Fences on moulding planes

[dandrew]

Esteemed Galooterati,

being an enthusiastic amateur, with only a small basement as a workshop, I have to rely on moulding planes to work mouldings on the joinery that I do. These are relatively easy and cheap to come by on the 'Bay as I use simple ones like beads, ovolo's, sash planes and the like.

All of the sprung planes that I own have an integral fence to bear against the work. However, typically the size (depth ?) of the fence is much bigger for sash planes (ovolo, ogee or complex) than other moulding planes like square ovolo's, ogee's with bevels etc.

Is there any reason for this.
It makes sash planes easier to use, but that doesn't seem like much of an answer to me.

Cheers, Dave

[dom]

Hi Dave, Galooteramus.

[Alf]

Dave, it's a good question. Whelan's "The Wooden Plane" gives a good reason for the early style of plane, where the moulding was formed with the sash bar pointing upwards, but there's no obvious explanation for the later style. I'm guessing it was much the same reason as the earlier one - the fence was lengthened to register on the jig (the sticking board) to make up for the fact it couldn't register accurately enough on the work because of the nature of the moulding shape. That is, it'd register when you stuck the profile on the first side of the sash bar, but in sticking the moulding on the other side of the bar you'd be planing away the very surface that'd help guide your plane. Does that make any sense? Probably depends on how familiar you are with how sash work was done.

Cheers, Alf

[mrgrimsdale]

toobyefore said:

Dave, it's a good question. Whelan's "The Wooden Plane" gives a good reason for the early style of plane, where the moulding was formed with the sash bar pointing upwards, but there's no obvious explanation for the later style. I'm guessing it was much the same reason as the earlier one - the fence was lengthened to register on the jig (the sticking board) to make up for the fact it couldn't register accurately enough on the work because of the nature of the moulding shape. That is, it'd register when you stuck the profile on the first side of the sash bar, but in sticking the moulding on the other side of the bar you'd be planing away the very surface that'd help guide your plane. Does that make any sense? Probably depends on how familiar you are with how sash work was done.

Cheers, Alf

Post a snap or two I might have an idea, sashes my favourite thing. Without seeing what you are talking about; the issue might be the thinness of sash glazing bars - my thinnest saved specimen 1/2" with 3/16" glazing rebates.

cheers
Jacob

[Alf]

Try this:



Although this diagram is used to argue the reason for pairs of sash moulders, an argument that doesn't really stand up - as argued in the very next line! Ah, gotta love the academic approach to woodworking sometimes.

Cheers, Alf

[dandrew]

Aah, instant clarification from Alf

One would assume therefore that the shallower the moulding the less deep the fence - a 3/4" sash plane would have a longer fence than a 3/8" sash plane. If you follow my logic the deepest point of the 3/8" moulding would be closer to the bed of the sticking board than the lowest point of the 3/4" moulding due to differences in rebate depth.

Apologies if the above explanation is complete gibberish.

Dave

[mrgrimsdale]

I've done that moulding a few times. It's called a "quirked astragal and hollow" according to Nicholson's Mechanical Exercises; "bars of this structure have long been in use" but the ones I did had a bit more quirk than yours above.
The nib on the glazing bar in #1 is taken off leaving a complete single c0ck bead i.e. the glazing bar is set in by the depth of that nib, below the face of the stiles and rails. I did mine with just one cutter copied from the original sample, and took off the nibs with a block plane and a pass with a bit of sand paper.
It's quite handy to do the glazing bars the same moulding and width as the rails/stiles, and only take off the nib last thing, as leaving it whole means not only the set up for mortices and tenons stays the same but the spindle moulder or moulding plane set up would be the same too.
On the other hand if you had a matching pair of moulding planes, one with the fence out - leaving a nib, and one with the fence in and taking the nib off - this would save de-nibbing and also a bit of timber.
Sorry to say that I haven't used moulding planes much for work as I've got the spindle to do everything. But without a spindle you'd have to use the old planes as very few (none really) router cutters match old profiles

cheers
Jacob

[Alf]

Dave, that'd make sense, yes. Have you sash moulders enough to see if that's the case? Not sure mine vary enough. I confess there's a tiny researching bit of me that would really like to understand more about sash window making - it seems to have been such a catalyst for specialist tools.

mrgrimsdale said:

On the other hand if you had a matching pair of moulding planes, one with the fence out - leaving a nib, and one with the fence in and taking the nib off - this would save de-nibbing and also a bit of timber.

Jacob, that's Whelan's very suggestion as an explanation for the existance of apparently matched pairs of sash planes - set up to do that very thing. Makes a lot of sense; but as he says, it doesn't explain the matched pairs that came in profiles that had a flat and didn't need to leave a nib. But I have to say I'm extremely impressed that you came up with that - sounds horribly patronising, sorry, but it's 100% not meant to be. It's the same respect engendered when they spend £1000s on scientifically proving what a practical fisherman (f'rinstance) knew already from sheer experience. My hat, if I was wearing one, is off to you.

Cheers, Alf

[mrgrimsdale]

If I could see a matching pair I could have a guess - got any snaps? They aren't handed are they, for variable grain or something?
BTW the "quirked astragal and hollow" or "single reed, quirk and hollow" or whatever it's called, is always without the nib in my experience. The other 2 more common profiles; lambstongue usually but not always no nib, ovolo occasionally without the nib. They all look finer without - it's for better class work.
NB if anyone is stuck for a profile on restoration work there is a much better alternative to using some clumsy crap router profile; instead just do a bevel, finishing where the nib is, the same, about 3 to 4 mm across. Either just in place of the moulding, or full width though this makes M&Ts slightly more complicated.
Sound boring but actually look OK, delicate, elegant etc. Keep your eyes open and you might see some in an old building where you never previously noticed.

cheers
Jacob