A Google search will yield many references to carbide burnishing tools used to form the hook on a scraper. I first came across the use of carbide in a commercially made burnisher in the old wooden-body version of Veritas’ Variable Burnisher which houses a short carbide rod. (The body of the current version is a molded man-made material.) I later purchased their Burnisher which has a 1/8″ carbide rod projecting 3/4″ from a simple handle. Despite its small size, I found myself using this tool in preference to all of the many (too many) steel burnishers I’ve bought or made over the years. I just needed more length.

Pictured above is my homemade Burnisher for Life. Three and one-half years ago I asked the folks at Innovative Carbide to make a 3/16″ diameter 12″ highly polished carbide rod. I explained the intended use and they recommended an appropriate grade of carbide (10S) with excellent wear resistance. It cost about $50. I drilled a hole in a $4 handle to house 5 ½” of the rod with a press fit, which thus is effectively stored for future use, though I doubt it will be needed any time soon.

This is by far, no contest, the best burnisher I’ve ever used. The very hard and smooth carbide gives effortless, controlled burnishing. The length, though more than necessary, allows a combination of forward and sideways motions creating smooth action against the steel.

There are a few other homemade carbide burnishers to be found on the internet, but currently there is no need to make your own. Lie-Nielsen and Blue Spruce make carbide burnishers that look excellent, as expected from these makers, though I have not used them. The Blue Spruce is listed as 1/4″ in diameter and the Lie-Nielsen appears to be similar. I like the pressure produced by the 3/16″ diameter but I’m sure 1/4″ would work well and, I suppose, be sturdier.

A full size carbide burnisher, store bought or homemade, is relatively expensive but I’ll bet once you try one, it will be the only kind you’ll want to use.

I find myself using only two of the three scraping tools pictured here. The odd one out for me is the #80-type cabinet scraper, with the spokeshave-like wing handles. While there is a wide range of valid opinion on this subject, and a legion of other scraping tools, here are reasons for my preferences.

The humble card scraper is the ultimate in simplicity and utility in a woodworking tool. I use .024″ thick scrapers for general smoothing, and .020″ scrapers for more delicate or focal tasks. I keep a .032″ scraper for unusually heavy work but find it too tiring to bend for general work. I do not use scraper holders since they decrease the sensitive control of the tool in my hands. Since I am using the scrapers for finishing a surface, not dimensioning it, the card scraper works well on areas up to a small table top.

All of these scrapers are hardened to about Rc50. Lie-Nielsen, Bahco, and Lee Valley are fine brands. I keep a few .020″ x 1″ x 2″ mini scrapers (from Lee Valley) that are very handy for touch up work in restricted places. I also keep some softer .020″ scraper stock to easily file into special shapes. Gooseneck and curved scrapers complete the set.

The cabinet scraper’s main disadvantage is its short sole. It lacks both the handiness of the card scraper and the control of the scraper plane. Despite skewing techniques, I find it is unreliable at the beginning and end of boards, and has neither the finger tip control nor the steadiness to avoid occasional blade chatter. The one pictured is a fine quality tool that I’ve owned for over 20 years, and the aftermarket Hock blade is excellent, but it now mostly sits idle. I’ve briefly tried the Veritas model which has a slightly longer sole but it didn’t fly for me.

The folks at Veritas have, fortunately for us, a healthy obsession with scraping, and one product of this is their superb Scraping Plane which has a variable blade angle and the ability to bow the .055″ blade. I once owned a Kunz version but it lacked the ability to bow the blade. Lie-Nielsen makes a similarly large scraper plane, an excellent tool, but its much thicker blade is a different working approach which I found too fastidious to deal with.

With the Veritas, cutting depth is controlled with a combination of the blade angle and the amount of bow. Varying each of these also alters the cutting feel, useful for different woods. The large sole keeps the work flat and prevents digging in, while the tool’s mass helps avoid chatter.

