A big thank you for your videos, it's really great to see woodworking without electric machines which allow anyone to achieve anything without being a real carpenter.

@gjbmunc

6 ай бұрын

You are very welcome

@adamguinnmusic5871

22 күн бұрын

I am mostly a hand tool guy. But that's not fair to say. Plenty of skill, planning, and accurate execution required to build something with power tools. Try crafting something yourself and you will learn.

Transitional planes are my all time fave it’s got the Bailey mechanics and the wood bottom that seems too burnish the wood at the same time. And the mix of wood and metal come on lol

@gjbmunc

8 ай бұрын

Totally agree!

Great presentation! I always learn so much from your “ lessons”. Thanks for all your hard work bringing this to the masses!

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

My pleasure!

Just been lucky enough to buy one of your books at the national trust stourhead bookstore illustrated furniture making !

@gjbmunc

8 ай бұрын

Congratulations!

Pretty nice looking plane indeed, Graham! I'm definitely going to look for those! Thanks! 😃 Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Thanks, you too!

Thank you. Didn’t know it came after the metal planes!

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Yes I know, it's not clear from tne name.

Thanks, I always though the transitional plans were the "tweeners, between wood and metal. Thanks for the education.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

There you go!

Thank you. The transitional plane design is a great compromise that keeps the advantages of Bailey's design and the smoother working of the wooden plane.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

I agree, but there are still better planes, such as 'infill' planes and some of the newer metal planes like those made by Lie-Nielsen. Nevertheless the less expensive planes such as regular wooden (and transitional planes) can still be used to great advantage when well fettled.

Theses planes are highly underrated. I bought one once because it looked nice and unusual (at least here in continental europe). It's now my main user, it glides so well over the wood and has all the bailey feature plus it's super light. Simply amazing.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Good for you!

Thankyou Graham - Another great video. Also - im thoroughly enjoying Vol 1 & 2 Traditional Handtools books.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Nice to hear. Thank you!

Thank you very much. I have a Siegely No 26 jack plane and a Stanley No 35 smoother in the razee (?) style body. Once fettled I hope to use them as my full-time bench planes.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Both good planes (just saw a mint Stanley 35 for $700!)

This was really helpful! I inherited a transitional jointer and have always been curious about the depth adjustment threading. It’s comforting to know it is just one of the type’s quirks 😄

@gjbmunc

6 ай бұрын

I'm so glad!

Great overview, I have a good transitional plane, probably about 22", but haven't sharpened it up and tried it yet. Properly tuned I expect it to work about as well as anything.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Good luck!

I use my transitional Bailey smoother often. It is a bit fiddly but I get great results. The blade steel holds an edge and produces a glass smooth finish.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Happy to hear!

Thank you Graham! When you said "it's actually not Stanley", things got clear. I have the Stanley#5 like plane made by soviet Sestroretsk Tool Factory (near Leningrad). This odd blade protrusion setting confuses me a lot too. "-- Are they too lazy to get a set of left tap/die?", -- that's what I thought.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Not sure about the reason for the thread direction, but I felt it ought to be noted.

thanks

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

You're welcome!

When the frog is adjusted forward to reduce the mouth opening, doesn't that leave the blade hanging out in the air, unsupported by the wooden bedding surface? And if so, what effect does that have on the quality of cut, chatter, etc. With the full metal plane, the bottom of the frog is just a small fraction of an inch above the sole, while the thick wooden base of the transitional plane greatly extends that distance. My curiosity is fueled by my belief that wood on wood is a whole lot smoother and easier than metal on wood, so I would be shopping for a transitional plane except for my doubts on its ability to churn out gossamer shavings like either the all wood or all metal planes. I continue to enjoy your videos and learn something new from each of them. Thanks for your time and knowledge and your willingness to share both. I'm still working my way through your book on woodworking tools, and love every moment I get to spend reading it.

@gjbmunc

Ай бұрын

The critical gap is the distance between the front of the cutting iron and and the back of the front of the plane's sole. The iron does not really need to be fully supported by the frog. (BTW I share your appreciation for the transitional planes' wooden soles)

I have a Stanley transitional, (No 34, which is 30" long)... The blade depth adjuster works in the conventional way, i.e. on a left hand thread.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Probably one of the later models before they stopped making them altogether

In addition to the advantages of adjustability, there is much less drag than a cast iron plane and it's lighter which is less tiring than a metal plane. Be advised that if you have trouble adjusting the blade because it sticks out too far, the wooden sole may be worn. You may need to glue a 3/16th of an inch thick piece of wood to the bottom to renew the sole.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Definately a possible solution.

I have one of these and love it. My only problem is I don't get to use it as much as I would like.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

You're still one of the lucky ones!

I know that many people say many bad things about transitional planes, but they can be built for very little cost, upgraded with a better blade easily, and give you the benefits of the wood bottom and mechanical frog. They also weight a lot less then the large No 6 and larger metal planes.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Very true!

