# blade stiffeners - Record Stay Set vs MF two-part lever cap



## nabs (17 Mar 2017)

we heard all about the marvellous Millers Falls two part lever cap here:

bench-plane-review-record-4-vs-millers-falls-t103412.html

How does it compare to the Record two part cap iron (aka the 'stay set')? Both devices help to stiffen a thin blade by adding pressure at 3 points, rather than the normal two in a standard bailey plane. 

I had a half hearted attempt at reproducing 'chatter' conditions on this bit of beech, but the only way I could get chatter-y marks was by deliberately pressing hard on the tote and lifting pressure off the handle at the same time. As was discussed in the previous thread, this is not likely to be down to the blade vibrating at all, but just a result of not using the tool correctly. Still the result did look a bit like chatter!







Having tired of that test quite quickly, I thought I would test out the other claim for stay-sets, namely that the improve the 'feel' of the plane - making for a more solid and positive engagement with the work.

For this test I planed a piece of pine with a very hard knot at the end. The results on planing the knot were as follows:


Standard Record plane - no gizmos : "graunch-judder"
Record w Stay Set: "Clunk"
Record w MF lever cap: "clink"
Record w MF lever cap AND Stay Set: (whispers) "clink"

I could not tell the difference when using it on a knot-free bit of wood, but on the knotty bit both gizmos made a noticeable difference. The gizmo-free plane set-up required care to keep the momentum just right to get over the knot without stopping, where the 'improved' set-ups allowed a more sedate stroke.

So there you have it - scientific evidence that if you want the very best thin-iron bailey set-up, you are after a Record SS and MF lever cap combo. 

I shall be putting this theory to real world testing on my new bench-build, which is imminent (as it has been for the past 6 months!).


----------



## nabs (18 Mar 2017)

a few more remarks on the stay-set, including a couple of pics for those who have not come across them.

One of the grumbles about the design is that there can be some play in the connection between the two halves of the cap-iron, and this makes it hard to adjust to a fine setting:

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/w...-schwarz-blog/tightening-stay-set-chipbreaker

The article above is about the modern Clifton version, and I have to say there was no such problem with my Record one - the fit is perfect and the bottom half does not move when put in place (note the stern instructions printed on the Record version to 'keep groove clean'!). Of course it is impossible to tell if this is a sign of superior engineering at Record or just a matter of luck.

It is very easy to adjust, just like a normal cap-iron - hold the lower half in place with your thumb and tap the screw with a screwdriver until you are in the right spot. It is also convenient to remove the bur after sharpening without having to unscrew and remove the cap-iron.

The other rather less po-faced grumble, occasionally heard on this site, is the propensity of the bottom half to drop off and hit you on the toe at inconvenient times. Only time will tell how much of a problem this is, but based on my limited experience to date I am pretty sure my toes are safe from harm so long as I keep my wits - and thumbs - about me.

I did need to do some flattening on the toe of the cap-iron - it was a pretty good fit and worked well for most purposes, but during my 'knot-test' the extra force needed to get past the knot resulted in shavings being pushed under the central part, and on closer inspection the cap-iron was very slightly cambered. A bit more care and time was needed to flatten it than the normal cap-irons, since it is much thicker - about 10 mins work, compared to the normal minute or so. Thus an arguable downside, but of course a minor one.

How successful is the design? First of all it should be noted that this (and the MF lever cap) are 'nice-to-have' additions, and not essential upgrades (in fact Record apparently offered the SS version of their planes as a standard option, with the same price as the normal version). 

However, they clearly thought it was an improvement, so let's look at why. Record filed a patent for the idea in 1931 - GB 362743 - and their primary claim is the reduced faff in sharpening the blade, and it is hard to argue with that one. The second claim is that the the design improves the clamping effect of the lever cap, thus 'reducing to a minimum any vibration or chattering'. 

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to back up this claim (also my not-very-scientific test above!). However, in my opinion, it is a less successful solution than the MF lever cap, since it must be made very accurately to work properly (i.e the two parts must fit exactly and lie flat on the iron), whereas the MF can be made more crudely and still work.

What say you?


----------



## CStanford (18 Mar 2017)

A squiggle of hard candle wax or the use of an oil wicke might help the chatter at the start of a cut, at board's end, as it seems to be caused by the sole juttering and not necessarily a vibration starting with the cutter/cap iron assembly. What's it going to hurt to try?


----------



## nabs (19 Mar 2017)

indeed, everyone seems to agree that when a bench plane judders it is typically down to technique or poor set-up, rather than the blade vibrating. 

It also seems that the circumstances where the blade can _really_ chatter are so uncommon that it is hard to justify upgrading the standard bailey thin blade/bent tin combo just to fix it. 

The only other justification for these upgrades (including thick irons!) is therefore how they make the plane feel in use. Obviously a highly subjective topic, but IMO planes with a SS or MF lever cap do feel nicer to use. I haven't got any thick irons so I'm not really qualified to comment,, although pressumably they have exactly the same effect.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (19 Mar 2017)

Assuming that you have a sharp blade already - dull will create chatter on hard wood - the way to prevent chatter on entering a board is to skew the plane significantly (about 45 degrees), straightening it as you begin to cut.

I wonder if you have the correct idea about the chipbreaker. You referred to it as a "blade stiffener" at the start of this thread. If this is what you expect, and set the blade back from the edge, I doubt that you will find much difference between chipbreaker makes. The chipbreaker may indeed reduce flex in a thin blade, but when it is set close to the edge, it reduces tearout. Because the setting is fairly precise, a chipbreaker that moves back-and-forth is going to do a poor job. The Clifton two-part chipbreakers that I have used moved more than the Record stay-set versions. I ended up epoxying the Cliftons together! I would rather have a single-piece chipbreaker since it is easier to set up at the edge of a blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Mar 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Assuming that you have a sharp blade already - dull will create chatter on hard wood - the way to prevent chatter on entering a board is to skew the plane significantly (about 45 degrees), straightening it as you begin to cut.
> 
> I wonder if you have the correct idea about the chipbreaker. You referred to it as a "blade stiffener" at the start of this thread. If this is what you expect, and set the blade back from the edge, I doubt that you will find much difference between chipbreaker makes. The chipbreaker may indeed reduce flex in a thin blade, but when it is set close to the edge, it reduces tearout. Because the setting is fairly precise, a chipbreaker that moves back-and-forth is going to do a poor job. The Clifton two-part chipbreakers that I have used moved more than the Record stay-set versions. I ended up epoxying the Cliftons together! I would rather have a single-piece chipbreaker since it is easier to set up at the edge of a blade.
> 
> ...



I agree that sharpness helps - it solves many problems! However, I think there's a danger of confusing two different matters here. The positioning of a cap-iron to prevent or reduce tearout is NOT the same thing as adding stiffness to a thin cutting iron. This has been discussed several times on this forum, and no doubt on others.

As Nabs has noted, the performance of thinner cutting irons in Bailey type planes is noticably improved by nipping them tight against the frog, thus removing their scope to flex in use; something the two-piece cap-iron is very well adapted to do. This observation has been made by many people over the years, and reported on this forum and others. Nabs' findings are an interesting addition to those observations.


----------



## swagman (20 Mar 2017)

> I agree that sharpness helps - it solves many problems! However, I think there's a danger of confusing two different matters here. The positioning of a cap-iron to prevent or reduce tearout is NOT the same thing as adding stiffness to a thin cutting iron. This has been discussed several times on this forum, and no doubt on others.



Cheshire's explanation of the primary role of the cap iron on Stanley type thinner blades is correct imo. That's the primary reason why Bailey referred to it as a Cap Iron.

Some of the modern tool makers still refer to the primary role of the Cap Iron in its original correct context, but then do themselves the disservice of calling it a Chipbreaker. https://www.lie-nielsen.com/nodes/4073/ ... ipbreakers


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Mar 2017)

My preference is to use the term "chipbreaker" since that is the role I assign to it - the breaker or re-directing of a shaving (or chip). This has little to do with history. Context is important.