After much experimenting, I find it easier and more effective to prepare the blade with a 90 degree edge (like a card scraper), contrary to the usual recommendation of 45 degrees for scraper planes. This seems to give a more solid, though less aggressive, cutting action, and is pleasingly reminiscent of a card scraper, but with the mass and registration of the big body plane.

Trick question. It depends. This post will discuss factors in the amount of camber in the edge of a plane iron with attention to an under-appreciated trigonometric quirk.

The slight convexity or “camber” in the edge of a smoothing plane iron should allow the production of airy shavings that are thickest in the middle, say .001″, and feather out to nothing at a little less than the width of the blade. This produces imperceptible scallops on the wood surface and avoids square-edged tracks or “gutters“.

A similarly small, or perhaps a bit more, camber in the edge of a jointer plane blade allows one to bring down the “high” side of an out-of-square edge without tilting and destabilizing the heavy plane. The camber should be positioned at the center of the blade projection so the plane can be shifted toward the high side of the board’s edge to remove a slightly thicker shaving there.

For jack planes, more camber lets this workhorse take thicker shavings without producing gutters. The more pronounced camber also makes it easier to direct the plane’s cut at the high spots on the surface of a board being dimensioned.

When grinding and honing a plane blade, I check the camber by setting the blade’s edge on a small aluminum straight edge and holding it up to the light to look for the tiny gaps that gradually enlarge from the center to the sides of the blade. (I never measure this amount so I cannot answer the question posed in the title of this post.)

Now some trig. Let’s say the camber – the depth of the convexity of the edge – is .005″. When this blade is installed on a 45 degree frog in a bevel-down plane, the actual functional convexity is reduced. Think of it this way: if the blade were laid flat and you viewed it toward the edge, there would appear to be no camber at all. The functional camber is reduced by the sine of the bed angle.

sin 45* x .005″ = .0035″

Look what happens in a bevel-up plane with a 12 degree bed:

sin 12* x .005″ = .001”

Therefore, I sharpen more camber into a blade for a low angle bevel-up plane than for a bevel-down plane to achieve the same functional amount of camber. The camber that you observe sighting 90 degrees to the face of the blade will mostly disappear when you install the blade in a 12 degree-bed, bevel-up plane and sight down the sole to observe the camber. Compensate for this by being generous with camber in the sharpening process. A more direct approach during the sharpening process is to check the camber against a straightedge with the blade tilted at the bed angle.

Again, I do not measure these things but rely on my eye, experience, and especially feedback from the work. Of course, sometimes I’m off, usually by over-cambering. However, since the middle of the blade is thus destined to dull first, it is easy to reduce the camber on the next honing.

There are undoubtedly other factors affecting shaving thickness, such as blade sharpness, blade edge deflection, and wood grain, so it is most important to monitor the performance of the plane and make adjustments when you resharpen.

You can use trial and error or a set of leaf gauges to work this out to your liking. Like just about everything else, there’s more than one good way. Use the principles and find your way.

Here are some brief thoughts on these tools and a good excuse to own both.

Skew chisels are handy for getting into acute angles, such as the sockets of half-blind dovetails, as well as for easy access to square corners, such as cleaning out a hardware mortise. The skew chisels pictured above are available from Lee Valley, $27.50 for the pair, nothing fancy. They are about ½” wide and come with sturdy, though unattractive, hooped handles. For fun and aesthetics, I made Hondouras rosewood replacement handles intended for pushing, not striking. The edge forms a 65 degree angle with the length of the chisel on the acute side.

An interesting tool sits between them, a Matsumura “bachi nomi” or fishtail chisel, available from The Japan Woodworker in various sizes, $39-$53. The 5/8″ edge forms an 86 degree angle with each side. This allows use in many tight spots but is not sufficiently acute to easily clean out lap dovetail sockets. The geometry of the bach nomi makes it more amenable to striking than that of the skew chisel.