I find it really sad that noone makes those transitional planes anymore because it gives you the best of both worlds. I prefer a wooden sole because it glides so much nicer. Shure, you can apply wax or other stuff to a cast iron plane but that´s an additional step. So I stick to the Germans style wooden planes. The adjustment is easy and over the years, they made versions with adjustment mechanisms similar to the cast iron planes. But the transitional plane is just a thing of beauty because when the sole is ever worn out and the mouth became to wide, you only have to take a simple block of wood, chop a hole into it and screw the whole assemply on top. That´s genius. I honestly can´t understand why the metal version won the battle. Pushing these things over the wood is so much more work than the easy gliding wooden planes. I bought cast iron planes because so many youtube woodworkers use them. I bought even nice, expensive ones but in the end I went bach to the simple block of wood with a wedge holding the iron. Personal preferences I guess. That´s why I committed a sacrilege against Saint Stanley and glued a thin piece of ebony veneer to the cast iron body of a no.6. After creating this unholy abomination I´m pretty happy with myself because now that plane glides like a wooden one and gives me every advantage of a cast iron plane.

@gjbmunc

2 ай бұрын

Interesting, and good for you.

Mr. Blackburn: If you have them, could you do a video on the Stanley 55 and 72? Thank you.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

The 55 (and the 45, and the 46) would all take multiple episodes to cover, but maybe a short overview might be possible. I'll put the on the list.

@ralphpezda6523

11 ай бұрын

@@gjbmunc Mr. Blackburn: 1. I am not going anywhere. 2. That's why we need you to explain them to us. Have a good evening.

Metal planes are great, but they didn't catch on everywhere. In Germany/Switzerland for example, woodworkers either went from wooden planes straight to power tools, or never stopped using wooden planes. (though these days, stamped metal 'Rali' planes are also popular. They work, but the disposable blade shows the general decline in skill for sharpening tools.)

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Interesting, and sadly true. But we can do better!

Later Stanley transitional planes had conventional depth adjustment. My 26 is like my steel planes.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Yes, this is true.

@alholston-smith7631

11 ай бұрын

So is my Stanley no 38 transitional plane. I put a newer Stanley blade in it and it works fine. The chip breaker is different in that the slot for the blade adjuster is lower than newer Stanley iron planes. I would however, like to find an original bi-metal blade. Cheers

I do woodworking in a maritime climate, and iron-made planes are gradually replacing wooden ones.👍

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

...so long as they don't get rusty too quickly!

Me gustaría tener una de esas garlopas.

@gjbmunc

4 ай бұрын

Pues sigue buscando!

Nice transitional plane. Union?

@grampytinman3481

11 ай бұрын

I see 9:40

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Union indeed.

My series 4 Bailey No 8 metal plane has no adjustment lever (plane hammer tapping to adjust) AND the reverse screw. I just get used to it.

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

It's amazing how many varieties there are.

I am curious about lubricating the bottom of a plane. I only have steel planes now and waxing or oiling the bottom of the plane regularly makes a big differerence. Is it the same with wooden ans transistional planes? Also what kind of wood is typically used for planes? Some woods like Rosewood have oils in them does that factor in?

@dwainlambrigger3769

11 ай бұрын

Lincoln, that is one of the bid advantages in wooden planes, there is no need to lubricate the sole. As a matter of fact, using a wooden plane produces a "burnished" affect to the wood, something that can't be copied by a metal plane. Often Beech was used for most transitionals, but now a days, most straight grained hard woods work; maple, bocote, osage orange, several would do just fine. Just make sure the lumber you are using is quarter sawn piece for minimal movement.

@darkounet3478

11 ай бұрын

It does make a difference for wooden planes, though way less than when using steel plane. I wax every now and then because low friction means less fatigue

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

You're both right; it depends on the wood of the sole and the species of the workpiece.

The frog is actually is way too high above the sole. Doesn't this plane have a chattering issue?

@alangknowles

11 ай бұрын

I wondered about that. There is little support for the thin iron for two or three above the point of cutting. Unlike the thicker blade of a wooden plane that is fully supported right down to the bottom.

@corwind3888

11 ай бұрын

That's what I was thinking too as Graham showed how the frog sat on the body of the plane.

@nikolausreinke9966

11 ай бұрын

Yeah, exactly my first thought. Why didn’t they elongate the frog deeper? I think this issue even shows when Graham is planing. Not very smooth.

@darkounet3478

11 ай бұрын

No it's not , you just have to keep the frog flush with the wooden bed. If you want to move the frog forward then you have to shim the bed to provide support for the blade. It's ok since you rarely adjust the mouth of a plane

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

Firstly I have to admit that I use the transitional mainly on softwoods; secondly the iron assembly is stouter that than the irons used in regular Stanley bench planes, and thirdly I have to admit that i primarily use my Norris and Mathiesons. I'm just trying to cover what's out there for people who might not have had the opportunity to try everything.

Hi Graham. I have some pictures i collected about planes i don't recognize. Is there a way to deliver them to you?

@gjbmunc

11 ай бұрын

You can email them as tiffs or jpegs to gbmunc@gmail.com