An Essay

Posted by Kurt Maurer on Apr 2, 2004

Chip, thanks for the report. I had never used hand planes before boat building came along, and frankly, I was afraid of them. All they had ever done for me before was gouge the hell out of otherwise perfectly good wood, and then go dull. So I tried to avoid the block plane, and as a professional woodworker with every tool known to modern science in my tool locker, should have been able to do so handily.

But I could not. Nothing else worked half as well for one reason or another. I had already observed that EVERYBODY in the home boat making hobby uses a block plane; and so on the faith that there was a good reason for it, and despite my misgivings, I issued forth and fetched home one of my own: a Stanley "Contractor's Grade" block plane from Lowe's for some $30. Based on what I had heard from my researches, I checked the sole for flatness (it was wonderfully so), and sharpened the iron before attempting to use it (yes; it wanted a touching up).

When I put it to the task, I was instantly in awe. My first thought was "my GOD, I have been woodworking since 1972 (this was last year), and never really knew about using planes? DAMN this modern technology - it causes us to become mesmerized or something!! This is GREAT!!!"

I was so astounded I was forced to perform a quick sanity double-check... and saw that Roy Underhill is still a complete goof... and that made me feel a little better. But hand tools still became, all of a sudden, viable!

It is the greatest thing, perhaps, that boat building has given me in this interesting life I lead: a renewed respect for the good old-fashioned "Armstrong" brand of woodworking tools. Today I consider my planes (note the plural tense) and pull saws (again) indispensable. Not only do they work better than power tools in many instances, but they are FUN to use. Talk about the ultimate cordless tool! It just doesn't get any better than this.

I am going to belabor my point a bit more by delving into the art of it: There is something indescribably pleasant about using a plane; it goes "shick, shick", and you can listen to the birds sing at the same time. And you can smell the fragrance of the wood as it is shaved off, and almost see the microscopic cellular structure of it as the microtome-like specimens come curling up. And then, observing the armament deftly approaching the heavily contested line of battle in a steady, controlled, irresistable advance causes masterful feelings to arise from within... and it feels good.

Make no mistake about it: screaming carbide and flying detritus is the love of my life, alright, for it fascinates me to no end to be able to hold such raw, precise POWER within my own tender fleshy hands, and yet organically own the capability to use it with the most delicate finesse. It is what I am good at, and doing things a person is truly good at are the most neurally satisfying things a human can do.

Owning and operating a human brain can be both a boon and a bane sometimes. Just think, to be free as a bird! But then, the bird must be wary at all times, or be predated upon in short order. Yessir, there is something to be said for being tops of all the critters on Earth. But the more wisdom one amasses, the more ignorance is encountered! Who is REALLY ahead in this grand game?

But I digress. Ahhh, the new-found hand tool! The plane, particularly, which boat building has put into my hands at last. It is second only to the chisel-and-mallet in giving me the magical feeling of being connected to the ancient, classical woodsmith, upon whom so much of our plodding progress depended for oh, so long!

Crunching underfoot curled shavings thick as autumn leaves on the shop floor makes me feel like a part of true human civilization, at last, made up of generations uncountable. At any rate, it is somehow satisfying to know that the Stanley Surform tool hasn't improved upon the good old block plane a whit.

And now, time for dinner. Red meat! Life is good.

Cheers, Kurt

In Response to: Surform vs Plane compared by Chip Veres on Apr 2, 2004

Replies: