# new plane and/or scraper?



## Digizz (6 Sep 2004)

I've had a read through some of the reviews on planes here (would be a great idea to put those in the 'reviews' section of the site as well Alf). I wanted some more advice (as it's free  ) - 

The only decent plane I have is a new Stanley No4. I've sharpened the blade well and got a nice flat mirror back to it. The trouble is, the cap iron is very poorly ground and has small chips at the edges, causing shavings to jam. Should I invest in a decent cap iron and high quality blade and if so, which ones?

I want to use it for general fine smoothing and some shooting. Should I be considering another type or something better (more expensive)?

If I went for a scraper, having no experience, which type would be best for me (and where can I learn how to sharpen them properly)?

So many questions again


----------



## DaveL (6 Sep 2004)

Digizz,

Why not fettle the cap iron? It will not be as hard as the blade, carefully file and then lap on your sharpening stones to get a smooth edge back. I am sure Alf will have a link to someone who shows how to do this, just wait a while and she will be along soon


----------



## Shady (6 Sep 2004)

The answer is 'almost certainly yes'. 

You could just tune the supplied parts, but if you're unsure, you'll do better with a replacement blade and cap iron. For the type of plane and purpose, I'd recommend a hock blade and a clifton 'stayset' chip breaker. 

The hock is thicker than the supplied blade, but not so thick that you'll have to alter screws/file the mouth etc. The stayset is a good cap iron that should mate properly.

Alternatively, buy a replacement blade from Lie Neilsen (check for compatibility though!), with one of their 'new' chip breakers, which are actually a return to the traditional style. This is an excellent matched pair. That said, the price will put you close to buying a Clifton Number 4, which is a very nice, good value smoother that is a pleasure to own.


----------



## Digizz (6 Sep 2004)

Thanks.

Will this plane be sufficient for shooting - or should I look at something else as well?


----------



## Shady (6 Sep 2004)

A number 4 will 'do' for shooting, but there are a couple of factors:

What're you planning to 'shoot'? Small stuff -no problems. Bigger lumps, and you may want a heavier plane (more mass helps with the smoothness when you hit end grain - I sometimes use my number 7 to shoot when I'm feeling really agressive). The other key for shooting is the 'squareness' of the overall setup. Specifically, is the blade at right angles to the stuff to be shot? While the plane may be 'ok', it may well not have the sides at exactly 90 degrees to the sole (because that doesn't matter for the intended role of a nuber 4). In this case, you will need to either 'cant' the blade fractionally, or shim your stock.. Not insurmountable, but all potential sources of error. 

At the risk of being shot down in flames, all other things being equal, I'd recommend a number 5 as a better option for shooting, assuming you don't want to spend silly money. A cost effective multi-purpose variant is the new Lee Valley 'low angle jack', which is definitely good for this role.


----------



## Midnight (6 Sep 2004)

Digizz...

My Stanley #4 is the oldest plane I have, handed down from dad, and though I love it dearly for that reason, it's still a Stanley i.e. room for improvement...

first thing I'd do with a new one (assuming their quality is similar to that of my "new" #5) is flatten the sole (keep the blade fitted, just retracted well out of the way) then strip the blade out and fine tune the mouth with a needle file (remove any swarf and burrs etc).

next... keep the supplied blade and use it to practice your sharpening; you need the edge perfectly flat, square to the sides, only clipping the tips of the corners to avoid tram lines.

once you get used to sharpening, consider improving the blade; anything with high carbon steel is an improvement... generally the thicker the better... but in this case there's a limit to the thickness that the adjuster yoke can cope with, upgrading the cap iron at the same time can't hurt at all..

For shooting, I prefer to use something more substantial; I couldn't get to grips with using bench planes to shoot with, hence why I use a #9... 


as for scrapers... this link should help....
http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/pages/wvt088.asp


----------



## Anonymous (7 Sep 2004)

Digizz

I would buy a new Hock blade and leave the cap iron as it is. I purchased a Hock blade and Clifton cap iron for my Stanley #5 a few years ago when I was at the point you are now. 
I would not buy the new cap iron this time round as the advantges really came from the new blade.
Polish the front edge of your exisitng cap iron and make sure it sits firmly against the blade all the way across.

I used to use my Stanley for shooting, jointing and smoothing until I could afford a few more planes.

I would say your #4 with a Hock blade will work fine on a shooting board provided the edge is 90 degrees to the base and is flat along it's length

I got my Hock from here

http://www.fine-tools.com/eisen.htm

I recently tried a scraper for the first time and learnt how to use it from the web link that Midnight just posted. Easy. My review is here

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2421


----------



## Noel (7 Sep 2004)

Well, Alf's mate (the one who needs a haircut...) has a few pages in this months FWW on the very subject and it's quite interesting, tuning an ordinary Record plane.

Rgds

Noel


----------



## Alf (7 Sep 2004)

Now which Hollywood studio was it that had the slogan "more stars than there are in the heavens"? Definitely a question with almost as many right answers as the answer to "what's the best way to sharpen..." :lol: 

First up, before I forget, welcome to the forum, Shady.  

Now, Digizz. Yep, Charley is more than welcome to put them in the reviews section, but I don't think he's got a spare Tuit at the moment.

#4, a darn useful, and popular, size. I have, er, one or two... The cap iron is definitely worth some attention; I might even be moved to argue it's _more important_ than the thickness of the blade. But you don't need to know that. You need to get a copy of Furniture & Cabinetmaking #84 and read David Charlesworth's article on tuning them up. Yep, he has, as always, taken to the Nth degree, but it's a darn good article and I heartily recommend it </DC shill> *Unless* money is not an issue with you, in which case do feel free to invest in an aftermarket cap iron of your choice. I have a tiny patriotic liking for the Clifton two-part one too (what an inelegant but numerate phrase...), but I am most impressed with the fit of the "old" style one on my L-N #4.5, so if the new style is even better... But then the Hock's are perhaps slightly easier to get hold of via Classic Handtools. Pays your money and take your choice. I'd still learn how to fettle one yourself though, 'cos you'll likely want to do it at some point.

The #4 can be tuned up to smooth, naturally, but again I concur with (possibly) my new best friend, Shady; the L-V low angle jack. You've read the review. 'Nuff said. (Shot down in flames? Tsk. We're a bloomin' fire hose of a group... :wink: )

Regarding scrapers, there's some good stuff to be found in the archive. Viz:
Here
Here
And here
I don't know if you were thinking of scraper _planes_ and such, but the general feeling we boringly repeat is it's best to learn how to use a simple card scraper first. You'll know when you need to step up to a #80 or scraper plane. Getting a good burr is the absolute key with scrapers. You might want to invest in a clever burnisher device, or make something like the one shown in Bob Smalser's guide. I did the latter and used a defunct solid carbide router cutter shank, and oh boy, it's the biz. But again, depends on the tool budget.  

Yep, more answers than there are stars in the heavens all right... :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Alf (7 Sep 2004)

Noely":36nq0hh6 said:


> in this months FWW


Huh?! Is it out? Sigh. Must be stuck somewhere having a party with the APTC catalogue... :roll: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Noel (7 Sep 2004)

Just to rub it in, I don't even have it on sub, just through my little local newagents.

Rgds

Noel


----------



## Digizz (7 Sep 2004)

I did read the atricle - gave some very good tips 

Thanks again for the wealth of replies everyone 

I was worried about messing with the cap iron too much as it'll need a good mm taking off it to get rid of the chipped edges (and this was brand new) - maybe I should take it back and get it changed (or are they all poor quality?).

I do like the idea of a nice new LN low angle - is that the 164?

Trouble is, I've MASSIVELY overspent on the whole workshop/machinery (must get some up to date pics sorted) combination - still need a few more basic hand tools though.

Was going to knock up a shooting board later - anyone got any hits/tip/dimensions for one? (yes I know they're simple but would be good to get it the right size to start with). Also, how do you stop cutting into the shooting board itself - does it have a clever rebate to stop this or is it just down to careful control of the plane?

Ta,

Paul.

Oh, also just noticed that Axminster do the Veritas Variable Burnisher - anyone used one? I thought it might be good for a newbie to burnishing???


----------



## Shady (7 Sep 2004)

Alf - thanks for the welcome: delighted to have found a UK based board at last: spend all my time previously getting irritated at the price/choice advantage all our US cousins have for tools on their boards...

Digizz: A shooting board is normally pretty simple. If you have a decent bench vice, just put a block glued and screwed on the underside of the base (parallel to the rest that stock will press against) in the middle somewhere: then you can clamp the whole thing rock solid in the vice for use. Otherwise put the bottom block at the 'front edge', and use it like a bench hook on any flat surface. As to cutting in, they're normally 'self limiting' in this respect: run the plane along the surface a couple of time, and it 'll cut the edge/stop block to a depth equivalent to your iron's projection. At this point the little piece of sole between the blade's edge and the side of the plane acts as a depth stop, and however much you press, it won't cut in any further (don't use a rabbet plane :wink: ). In use, you just have to get a feel for how far 'out' to rest your stock before clamping/planing. Much easier to do than describe. Just make a quick and dirty board and have a play - best way to get a feel for it. Bodger's tip: get a pack of playing cards and normal paper for shimming stock. They give you a reproducible pair of steps that can be put under the stock, or 'in front' of it against the rest, to alter the exact angle of the work.


----------



## Digizz (7 Sep 2004)

Ah very simple when you think about it logically  Thanks.

Good tips.


----------



## Chris Knight (7 Sep 2004)

Alf":1waeqphg said:


> two-part one too (what an inelegant but numerate phrase...)



