Genealogy of a wooden plane – Veit

Probably about 10 years ago I bought a lot of four wooden planes on eBay. One was marked from plane manufacturer John Veit, so let’s explore its genealogy a little. It’s a 22″ (fore?) plane, made of either beech or applewood, with plane makers mark on the toe. It has a double-iron. John Veit was a plane maker from Philadelphia (whose address is clearly marked on the plane), from around 1860 to about 1904.

veitplane0

Smaller plane makers like this probably didn’t have their own catalogs, and therefore often sold through dealers. One such catalog was J.B.Shannon – the planes of John Veit appeared in the 1873 “Illustrated Catalogue and Price List of Carpenters’ Tools“, as “Veit’s City Made Warranted Bench Planes”.

veitplane4

 

The blade and cap iron are from W. Greave & Sons. William Greaves was a cutlery manufacturer, anf razorsmith in Sheffield, who started in 1787, with his sons joining the company in 1817. In 1823, the Greaves family built the Sheaf Works, the first integrated steel works in Sheffield. They were manufacturing table knives, razors and edge tools. The company was dissolved in 1850, and steel and tool side of the business was bought by Thomas Turton & Sons, who continued using the Greaves & Sons’ mark. The cap iron is stamped “SHEAF WORKS”.

So how did an English plane blade and iron get onto an American made plane body? Well it turns out Greaves & Sons exported a good amount of their production to America, and the Sheffield directories actually listed them as “American merchants”.

NOTES:

Carl Bopp, “Made in Philada: No. 4”, The Chronicle of the Early American Industries Association, March (2004)

Advertisements

Wood for historic renovations

With the fire that severely damaged Notre Dame in Paris comes a dilemma. The wooden roof structure and spire were destroyed, a 12th century oak frame that was made of trees that themselves could have been 300-400 years old. Now the question is how do you replace these historic wooden structures? Clearly not with old-growth 400 year old French oak, because that just does not exist. Old growth forests are now few and far in between, and even less so for species like oak. We have spent a millennia pillaging the forests of the world for their largest trees, with little thought to their replenishment – true we do replant trees, but often with more economical, fast-growing species like pine. Hundreds of years ago few thought about replanting the towering trees of the world.

So the dilemma – replace the wooden roof structure with oak, or maybe modern laminated wood (LVL), or something like steel?  I have read that people have already offered oak, like 100-year old oaks from the oak forests of Normandy to help rebuild, and I get that the rebuild should mimic the traditional building techniques as much as possible in order for Notre Dame to maintain its historic nature. The question of course is should we harvest 100 year old trees? Should their longevity trump the needs of a historic building? The actual wooden roof structure is only visible to those who walk through the attic space, no one else. The main roll of this roof structure is to maintain the 210 ton lead roof. How far do you take renovation using original methods and materials? I saw an example of this in Bergen, Norway, where they are restoring the houses of Bryggen, the Hanseatic League’s trading empire from the 14th to the mid-16th century. The techniques are old-school, but then again those hoses only date from after the fire of 1702.

notreDame

The stone of Notre Dame would have been cut by 12th century stone masons – by hand. The trees similarly would have been hewn, by hand. Would we go so far as to replicate these techniques? It works on a small scale building, that’s for certain, but something requiring the rebuild of an original roof supposedly constructed of 13,000 original trees, one per beam – unlikely. Just as unlikely as we would not cut stone using a machine (an exception is the recreation of a 13th century castle in France, Guédelon Castle where original techniques are being used). What about integrating some modern technology – using glue laminated, or mechanical key laminated oak beams?  They could still be oak, but made from smaller trees, from sustainable forests. Or maybe awesome Glulam beams made from more sustainable timbers. The tight grain of a 400 year old tree cannot be replicated, and certainly not by a 100 year old tree.

The reality is that rebuilds like Notre Dame will never be 100% historically authentic – they are too large to be done that way. The ancient beams are burnt and lost, and they can’t simply be replicated in any easy manner. Modern techniques will have to be used, failing some attempt to travel back in time to procure both materials and 12th century artisans. The spire wasn’t even medieval, and dated from 1859, replacing an earlier spire. Oh but please keep those modern glass and aluminum infused architects away from it at all costs – find someone who is able restore its historic qualities, using modern materials in a manner that respects the buildings history.

Oh, and maybe, just maybe, we should plant more trees like oak for future generations.

Copying tool makers marks (ii)

Apart from the smoke prints, which seem quite magical, I experimented with another couple of techniques which work in different situations. Often the imprints on metal tools aren’t perfect, so it may be impossible to produce a good print with the smoke technique. These techniques involve the use of a very soft pencil or graphite stick (both at least 6B) .

Graphite sticks like this soft 6B can be found at art stores.

One technique involves using graphite in a similar manner to the smoke print. Rub the graphite stick over the imprint. Apply the clear tape to the mark, in the same way as for the smoke print. This doesn’t work so well with fine lettering or details. A second technique is often used to make rubbings of objects with texture, like coins. Place a piece of white paper over the imprint and rub with a pencil. This technique works well with defined imprints, but those with fine details will not work very well. The example below shows some successful (left) and not-so-successful attempts (right). The biggest problem is that due to fine imperfections on the surface, the background will not be uniformly dark.