These two types of tool, one common, the other unusual, have some overlap in their function but I feel both are worth owning, especially since I am a big fan of Japanese chisels in general.

The previous post discussed preparing the edge joint for thin boards.

The second problem involves clamping the joint. Because these are thin boards it is desirable to align the edges as accurately as possible to avoid a significant loss of thickness in the final product. More vexing is the tendency of the joint to explode when clamping pressure is applied. This problem is akin to trying to control the writing tip of an 8 inch long pencil held only by the eraser.

I like #20 biscuits for aligning 3/4″ edge glue ups and #0 biscuits could work for ½” boards, but for the 11/32″ boards shown here I would be concerned about biscuit swelling and show-through. Splines are a hassle which I gave up on long ago. The same goes for those elaborate clamps that use wooden battens to apply pressure on the face of the glue-up while the clamp screws apply pressure to the joint. One option that I have not tried but looks good is the Plano Clamping System.

Here is a simple solution that works for me. The boards rest on 3/4″ MDF or plywood platforms. After applying glue and bringing the joint together, I apply just light pressure with the bar clamps. Then I clamp small blocks, with cutouts to vault the glue squeeze-out, across the joint near the ends. I push or tap near the middle of the joint to align it there. Then I apply final pressure with the bar clamps.

There are surely many other methods for edge joining thin stock, notably from instrument makers. I’ve described simple, shop-tested methods that I use. Best wishes for your woodworking.

Edge joining thin boards, in the 1/4″ to ½” range, presents two special problems, both easily surmounted with the methods described here. These are usually fairly short pieces of wood, such as for panels and drawer bottoms, which permit alternative methods.

First, it is difficult to plane a straight, square edge using the usual procedure of clamping the board in the front vise and running a bench plane along the edge. The narrow edge provides little purchase to balance the plane consistently square to the face. The solution is the shooting board. I bring the two boards together, like closing a book, and align the working edges. Then I set the pair on the shooting board platform with the edges extended slightly beyond the shooting board’s running edge. The plane is, of course, used on its side, but the sole only touches the edges of the work pieces. Hold the boards firmly or use a clamp. Planing the two edges simultaneously in this manner negates any slight discrepancy from square.

In setting up for an edge joint, care must be taken to match and orient the boards properly. It may not be possible to meet all of these criteria with the available stock, but the first two should not be compromised.

• Join edges with similar cross-sectional grain orientation, rift to rift, quartered to quartered, flatsawn to flatsawn. Dissimilar edges, such as quartered and flat, will seasonally move differently in thickness to create a step at the joint surface and possibly stress the joint.
• Avoid figure runout or dissimilar figures at the edges of the boards. For example, do not juxtapose cathedral figure lines running off the edge with riftsawn straight figure. Make it look good. This is partly related to the above.
• The surface grain of the boards should run in the same direction to facilitate planing the glued-up board.
• The grain on the edges should run in the same direction when the boards are “folded”. This will make the edges easier to plane simultaneously, but is not a factor for thicker boards that are planed separately.

For the enduring question to plane the edge straight or concave, my simple answer is this: I aim for a straight edge allowing the least possible concavity but zero convexity (a one-sided tolerance). The ultimate test is to stand one board on the other and swing the top board. It should barely pivot at the ends, never in the middle. It must also not rock due to twist in the edges. Finally, a straight edge placed along the surfaces should predict a flat glue up. (Contrary to the appearance in the photo at right, I have five fingers on my left hand.)

When joining flatsawn boards I usually look for the nicest appearance and do not worry specifically about whether the heart and bark faces alternate or not.

By the way, it took me longer to write this than to make an edge joint. In the next post, I’ll describe a method to solve problems in clamping the joint.

To a woodworker tooling up a new shop or upgrading an established one, I suggest the second major machine acquisition should be a good quality bandsaw. Nope, not a table saw, not in the number two slot. True, the table saw rips and crosscuts very well but is far less versatile.

The great freedom afforded by a good bandsaw can change your relationship to wood. Here’s a sampling of some bandsaw work:

• cut curvy legs from 12/4 mahogany
• resaw a 10″ figured board into bookmatched panels
• make your own 3/32″ veneer
• select out furniture parts from stock irrespective of their orientation to the original edge of the board
• cut tenons
• cut and dry some wood from a tree felled in your backyard
• try some sculptural work
• rip laminates for bent lamination work
• cut out cartoon characters and toys for your kids

A bandsaw will generally not rip as cleanly as a table saw, but with an excellent blade it does a surprisingly good job that is just a very few hand plane passes away from finished. For clean, accurate, consistent crosscutting, it must be conceded that the table saw is the clear winner. Still, the shooting board can take care of that issue. Nonetheless, if I had to give up one of these two machines, there is no doubt the table saw would go because the lack of a bandsaw would be far more limiting to my range of designs and work.

The bandsaw also takes up much less shop space than a typical table saw. There is an additional, hard to define virtue of bandsawing. It is the machine work that I liken most to hand tool work. I feel in touch with the cutting action and in control of the work, unlike with the table saw where, after the setup for a cut, the machine essentially rules. A bandsaw is also way more just plain fun to use than a table saw, jointer, or planer.

I would strongly suggest a steel frame saw in preference to a cast iron version. While a review of specific machines is beyond the scope of this post, I suggest to look for at least 10″ cutting height, preferably 12″ or more. Lower priced steel frame saws in the $800-900 range, such as the Rikon 10-325 or Grizzly G0457, are not more expensive than a quality cast iron model plus a riser block. Better still, move up to a Minimax or Agazzani.

So just as my New England Patriots (to raise the hackles of lots of readers) produce consistent winners by building the roster based on players’ value and versatility, go ahead and add a quality bandsaw early on in your woodworking lineup. Just remember, the pursuit of perfection is fraught with agony. (Yea, yea, I know: 18-1.)

New woodworkers setting up their first shops may wonder which major machines should be purchased first, second, and so forth. Similar issues confront experienced craftsmen looking to upgrade their machine arsenals. Answers to tool questions such as these must always take into consideration the type of projects planned, the methods and skills used, and shop space. Furthermore, quality woodworking is a very personal endeavor which precludes definitive answers in matters such as these.

This discussion applies to the type of woodworking that I think is done by many readers: building mostly furniture and accessories, using a combination of machines and hand tools. Examples of projects, for necessity or just for fun, include tables, chests, jewelery boxes, bookcases, and maybe a chair, using mostly straight but also some curved or sculptural elements. It is assumed that money and time are limited. (Good bet, I think.)

My suggested first major power tool is the portable thickness planer. Why? It accomplishes very well a difficult, essential task with relatively little expense and shop space.

For $350 to $650, one can buy a machine that will perform its job at a very high level. Most woodworking projects start with flat boards of uniform thickness. So why not buy a jointer first? A jointer with the analogous quality and versatility as a portable thickness planer would cost far more, and its tasks are far easier to do by hand than is thicknessing.

A flat surface prepared by hand, preceding thicknessing, can be done reasonably quickly and does not have to be pretty. It may even contain residual furrows from a scrub plane and tearout, so long as it does not contain cup, bow, or twist. Thus it can register properly against the bed of the thicknesser for the other side to be planed, then the board is flipped, and so forth.

Spending much more money on a good jointer, or worse, buying a cheap or narrow jointer destined for early obsolescence, will produce a flat face but leave the arduous task of hand thicknessing. The portable thickness planer quickly frees the woodworker from some of the most limiting habits in woodworking – using pre-dressed wood and defaulting to 3/4″ stock.

I like my DeWalt DW735. I use it with a dust collector but its blower allows use without one, making it easier to start up a shop.

Next: suggested major machine number two. More money, of course, but here comes the fun. Big hint: it’s not the table saw.