Pure poetry really!


----------



## Digizz (7 Sep 2004)

Sounds more like a step you'd find in ballroom dancing!

(..and no, I'm not old enough for that yet!)


----------



## Anonymous (7 Sep 2004)

Alf":3gji8j4u said:


> The cap iron is definitely worth some attention; I might even be moved to argue it's _more important_ than the thickness of the blade. But you don't need to know that.
> 
> I have a tiny patriotic liking for the Clifton two-part one too (what an inelegant but numerate phrase...),



Alf

Surprised you rate it higher than the blade.

To qualify my post, I was concious of the need to keep costs down, hence the advice given which included polishing front edge and ensuring good contact with blade

Digizz

I fitted the 2 piece Clifton on the Stanley #5 and it is much better than the stanley but I would try Hock blade with Stanley cap first and only spend more if still unhappy as the cost of a Hock and a Clifton cap is getting a little close to the half the price of a new Clifton


----------



## Digizz (7 Sep 2004)

I'm pretty keen to get a LN 164 - If I go for this, will I need to bother much with the Stanley?


----------



## Anonymous (7 Sep 2004)

Digizz":17ns18sq said:


> I'm pretty keen to get a LN 164 - If I go for this, will I need to bother much with the Stanley?



High Digizz

That is my latest LN investment of a month ago or so and it is a superb piece of kit. 
I use it primarily for shooting and occasionally smoothing but to be honest when ground at the standard angle, I find it is not as good as my 4 1/2 for smoothing on many timbers - but better on others  

With two blades, you could have one ground at a steeper angle for woods that don't behave with the low angle. (see Alf's review of Veritas for angles)

Beware. Once you have tasted LN, you'll want more and the Stanley will reveal itself for what it is, low quality.

My greatest problem with the 164 is my right index finger - I have nowhere to put it when smoothing as there is no frog to rest against  and it feels 'wrong'

I considered the Veritas low angle but prefer the look and choice of materials in LN bench planes despite some interesting design ideas in the Veritas


----------



## Alf (7 Sep 2004)

Ahhh, Tony's PM becomes clear...

Okay, the cap iron thing. Tony now knows my theory, but in case anyone else cares, here's what I wrote:



> Ah, the old cap iron question... Well the iron makes a difference, of course it does. But a well fitted cap iron creates a tension in the iron itself. If you think about it, the pressure on the iron from the lever cap doesn't get nearly close enough to the business end (a bit like the truncated lever cap on modern Stanley block planes). The cap iron provides that. The greatest iron in the world is of no use if the cap iron isn't doing this vital job. Otherwise it's Chatter City, Arizona. Unless it's a monumentally thick iron, I suppose. But then you need a perfect bedding on the frog I think, which is a whole new problem. And good news; a cap iron is a lot cheaper to change than an iron... Someone suggested setting up iron and cap iron on the frog removed from the body of the plane to get an idea of what's actually going on. One day I may even get round to doing that...



Concerning the #164; it's a great plane, and I love it. *But*, if I was where you (Digizz) are now, I would really put the low angle jack higher up the list. The extra weight and width is a real boon for shooting, and it makes a great panel plane (just a bigger smoothing plane really). There's no reason why the Stanley can't be tuned up to do good work, and it seems daft to end up with two planes the same size (what _am_ I saying...) when something a bit bigger would give you more flexibility. But let's face it, you can't go wrong with any of the better plane makers' wares so if you fancy the #164... :wink: 

Cheers, Alf

Foxtrot, anyone?


----------



## Anonymous (7 Sep 2004)

Ahh, finally found the post I was looking for about cap irons...



me said:


> The cap iron - well, I personally actually sharpen my cap irons! I want the interface between the plane iron and the cap iron to be as close to perfect as possible - no gaps for shavings to get caught in, so no choking. What you want to aim for is the ability to sandwich a rizla paper between the cap iron and plane iron, and not be able to pull it out. You want the cap iron so it comes to a point, which is the contact with the plane iron - you definitely don't want the heel of the end of the cap iron being the contact with the blade, cos you've got an instant gap there, and so a choke point.
> 
> Also, you want the leading surface of the chip-breaker part of the cap iron to be smooth - sand it, and even wax it - helps shavings go over and curl nicely.
> 
> Yes, you can fettle a modern cap iron very nicely - no need to invest in after market ones; the Clifton stay-set 2 piece is a nice bit of kit, but a luxury. Lie-Nielsens new cap-irons are thicker than the old, I understand, and help reduce chatter - not experienced one though



Hope that helps


----------



## Midnight (7 Sep 2004)

> Lie-Nielsens new cap-irons are thicker than the old, I understand, and help reduce chatter - not experienced one though



They're ummm.... pretty good. I've fitted one to both my #4 1/2 and #7... they make quite a difference..


