work cross grain, such as when I work rough stock with a fore plane. I've used holdfasts and battens to brace the work at the back edge of the bench; and while that works, sometimes I really just want to clamp stuff between dogs. So I added a line of 3/4" holes (10 of 'em) in line with the planing stop (which is 6" from the front edge of the bench). The holes are 3-3/4" on center. The first hole begins 31" in from the left end of the bench. Having them in line with the planing stop allows me to clamp a board 52" long between the stop and a Veritas Wonder Dog.
Here are some other modifications: This morning I added leather linings to the faces of my leg vise on the advice from a reader. I was at Michael's craft store last night picking up some hemp twine (for a future weblog post) and I noticed the overpriced leather scrap section. A one-pound bag of scraps cost $5.99. Or I could buy a single piece of Tandy-brand leather that would fit perfectly for $5.99. I bought the Tandy leather. I was going to cut up some shoes or an old purse that belonged to my spouse, but I hadn't got the guts up to ask: "Honey, do you really use this purse anymore?" So $5.99 avoided that conversation.
The leather is an experiment. I think the leg vise holds just fine as it is. But the reader said I'd be amazed. So here goes. I used yellow glue to apply the leather, and I almost forgot to put a sheet of plastic between the leather pieces as I closed the vise. The glue-squeeze-out would likely have glued the whole thing together shut.
One final mod to the leg vise: I kept snapping the 3/8"-diameter oaken pivot pins at the foot of the vise. In hindsight, perhaps I should have used ½"-diameter stock. I switched to a 3/8" steel pin nine months ago and everything is working swimmingly.
The glue in the web frame should be dry now. Back to the shop.
— Christopher Schwarz
I am just now starting to acquire the tools necessary to do some
woodworking, but the money is very tight right now; so I've started
looking some local flea markets. I was recently one of the largest
local flea markets and there was a vendor that had several old planes.
And I have some questions about looking at vintage woodworking
equipment.
First let's start with the wooden planes. There were two wooden
ones that looked like they had seen better days. From what I remember
both had several cracks in the main block. I think these would be
almost worthless except that the wooden frogs looked like they were
still in good shape and could be used in another block. What would be
your thoughts on this? Is a cracked wooden plane useless or is there a
good way to mend it?
The same vendor also had several old metal planes that were just
labeled with Stanley and their price. I didn't have the time to examine
them too closely, but my guess is that one is a Stanley No. 4 and I
think the other was a No. 6. Both were showing signs of rust. The
question I have on these is how can I tell if the sole is as flat as it
needs to be? The one that I think is a No. 4 was listed for $35 while
the No. 6 was $50. These sound like a good deal to me, but would hate
to spend the money and find out that there are some serious flaws in
them. Any advice you have would be greatly appreciated.
I want to thank you for taking the time to read this and
hopefully answer these questions. I really enjoy reading the articles
on using hand tools, especially since most seem to be very affordable
even when you have a tight budget. Keep up the good work.
—Reese Yontz
Reese,
Buying and tuning vintage planes is a valuable and worthwhile
experience. When I started woodworking I had a lot more time than
money, and so that’s the route I went down. I learned a lot about plane
mechanics, which has served me well in this job.
There is a lot to learn when it comes to buying vintage planes. My
best advice is as follows: First pick a style of plane that appeals to
you, either wooden-bodied planes or metal-bodied planes. Both work
great, but learning about both is a Herculean task at the outset. I
think metal planes are easier for beginners to pick up, but I think
that’s my bias because that’s how I began.
Then I’d read everything you can get your hands on about buying,
sharpening and tuning this style of plane. Focus on buying only four
planes at first: a smoothing plane, jointer plane, jack plane and block
plane. Don’t buy four smoothers or six blocks (a common mistake). Don’t
rush into the decision to purchase; the only way to save money when
buying old tools is to make certain each purchase is exactly what you
need. And the only way to determine if it’s exactly what you need is to
read, read, read. And then try, try, try.
I can help with the reading part. While there are excellent books
out there that can help you, I think the best place to begin is on the
internet, specifically, the Hand Tool KnowledgeBase, a “link farm” of
the best articles on hand tools, all organized to make them easy to
browse.
Here’s the link to the section on hand planes.
Also, I recommend you spend a few enjoyable hours reading Patrick Leach’s “Blood and Gore” website.
Leach’s description of every Stanley plane ever made are immensely
enjoyable (though I don’t agree with every word of it; I really like
No. 6 planes). And his prose will help sensitize you about what to look
for when buying old tools.
Good luck. Welcome to the fold.