Rub prints using a 2B pencil

One final technique uses a graphite marker as a glare suppressor, and simply involves rubbing it over the mark. This has the effect of helping to reduce the amount of reflection produced by the surface. I then use natural light, and photograph the imprint at a slight angle.

Photographed tool marks using graphite to suppress potential glare.

The ease of copying marks is also dependent on the type of marking. Markings that are imprinted with U-shaped straight furrows are easier to imprint than those that are V-shaped.

Copying tool makers marks (i)

One of the more challenging things to do is properly document a maker’s mark from a tool by means of photography. I’m not talking the ones on wood, but rather the imprints in metal. The problem sometimes lies in the metal producing reflections, which are difficult to photograph, or even post-process. One way of reproducing stamps is by using ink to imprint the mark on paper. The problem with this technique is that it can be quite messy.  Another technique is to use a smoke print which uses soot from a candle.

Smoke print

Firstly clean the mark. This can be done using a rag to polish the metal, or some 000 steel wool if extracting the imprint from a wooden plane. Light a candle, and hold a piece of fine metal mesh (metal fly-screen) over the flame to interrupt the combustion, and produce black smoke. Let the soot (i.e. carbon particles) from the smoke deposit on the mark.

smokeprint1

Examples of using soot from candle smoke to copy the manufacturers markings on a chisel (left) and plane blade (right)

When sufficient soot has been deposited, apply a small piece of clear adhesive tape, pressing down slightly (I used a folded cloth to apply pressure). The soot will adhere to the tape. Peel off the tape, and press down on a piece of white paper.

smokeprint2

The soot image on the clear tape, and the scanned version.

The trick is that the carbon is able to cover the surface uniformly, and even if it gets down into the impressions, only the carbon on the surface will adhere to the tape. This makes it perfect to pick up fine detail. The smoke prints can then be easily digitized using a scanner, and cleaned up.

smokeprint3

The smoke print of the plane blade mark showing the fine details (left), and the digitally cleaned up version (right).

I have tried this technique on plane blades and chisels, and have to say it works really quite well. I haven’t tried it on a wooden plane, but I suspect it will work in the same manner (maybe in the future).

Exploring British planemakers

If you are looking at exploring British planemakers, I previously mentioned W.L. Goodman’s “British Planemakers from 1700” as a good resource. I have a copy of the 2nd ed. (1978) and on the weekend I managed to buy a battered copy of the 3rd ed. (1993) for $20. A bargain considering third editions run at US$350 online. The first edition (1968) is almost impossible to find. The 3rd edition, expanded by Jane and Mark Rees is a massive 514 pages, compared to the 182 pages of the 2nd edition.

goodmanBooks

The book contains a extensive amount of new information – planemakers history, and makers marks, and trademarks. Below is an example of a page from the 3rd edition. It contains 1650 makers and dealers, as opposed to the 880 in the second edition. There are ample versions of the 2nd ed. at reasonable prices, but the 3rd ed. is out of print, so if you find this copy somewhere for a reasonable price, snap it up!

goodman_3rdEG

Book info:

  • William Louis Goodman, British Planemakers from 1700, D. McKay Co. (1969)
  • W.L. Goodman, British Planemakers from 1700 (2nd ed.), Arnold and Walker (1978)
  • W.L. Goodman (author), Jane and Mark Rees (rev.), British Planemakers from 1700, (3rd ed.), Astragal Press (1993)

Not all (British) tool companies made wooden planes

Sometimes an online listing contains information which isn’t exactly correct. I’m talking about planes that are advertised as being from a particular manufacturer, but solely on the marking on the plane iron. The problem is that not all wooden planes have makers stamps, and so the easiest conclusion is that the plane body was made by the manufacturer of the blade. But that’s not always the case. Some companies made lots of edge tools, like chisels, and irons for planes, but not plane bodies.

A good example is Moulson Brothers of Sheffield (1824-1912). There are often planes for sale that are touted as being made by Moulson Brothers, who were  according to The Gazetteer and General Directory of Sheffield (1852), “edgetool, joiners’ tool, brace and bit, skate, saw manufacturers and merchants”. However as cited in British Planemakers from 1700, Moulson Brothers were never plane-makers or dealers, but they were plane-iron makers. Their trademark symbol was a “star on a shield”, or a Maltese cross (which was seemingly commonly used by manufacturers ). So there is little evidence to suggest they made plane bodies to go with the irons, and it never appeared on their advertising.

NB: What we likely need is a searchable database where people could look up planes based on their markings – both plane body and iron.

 

Tools of the Trades time

It’s time again this Sunday for Tools of the Trades, likely the best tool show in Canada. I didn’t buy much last time, but that’s largely because the longer you go to the show, the fewer things you end up looking for. But it’s still a fun couple of hours seeing what’s about and looking for something unusual. If you’re looking for vintage tools, and can’t make it down to one of Martin J. Donnelly‘s tool auctions in New York State, then this is the place to be!

tottFall18_3