----------



## Anonymous (7 Sep 2004)

Digizz":2b04fgih said:


> I was worried about messing with the cap iron too much as it'll need a good mm taking off it to get rid of the chipped edges (and this was brand new) - maybe I should take it back and get it changed (or are they all poor quality?).



No problem with taking off 1mm. The cap iron isn't hardened and material can be removed quickly with a file then hone the edge as others have said. 
Since this is a new Stanley, it probably has plastic totes? If so, I would advise against spending much time/money on this plane. Adding a better blade, cap iron, and wooden totes would be about half the cost of a new LV 62.5 without near the performance. If your budget is stretched, vintage (pre-WWII) Stanley planes or old woodies provide much better performance and value. 
You didn't say what kinds of wood you'll be working but you mentioned you bought machinery. If the #4 is used to remove milling marks, it will be up to the task unless you are using exotic or highly figured woods.


----------



## tx2man (8 Sep 2004)

Sorry to digress,but someone mentioned burnishers!
I last held a burnisher 20 yrs ago :!: 
As an engraver, i used it two handed to shine up plates 
of metal ( copper,mild steel,brass ) to not only see the 
surface better but also aid the cut of the' graver' 

A very melancholy TX


----------



## Anonymous (8 Sep 2004)

Tony":36wruhrb said:


> Alf":36wruhrb said:
> 
> 
> > The cap iron is definitely worth some attention; I might even be moved to argue it's _more important_ than the thickness of the blade. But you don't need to know that.
> ...



I have to agree with Alf here. The only real advantage I can find to aftermarket blades is in edge retention. Even the worst blade I have used (a modern Stanley) will do a good job when it is very sharp. A better cap iron won't make an edge last longer but it does a better job of damping vibrations and reducing chatter than a different blade alone. I've been using Clifton two-part cap irons and I need to get a Hock and/or LN for comparison.


----------



## Alf (8 Sep 2004)

Roger Nixon":2zxv1bgz said:


> I have to agree with Alf here.


Good grief; I was sure someone would have argued it into touch by now. Scary thought; perhaps I know more than I thought... :shock: And I agree edge retention seems to be the main advantage of the aftermarket blade. But often there's a trade-off between time saved between sharpenings being turned into time taken to get an edge in the first place. Heigh ho.



Roger Nixon":2zxv1bgz said:


> I've been using Clifton two-part cap irons and I need to get a Hock and/or LN for comparison.


'Course you do, Roger. 'Course you do... :roll: :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Digizz (8 Sep 2004)

Just got my LN 164 - astounding quality! It really is a superbly engineered plane - Gorgeous.

Now, to order one of each of all their other tools and a display cabinet to put them in - I'm not going to use it and get it dirty!


----------



## Midnight (8 Sep 2004)

> And I agree edge retention seems to be the main advantage of the aftermarket blade.



I found another aspect (read disadvantage) with the standard Stanley irons; the minute you try to close the mouth to prevent tear-out....kiss the board goodbye... can we say blade flex...??? I'm not sure what kinda mix they use in their blade steel, but going by the way this thing trashes the board the sec you advance it away from resting against the back of the mouth, I'm sure there's some old car tyres and knicker elastic in there...

But like I said in a previous post.... that soft steel's ideal for learning how to sharpen.... plenty experience gained in a hurry...


----------



## Anonymous (9 Sep 2004)

I have to disagree on several points here. 

First, closing the mouth doesn't present any problems. I set the mouth on my #4 & #4 1/2 smoothing planes at .006". I don't notice any flex problems whether I use the worst Stanley blade at .077" thick or an A2 or M2 blade at .102" thick. 
To use a mathematical example, if an iron is bedded at 45º and is set to take a .001" cut and the blade is BENT, not flexed, another 45º to vertical, the depth of cut changes to only .0014". Hardly an automatic cause of tearout.
In fact all Bailey style planes (including LN) are designed to deliberately flex the blade by attaching a cap iron which has point bearing at the end. If zero blade flex is the goal, then only bevel up planes qualify because bevel down planes aren't bedded from the tip of the blade to the top of the bevel. That distance is increased as the blade becomes thicker so increasing blade thickness in a Bailey type plane becomes self defeating. The Clifton and LN irons have pretty much reached the top end of that limit.
Second, the steels used in Stanley blades aren't soft. The older blades have a very thin piece of hard steel laminated to a softer steel back. This provides very desirable qualities of a blade that is easy to sharpen and has good edge retention. Lamination, even the production method that was used by Stanley, is too costly to be used today except in very expensive, limited quantity plane blades such as used in high end Japanese planes. Modern methods have tried to compensate by using a single piece of steel into which various carbides are mixed resulting in the "Chrome Vanadium" blades of modern Stanleys and Records to matrices such as A2, M2, CPM3, etc. These carbides are very hard indeed but the steel into which they are mixed are not harder than the high carbon steels such as 01, 02, W1, W2, etc. that were traditionally used.

