A Llama and a Turtle discuss plane nomenclature


Recommended Posts

Mods, I would appreciate it if you could move the back and forth conversation that occurred in Toms for sale thread to here. :)

 

Ok Turtle...

It seems like you are missing something in your argument, and here it is. The simple fact that Stanley established the plane numbering system. It doesn't matter if you are confused by what a #4 or #7 is. It is an industry standard for a reason, it works. And pretty much everyone reading this knows what those planes are. Furthermore, if I said I bought a #3 Stanley, you would instantly know that I have purchased a bevel down plane that is smaller than a #4. To argue that Stanley didn't name them something different doesn't make sense.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mods, I would appreciate it if you could move the back and forth conversation that occurred in Toms for sale thread to here. :)

 

No.  I refuse to do that.  Besides, they say any publicity is good publicity.  Someone just needs to buy his damn plane and we can be done with it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

==>If you have a Stanley #3 and a Stanley #4, don't go around telling people you have a Stanley #7, cuz that don't make no damn sense. 

 

==>You mean, I can't add them together? ;)  

 

Fred Stanley was educated before the introduction of Common Core. Today, you could add the #3 and #4 to get a #8 if you subtract two block planes... He’d ace the Common Core exam, but he’d fail to found a tool dynasty because he couldn’t properly add two numbers... :)

umm,

Wat-Meme-Old-Lady-02.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

==>I guess I have something to look forward to. :huh:

Actually, last week, there was an interesting interview with the mathematician/creator of the CC Math module (I think it was in the NYT). He did say the final module wasn't what he intended because somewhere in the process (when unnamed 'others' got involved), it went very wrong... He was urging the Math module get replaced/repealed... Maybe it'll be gone by the time your kids are in primary school... At least I hope so... Otherwise we'll produce a generation of morons -- but at least  they'll have high self-esteem (it seems nowadays that there are no wrong answers in maths)...

But the long and short of it is you can't add a #3 to a #4...

Edited by hhh
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see why all the different numbers make it much less confusing than using words like low angle smooth plane vs bevel up smooth plane. 

 

I mean finding out that a 5 1/4 plane isn't half way in between a 5 and a 5 1/2 makes sense intuitively right?

I'm not sure how to put it any simpler... 

You are either missing the point, or refuse to see it. I'm not sure which is the case here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see why all the different numbers make it much less confusing than using words like low angle smooth plane vs bevel up smooth plane. 

 

I mean finding out that a 5 1/4 plane isn't half way in between a 5 and a 5 1/2 makes sense intuitively right?

The world is full of these sorts of odd naming conventions that were based upon something that was a defacto standard. Golf clubs are a great example. The modern naming convention for golf clubs came about when in 1913 Spalding decided to mass produce golf clubs, which before that time were almost exclusively hand made. The numbering system today essentially refers to the arbitrary numbers that Spalding assigned to it's offerings.

Phillips screw driver sizing is based upon the original arbitrary sizing that Robertson square drive screws used.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The world is full of these sorts of odd naming conventions that were based upon something that was a defacto standard. Golf clubs are a great example. The modern naming convention for golf clubs came about when in 1913 Spalding decided to mass produce golf clubs, which before that time were almost exclusively hand made. The numbering system today essentially refers to the arbitrary numbers that Spalding assigned to it's offerings.

Phillips screw driver sizing is based upon the original arbitrary sizing that Robertson square drive screws used.

 

So why does that make Veritas bevel up and low angle planes especially weird and confusing?  That was the orrigin of this discussion, people found the names and labels of the veritas low angle smooth plane and the veritas bevel up smooth plane needlessly redundant and confusing.  So I am pointing out that they are no more redundant and confusing than many traditional stanley number planes.  Such as the 5 1/4 being smaller than the 5.

 

So I was engaging in a reducto ad absurdum argument about how Stanley planes are strange and confusing because they are all equally arbitrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So why does that make Veritas bevel up and low angle planes especially weird and confusing?  That was the orrigin of this discussion, people found the names and labels of the veritas low angle smooth plane and the veritas bevel up smooth plane needlessly redundant and confusing.  So I am pointing out that they are no more redundant and confusing than many traditional stanley number planes.  Such as the 5 1/4 being smaller than the 5.

 

So I was engaging in a reducto ad absurdum argument about how Stanley planes are strange and confusing because they are all equally arbitrary.

 

Because these are the planes. They are both technically low angle and sit at 12 degrees. Utilizing the same exact norris style mechanism, 1 comes with a 38 degree blade and the other a 25 degree blade. One is wider, however both are bevel up and low angle based on iron angle.

 

f48ee76f2dbfb91c514bcf827dcab9a3.jpg Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk

Edited by Tom Cancelleri
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stanley is neither confusing or redundant. All 5 are of the same length. The numbers after the 5 are usage delineation. Just like any arbitrary label, they have no absolute meaning but rather relative meaning. If you don't know what they mean, you look them up in a catalogue. LV got themself in a little mess here by trying to label on some features that are common to both. They would be less confusing if they called them "Low Angle A" and "Low Angle B." We could then discuss the need for two low angle planes without hanging up on the labels given. The confusion is all in the redundancy of features that were chosen to label the planes. Ultimately Eric nailed the uselessness of the gripe, but I would want a marketing agent at my company who understood these things. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't decide if I should ban the llama for starting this thread or the turtle for participating in it.

What I do know, is that this one will easily make the top three most worthless threads in WTO history.  Well done, gentlemen.  Well done.

What if I promise to use them both to make rustic construction grade coasters?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided not to try to figure out why they developed that system or even what the minutiae means i.e. #5 vs. #5 1/4. I'm only concerned about what they do - trim, smooth, flatten, etc. I'm a bit of a simpleton but I'd rather work wood than delve into the endless intricacies of numbering and naming systems. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 196 Guests (See full list)

  • Forum Statistics

    29553
    Total Topics
    400508
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    22276
    Total Members
    3644
    Most Online
    con
    Newest Member
    con
    Joined