— Christopher Schwarz
Question: I've been using sawhorses and an old door for a few years and curse every time I start a project that I need a real bench. So I've been mulling over my options for some time and have decided that I needed to build my own bench because I thought ready made benches were too expensive, had spindly legs and weren't as massive as I'd like. This fall I was starting the process of gathering varying designs to see what I liked and didn't like and make a combination of sorts that I thought would be the ultimate bench. Then I saw your magazine with the Roubo on the cover and knew it was the one. It's everything I was looking for – relatively inexpensive, fairly easy to build, didn't have an apron, didn't have spindly legs and (although I could really use the storage) I'd opted for nothing more than a shelf as well.
I'm planning on making my top out of maple and the legs out of poplar. Was even thinking of using some bloodwood for the row of dog holes but we'll have to see how much that adds to the cost.
Anyway, I've been looking at a few other designs and was thinking of making a change but wanted your opinion first. In a bench design I saw in another magazine built by Ian Kirby, he used a bridle-jointed stretcher between the front and back (short sides) legs at their tops. Then he lag screwed through these stretchers to attach the top. Seems to me this might be an easier way to put the whole thing together but I realize it might take away some of the strength gained by having the top shrink on the tenons, thus creating the A-frame in the original design. Based on your experiences do you think this is an acceptable modification?
— John S. Szalkai
Answer: I've given your plan some thought. It will work, but I think you'll need another modification to make it work long-term. What you propose seems simple on its face, but it would actually transfer the strength of the bench from the top and into the base. That's how most benches are made today, and it is more like a dining room table than this French thing.
If I lag bolted the base to the top, I would want to make the long stretchers considerably wider – I'd say 7" wide would do. Otherwise, I fear the narrow stretchers below would not survive the racking forces being transferred from the top to the floor.
This would especially be an issue if you are going to do hand planing on this bench. If it's mostly going to be a big assembly bench, like a modern bench, then you could get away with 5"-wide stretchers or so.
The Kirby bench is a nice one – quick to assemble and simple to build. So it's a good source for bench ideas. But I'd consider this change carefully. Mortising the base into the top is really a cinch, if you need some encouragement on that front.
— Christopher Schwarz
I'm getting about a letter a day from people interested in building (or taking me to task) for the Roubo-style workbench shown in Issue 4. Reader Dan Chaffin, a furniture maker in Louisville, Ky., had three good questions about the base, then bench stop and the holdfasts that have come up a few times with other readers, so I thought I'd publish his letter here and my responses. So here we go:
First Question: When the top of the bench contracts as it dries, how much wracking of the base actually occurs (roughly)? I am not concerned about joint separation, but I like the fact that the legs are flush with front edge of the bench top, and I was wondering if the wracking would affect this flatness in any significant way.
First Answer: After five months, the bench is at full equilibrium with our shop. Our moisture meter reports that the top and legs are all about 11 percent moisture content, which is consistent with the other pieces of Southern yellow pine that have been in our shop for five years or more. So the top has finished shrinking. Now all that will occur is the seasonal expansion and contraction, which I’ve calculated will be about 1/8" per year.
The initial shrinkage of the top did indeed wrack the base into an A-frame configuration as I reported in Issue 4. A Starrett framing square shows that it wracked about 1/16" at the front edge of the bench (this was with the 22-1/4"-long section of the square running down the leg). I haven’t found that the wracking affects the functionality at all. The front surface of the bench is still a wide and consistent clamping surface.
Second Question: The 2" bench stop in your bench plan sits back a bit from the front edge of the top. Is there any reason that it cannot or should not be moved closer to the front edge so that when planing narrow stock you wouldn't have to lean over as much.
Second Answer: The bench stop could be moved toward the edge or toward the end (I’ve seen some people who do this to get the extra capacity). I initially considered it but decided to go with a configuration that looked like Roubo’s to see if I could figure out why it is where it is.
I don’t have a firm answer yet, though I’m glad my bench stop is not more towards the end of the bench for two reasons: One, I never run into my leg vise or crochet as I’m planing. And two, the space beyond it is a natural resting place for the tools that aren’t in use but must be handy while I’m working, mostly my mallet, plane-adjusting hammer and the oily rag I use to lubricate my plane’s soles. I also have a swing-arm lamp that drops into my bench dog holes that lives in that space beyond my planing stop.
I'm also glad the bench stop is not closer to the front edge for two reasons: One, narrow stock has not presented a problem yet. In fact, I even plane boards on edge up against the stop. And two: The bench stop is positioned so it will be centered on a 12"-wide board. Our jointer is a 12" model, so it works with that tool's maximum capacity.