I'm not saying that mass marketed Stanley planes are the equal of LN. Tom Lie-Nielsen took Bailey's designs and executed them to as high a level as the design permits. What I am saying is that Stanley planes do work well enough for the vast majority of woodworking tasks and I do so with factual evidence not hyperbole.


----------



## Alf (9 Sep 2004)

Midnight":3jniqvue said:


> I found another aspect (read disadvantage) with the standard Stanley irons; the minute you try to close the mouth to prevent tear-out....kiss the board goodbye... can we say blade flex...??? I'm not sure what kinda mix they use in their blade steel, but going by the way this thing trashes the board the sec you advance it away from resting against the back of the mouth, I'm sure there's some old car tyres and knicker elastic in there...


Hmm... I'll go away and think about this one if you'll bear with me. :?


----------



## Anonymous (9 Sep 2004)

Roger Nixon":1jwbx5qv said:


> I have to disagree on several points here.
> 
> 
> To use a mathematical example, if an iron is bedded at 45º and is set to take a .001" cut and the blade is BENT, not flexed,
> ...



Roger

Bent means the blade is permanently deformed. Are you stating that the blades are actually permanetnly damaged during use? 
Flexed implies vibration which is what produces the chatter one experiences too often with cheap planes. 
Modern stanley blades are junk, too thin and poor steel. 

The original discussion was about MODERN stanley planes, not old ones that were better made and used superior materials including laminated blades.
Modern stanley frogs are VERY poorly made and do not support the blade near to the mouth. Chatter often occurs unless the blade is pulled back against the rear of the mouth on large bench planes. The blade is not bent, it is vibrating as it is unsupported over a large area.

The addition of a thicker blade made of better quality steel does improve the performance of modern Stanley and Record bench planes a lot.

The addition of a Clifton chip breaker to MY planes resulted in no noticeable improvement over the standard chip breaker with the Hock blade. 

_Note that the standard chip breaker was polished at front and ground falt and square where it meets the blade._

I put my money where my mouth is about 18-20 months ago and purchased 2 Hock blades and 2 Clifton 2-piece chip breakers in the hopes of making these planes perform much better. Hock was worth it's weight in gold. Clifton is a beautiful piece on engineering but no more effective than a tuned original chip breaker

I state these things from experience with 2 modern Stanley planes and one modern Record and one very much lighter wallet.


----------



## Alf (9 Sep 2004)

Tony":2xgsz12j said:


> Clifton is a beautiful piece on engineering but no more effective than a tuned original chip breaker


Wotcha Tony. Was that just on the thicker Hock iron, or did you try it on a standard iron? Inquiring minds... And for the non-engineering minded amongst us (i.e. me), why does flexed imply vibration? Speak slowly and please try to avoid equations... :wink: 

I've gone away and thought about it, btw. I understand what you believe to be happening, Mike, but the extreme result of it that you seem to get would suggest to me that something else is the trouble. Too bad we can't send tools to and fro via the internet...  

Cheers, Alf

Who uses more original Stanley blades than upgrades. What a slacker, eh? :roll:


----------



## ike (9 Sep 2004)

"Flexed implies vibration" - it's too simplistic. Perhaps "planing hardwood implies vibration" is more appropriate. 

Increasing the thickness of the blade will reduce the amplitude of any induced vibration (but not the frequency), as will ensuring the blade seats fully on the frog. I surmise that the best functioning cap iron applies a well distributed, effective force to ensure this, whereas a lesser quality (or unfettled) iron won't do so as well.

I doubt the design of chipbreaker has much effect on vibration, but the above does, as will the unsupported distance from the cutting edge. 

Ike


----------



## ike (9 Sep 2004)

> as will the unsupported distance from the cutting edge



so bevel up planes should cause less chatter...er, I think ... because I've presently no means of comparison (lest I succumb to those nice LV LA's Alf recommends) :?


----------



## Anonymous (9 Sep 2004)

Alf":vd3ifot4 said:


> Was that just on the thicker Hock iron, or did you try it on a standard iron? Inquiring minds...
> 
> And for the non-engineering minded amongst us (i.e. me), why does flexed imply vibration? Speak slowly and please try to avoid equations... :wink:



Hi Alf

I didn't try the Clifton cap iron on the original Stanley blade as the Hock arrived first and to be honest I didn't consider going back when the Clifton arrived about a week later. I was really only interested in improving the whole incrementally rather than investigating the individual components

*Flexture* implies vibration as it is not a permanent deformation. Vibration is an oscillatory motion, back and forth in this case. If the blade is deflecting backwards as it hits dense or raised sections of wood or just digs in a lttle harder, then it will deflect back and subsequently 'spring' forward. 
A thicker blade (possibly made from stiffer and harder material) will deflect much less than a thin one made from a less stiff material (Stanley steel not as hard or stiff as Hock Steel) and thus reduce the amplitude of the vibration - also the natural frequency (rate at which it _likes_ to vibrate) will be changed. The flexture and return will result in vibration, chatter, call it what you will, which will be damped with a thicker, stiffer blade.

If the blade *bent * back, then permanent deformation of the material is implied and rather than vibrating, the blade will simply be dulled and useless.


----------



## Anonymous (9 Sep 2004)

Tony":38w3ets4 said:


> Roger
> 
> Bent means the blade is permanently deformed. Are you stating that the blades are actually permanetnly damaged during use?



Nope. My point was that blade flexing could create only a tiny variation in cutting depth even at the maximum possible amount.



> Flexed implies vibration which is what produces the chatter one experiences too often with cheap planes.


Flex, vibration, and chatter are not synonymous. As you say chatter is often experienced with cheap planes but now we are moving into other areas besides the blade.


> Modern stanley blades are junk, too thin and poor steel.


I agree these are the worst blades. 
Too thin? I can't say. I haven't seen any evidence or testing to determine that. The blades I've mic'd are around .077" thick, Hock irons are around .095", Shepherd Tools are .102", LN's are around .120" and Cliftons around .125" so what is the magic number? If thickness is the key, then Ohio planes at .135" would have ruled the roost. It would be interesting to test a .077" blade A2 or M2 blade in comparison with a thicker one.
Poor steel? Yep. 


> The original discussion was about MODERN stanley planes, not old ones that were better made and used superior materials including laminated blades.
> Modern stanley frogs are VERY poorly made and do not support the blade near to the mouth. Chatter often occurs unless the blade is pulled back against the rear of the mouth on large bench planes. The blade is not bent, it is vibrating as it is unsupported over a large area.


 I agree modern Stanley planes are poor quality. In an earlier post, I recommended not spending much time or money on trying to improve one.


> The addition of a thicker blade made of better quality steel does improve the performance of modern Stanley and Record bench planes a lot.


Can you help me out by being more specific? I have heard and read this statement many times but I have tried for a couple of years now to quantify it without success. My experiments using different blades in the same plane on the same boards yield only one result I can document and that is edge retention. One subjective thing I have found is that the thicker blades give a better tactile sensation, the plane feels more solid and the sound is different and I like it.



> The addition of a Clifton chip breaker to MY planes resulted in no noticeable improvement over the standard chip breaker with the Hock blade.
> 
> _Note that the standard chip breaker was polished at front and ground falt and square where it meets the blade._


I didn't notice much difference with the Clifton chipbreaker used in conjuntion with my Shepherd blade but I can feel a difference when it is used with a standard Stanley blade. I haven't done any testing to see if the performance improved, it just feels better.



> I put my money where my mouth is about 18-20 months ago and purchased 2 Hock blades and 2 Clifton 2-piece chip breakers in the hopes of making these planes perform much better. Hock was worth it's weight in gold. Clifton is a beautiful piece on engineering but no more effective than a tuned original chip breaker
> 
> I state these things from experience with 2 modern Stanley planes and one modern Record and one very much lighter wallet.



Experiences are what count, Tony and I don't think we're far apart. I'm a guy who is grounded in facts and numbers and that is difficult to do in very subjective area such as woodworking.


----------



## Alf (9 Sep 2004)

Roger Nixon":3i51sx17 said:


> the sound is different and I like it


Carefully side-stepping this one now (from cowardice), but just wanted to comment on the audio aspect of hand tools. Funny how _sound_ plays such a place in feedback from your tools. I don't think it gets mentioned nearly enough. How many of you listen to what your planes are telling you? Maybe everyone does it without thinking, or mentioning it much?

Sorry. Don't mind me. Just doing my usual wandering. :roll: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (9 Sep 2004)

Roger Nixon":2uif2l0i said:


> > The addition of a thicker blade made of better quality steel does improve the performance of modern Stanley and Record bench planes a lot.
> 
> 
> Can you help me out by being more specific? I have heard and read this statement many times but I have tried for a couple of years now to quantify it without success. My experiments using different blades in the same plane on the same boards yield only one result I can document and that is edge retention. One subjective thing I have found is that the thicker blades give a better tactile sensation, the plane feels more solid and the sound is different and I like it. Then again, I think I've also mentioned before that I may take my sharpening a bit OTT! (only SS (TM) though!)


Just my quick tuppence worth here, to muddy the waters - replacing a modern Stanley iron for a better after market (whether it be an A2 like a Hock, or a high-carbon like Ray Iles or Clifton...or even a laminate like the Samurai) has one other advantage - sharpness! I think I've posted it before elsewhere, so won't repeat the gory details, but in brief...the impurities added to modern Stanley irons (chrome, vanadium etc) to make them drop proof, stainless and all the rest of the rubbish make it harder, if not impossible, to get a truly sharp edge on the iron - something to do with molecule size, i believe ?? (Ron Hock's web site has a bit of info on this). 