Third Question: The article on holdfasts suggested that the Phil Koontz version would not seat well in tops thicker than 3" if the holes were 3/4". In the workbench article you show these holdfasts as well as the Veritas holdfast (which I thought only worked in 3/4" holes) being used. Did you drill different diameter holes for the top and the sides? Or will the Veritas also work in the slightly smaller hole used for the Koontz holdfast? I would love to know before I purchase either.
Third Answer: You have a sharp eye. The holes in the top are 11/16". The holes in the legs are ¾". Phil’s holdfasts work only in the top; the Veritas holddowns work only in the legs. I wish I had one holdfast that worked everywhere, but I don’t.
— Christopher Schwarz
Question: I am a beginner woodworker, so I don't have a workbench yet. I've been looking and wondering if I should make my own bench or buy a starter one. Then I read your article and found that doesn't seem to be too hard to actually build one. I need a table saw, a jointer and a planer and hand tools.
But then again I noticed through your pictures that you are building Roubo's workbench on top of a previous workbench. That makes me wonder again if your first bench should be bought, what do you think about that?
Second, let's say that I figured out to get a surface to work on, and I still want to make this bench, can you send me a more detailed picture or instructions about the leg vise's parallel guide? Do you think that the Veritas Twin-screw Vise would work in the same way? (I mean placed vertically and without the parallel guide.)
When attaching the crochet, did you attach it using only bolts, or did you glue it, too? And when working towards the crochet it looks like you are using considerable pressure on your work piece towards the crochet. How do you prevent the crochet
from marking your piece?
– Pedro Massabié, Oakville, Ontario
Answer: You don't need a bench to build a bench. I built the Roubo bench on sawhorses. The Shop Box system from the same issue of Woodworking Magazine would also be a good place to start. We use those boxes every day in the shop for something.
As to the vise and the parallel guide, there’s a photo showing it close up above, which might help explain its structure a bit more. I don’t think you would need to use the Veritas Twin-Screw Vise in the manner you suggest. If I were going to drop the coin on that vise, I’d want to use it like a tail vise on the end of the bench or as a face vise, but oriented horizontally shown by the manufacturer. I have this vise on my bench at home and it is quite nice.
As to the crochet, it is not glued to the bench (good question). It simply is bolted. This will allow me to remove it if I ever get tired of it (not bloody likely). And the crochet – when shaped the way we show it – does not mar the work. Not even softwoods. The design, which came from Adam Cherubini, is perfect.
— Christopher Schwarz
Question: I just read your article in the new Woodworking Magazine on Shaker end tables and am going to make a pair. I have one question:
I like the idea of treating the wood with a couple of coats of boiled linseed oil, but I'd like to finish with a satin clear polyurethane. Will this be compatible? I figure that the boiled linseed oil needs 24 hours between applications and planned on 48 between the last oil coat and the polyurethane.
Your help with this is greatly appreciated. I'm just finishing my first big furniture project (a Shaker table made out of Cherry) and it's looking pretty good, I'd hate to screw it up at this point.
– Sean Clarke, Apple Valley, Minnesota
Answer: There’s no compatibility issues with your finishing schedule – polyurethane can be applied over linseed oil once it is fully cured. The linseed oil will add some nice color. In fact, to add more color, you might want to consider putting on the oil and leaving the tables in strong sunlight for a day. That seems to help things along (look for more on this in a coming issue). I've experimented with this a bit over the years and have found that one day seems to do the trick. More than that doesn't seem to produce much (if any) color change.
However, I’d allow at least a week or more for the oil to cure before you apply the topcoat.
In general, I avoid adding any stain or dye to cherry whenever possible. Cherry tends to blotch because the grain soaks up the color unevenly. In some kinds of cherry, such as curly cherry, this is desirable. But in most cases, it looks pretty bad.
— Christopher Schwarz
Question: I am building the Shaker Side Table (Issue #2). I built the cabinet from the first issue (I used cherry and spalted maple - it came out pretty nice).
The table calls out for two 3/16" x 3/4" x 11" spacers. I have looked and looked and can not find a reference to these spacers anywhere in the article.
— Dale Burley
Answer: The spacers are glued to the inside face of the aprons, just above the lower drawer guides. They fill in the space between the apron and drawer side and make for smoother-moving drawer. It might seem counter-intuitive, but drawers are easier to open if there's less space between the drawer and its cabinet. That's because there's less chance for the drawer to wrack in its opening when you pull it out.
You can see the spacers in place on page 24 of that issue, though the author of that piece called them "drawer guides."
— Christopher Schwarz
Don't follow the lead of our metalworking brethren.
How to reduce or eliminate those annoying ridges left by a hand plane.
Question: Why doesn't your article recommend pinned mortise and tenon, at least for the back three pieces? Instead you show pocket screws.
|
|