Having said this, the only time I've swapped an iron for an after market one didn't make a blind bit of difference - and the reason for that was that I'm an silly person  It was the lovely Stanley #4 1/2 I picked up dirt cheap at a car boot sale - I wasn't sure of its age, so got a new Ray Iles high-carbon iron for it, in case the iron was a crappy modern one...the Ray Iles claims to be significantly thicker than new Stanley - new iron turns up, check size - about the same...grind and hone both to my normal standard...same performance. I have a feeling that this #4 1/2 is a bit older than I first thought!


----------



## Anonymous (9 Sep 2004)

Alf":346qsqfq said:


> Roger Nixon":346qsqfq said:
> 
> 
> > the sound is different and I like it
> ...


Cross-posted...sound?!?! oh, come now - the sound of a well tuned plane with a sharp iron - it just sings as it cuts  

The sound of a naff plane? <judder judder, swear, curse, damn, clang>


----------



## Alf (9 Sep 2004)

Espedair Street":hndop6ib said:


> Cross-posted...sound?!?! oh, come on - the sound of a well tuned plane with a sharp iron - it just sings as it cuts
> 
> The sound of a naff plane? <judder judder, swear, curse, damn, clang>


LOL. But I was thinking of some of the finer nuances. :wink:


----------



## Anonymous (9 Sep 2004)

Roger Nixon":8jdms82z said:


> > The addition of a thicker blade made of better quality steel does improve the performance of modern Stanley and Record bench planes a lot.
> 
> 
> Can you help me out by being more specific? I have heard and read this statement many times but I have tried for a couple of years now to quantify it without success. My experiments using different blades in the same plane on the same boards yield only one result I can document and that is edge retention. One subjective thing I have found is that the thicker blades give a better tactile sensation, the plane feels more solid and the sound is different and I like it..



I think these points about sum it up and I agree with them all, although I do find the edge appears to be sharper - and for longer. Also I find the finish left by the Hock 'glows' more than that left by the Stanley which I can only attribute to better cutting of the fibres and less tearing.

I think the whole experience when using the Hock is an improvement over the original from 'feel' to finish. Don't underate 'feel'.



Roger Nixon":8jdms82z said:


> I didn't notice much difference with the Clifton chipbreaker used in conjuntion with my Shepherd blade but I can feel a difference when it is used with a standard Stanley blade. I haven't done any testing to see if the performance improved, it just feels better.



I didn't try the Clifton without the Hock as I was looking for improvements in the overall use of the planes rather than evaluating each component on it's own merits.


----------



## Anonymous (9 Sep 2004)

Espedair Street":fkn8zlgj said:


> Roger Nixon":fkn8zlgj said:
> 
> 
> > > The addition of a thicker blade made of better quality steel does improve the performance of modern Stanley and Record bench planes a lot.
> ...


Hey, nothing wrong with extra blades! I keep several extra 2" & 2 3/8" blades on hand so I can just switch to a sharp blade when necessary. I find sharpening in batches more efficient.[/url]


----------



## Shady (9 Sep 2004)

Darn this is interesting: all else apart, I have one question for Roger: you state that blade thickness with respect to limiting flex becomes 'self defeating' because the blade tip simply gets further away from the bed, and thus less supported.

I understand your logic, but I'm not sure I agree: if for example a steel blade were the thickness of a razor blade, it would have excellent support up to very close to the tip, but would still 'judder'/'flex'/'bend' under load, even with a splendid bedrock bedding (and I agree that we should be clearer on what we mean by these movement terms - but you get the point for this argument). Conversely a stupidly thick blade (let's say 1 inch!!) would have far less 'bed support' at the tip, but will deform less under an equivalent load (all other things being equal) My gut feeling is that this is something to do with the physics of vibration in an elastic material being related to length verses width (think of a rubber band wobbling as opposed to a block of the same rubber - thickness does dampen vibration), but that's pure computer scientist's logic at work in the real world (!): any materials scientists able to help us here? This might be part of the reason for traditional Eastern blades being substantially thicker than Western.


----------



## Philly (9 Sep 2004)

Hi All,
Just a few bits to add/subtract to this thread....
Whilst lurking in a Japanese tools forum I came across a thread on planes. The guys were talking about the width of the mouth and how in japanese planes this does NOT have to be extremely narrow for fine smoothing work. They reckoned that by having the chipbreaker extremely close to the edge of the blade and having the chipbreaker tensioning the blade edge a fine shaving should be possible in most woods. These guys seemed quite adamant about this (maybe this is Jap plane folklore  ). What they were saying was this-by applying consistant pressure to the edge of the blade it will cut better as it is better supported and tensioned.
I must admit I think the term "chipbreaker" is a misnomer-do you really think it breaks the back of the shaving as it comes through the mouth? I honestly don't think so, and since aquiring a few bevel up/no chipbreaker planes which perform as admirable as my chipbreakered planes, am convinced of this. In most Woodworking books, the chapter on handplanes shows the shaving being broken backwards, preventing tear out. But look the shavings as they come out of the plane-mine mainly come out curly and smooth not "broken". 
Any thoughts on that one?
confusingly,
Philly


----------



## Anonymous (9 Sep 2004)

I agree with your approach, Shady. Taking things to extremes helps to visualize them. 
Look at the contact points on a Bailey type plane blade. When the cap iron is fastened to the blade, there is contact in the area of the screw and at the end of the cap iron. Put the cap iron/blade assembly in the plane and the blade contacts the bottom and top of the frog (we'll ignore the possiblilty of sole contact for now). The lever cap is then put into place and it contacts the cap iron at the cam on the lever and and the bottom edge contacts the curved portion of the cap iron, transferring pressure from the lever cap/cap iron interface to the cap iron/blade interface. Now at the the top of the frog, the lever cap, cap iron, blade and frog all contact in close proximity but at the edge of the blade the situation is much more complex.

Let's assume the we grind the primary bevel to 30º. This means the bevel is twice as long as the thickness of the blade. If the blade is .1" thick, the bevel would be .2" long. Measured along the back of the blade the top of the bevel would be .173" above the edge. The top of the bevel is the closest possible contact (bedding) point A typical setting of a cap iron is about .03" above the edge of the blade. This means the blade becomes a cantilevered beam which is fixed at the top and pivoting around the top of the bevel. Force is being applied by the cap iron at a point .143", in this case, from the pivot or fulcrum which provides a dynamic, not static, loading at both the blade/frog and blade/cap iron interfaces. 
Cap iron placement doensn't change based on blade thickness but the top of the bevel (our fulcrum) moves twice as much the increase in blade thickness. So increasing blade thickness increases blade rigidity but it changes the leverage on the blade at a higer rate than it gains rigidity and the pivot starts moving up the frog where the frog gets thinner and weaker.
After all that, we know the blade has to protrude below the sole of the plane, the cap iron has be be back some distance from the edge of the blade and the blade has to be rigid enough to withstand the force required to cut wood. So what is the magic number? I don't know but it's somewhere around .1", hmmm... about like a Hock blade.


----------



## Midnight (9 Sep 2004)

Roger..

I apologize if my comments struck you as inflammatory.....that was the last thing I'd intended...
As for qualification, I was simply talking from repeated and bitter experience, using 3 different planes, all three sharpened equally with exactly the same stones, and tried on exactly the same boards... I honestly don't know how to be more subjective...

I tried repeatedly to operate with a near closed mouth on oak, elm and sycamore, woods with slightly different characteristics, a mixture of straight and interlocking grain, course and delicate structure, fairly soft...and "harder than a witches heart". In every case, the results were the same... as soon as the blade encountered any figured piece of the board.....the tip would flex, dig in, rip out and chatter through the rest of the stroke... I quit trying when I got sick to the back teeth of planing out tear out...

Re the steel quality... my implication was that the poor quality of the steel lends itself to excessive elastic deformation; I'm guessing that's a product of both the structure of the material and the lack of thickness to it. The stock chip breakers do nothing with regard to tensioning the blade to a point near the limit of it's elastic deformation. Combined with the poor support from the frog, I found repeatedly that as soon as the blade was advanced away from the rear of the throat (i.e. left unsupported at any point other than the frog) it resulted in very destructive blade flex... I got nothin to gain by making this up... nothing to gain from encouraging others to avoid the same mistakes I've ran into, other than the satisfaction of knowing I've helped someone...

For comparison... I experimented a couple of times; back to back comparisons of both my Stanley #7 and my L-N #7, using them both on the same board, both sharpened on the same stones, both subjected to comparable changes in set up. 
Cutting to the chase... the only difference I noticed with the L-N with the mouth closed to approx 5 thou was that there was more backlash in the adjuster.... the Stanley transformed from useable (provided I steered clear of hard grained areas) to destructive almost immediately... In both instances, the blades were retracted and gradually advanced till they'd just began to take a full width shaving.


----------



## Anonymous (9 Sep 2004)

Mike, 
I didn't take your comments as inflammatory and I'm sorry if I gave that impression or came off as inflammatory myself. I really enjoy your posts. From your descriptions, the problem sounds more like a frog that is not seating firmly than a blade problem.
I sometimes run into boards I can't plane without tearout using Stanley planes but it is the limitation of the plane itself. If I get tearout with a sharp blade, switching to a different blade thickness or material doesn't cure the problem. I resort to using a better plane, a scraper, or even sanding


----------