This is the reason I responded to the original post. "Blade stiffening" is an antiquated concept for the chipbreaker/cap iron. While this was the reason for Stanley introducing a thin iron plus chipbreaker, as stated in his patent, the chipbreaker has come to be so much more in the years since. We have discussed this on these pages to death. The bottom line is that few (involved in such discussions) would disagree that setting up a plane includes setting up the chipbreaker for optimal performance. This does not mean setting the leading edge up up tight; it simply means setting up the leading edge where it will provide the best performance support (i.e. straight grained woods are set up slightly further back than interlocked grain). 

In short, the focus is on the chipbreaker as an _adjustment_ within the plane for a broader performance gain than simply gained from stiffening the blade. The ease with which one may set up a chipbreaker than takes on more significance, which is an issue with those such as the Clifton. That is another topic.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## swagman (20 Mar 2017)

> My preference is to use the term "chipbreaker" since that is the role I assign to it - the breaker or re-directing of a shaving (or chip). This has little to do with history. Context is important.



Then let us look at the terms of reference being used by another well known hand tool manufacturer;

Stanley/Record Cap Irons made by Veritas® - Woodworking 

_A cap iron serves to stiffen a plane blade, helping to damp vibration and reduce the potential for blade chatter. _

http://www.leevalley.com/us/images/item ... 6320s3.jpg


----------



## Sheffield Tony (20 Mar 2017)

I presume some of the wooden planes with double irons predate Stanley metal bodied planes. What was the principal purpose there ? Stiffening, chip breaking, or something else ?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Mar 2017)

Sheffield Tony":2jtwpevb said:


> I presume some of the wooden planes with double irons predate Stanley metal bodied planes. What was the principal purpose there ? Stiffening, chip breaking, or something else ?



Tony, woodies with "double irons" indeed predate Stanley. In summary of old discussions: it was more expensive to construct a double iron (thin blade plus chipbreaker) than a single thick iron, so there was another reason for doing so. The reason was that the chipbreaker _added_ performance - not by added stiffening, but by redirecting the chip. One indicator of a closed up chipbreaker is that the shaving straightens and is no longer curly.

We on this forum know all this. It is Old News. Why repeat it then? Because it needs to be part of the discussion when considering the pros and cons of chipbreaker design (or whatever you prefer to call it).

Regards from Perth

Derek (hoping Stewie does not call on the wisdom of Paul Sellers on chipbreakers ..  )


----------



## nabs (20 Mar 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> You referred to it as a "blade stiffener" at the start of this thread.



I didn't explain myself properly Derek - I meant to describe the Stay-set and Millers falls cap-iron inventions as 'blade stiffeners' rather than implying that this is what the cap-iron is for. 

I think the historical context is relevant here, since we know that cap-irons pre-date the Bailey design and were used with the (relatively) fat tapered irons that were common in the 19th century then it seems reasonable to assume their introduction was for some other reason than stiffening the (already stiff) irons. Presumably they were adopted due to fact they can reduce tear-out when set very fine*

Things changed with Leonard Bailey's design and the wide scale use of thin irons in bench planes. As he explained in his cap-iron patent, they have a second function when combined with a thin iron and that is to reduce the possibility of the blade flexing in use. He apparently had trouble with the traditional one piece thick cap-iron and introduced the thin bent one we are all familiar to improve matters (and/or reduce costs?). 

I see the introduction of the two part lever cap and two-part cap-iron as a natural progression from Bailey's idea, albeit a progression that arguably doesn't really improve performance significantly in the real world. I still say they make the planes feel nicer to use though!
Nabs

* the much-quoted advert in the _Pennsylvania Chronicle _(Philadelphia) placed by S. Caruthers in 1767 provides a little evidence about the impetus behind cap-irons:

"double iron planes of late construction far exceeding any tooth planes or uprights whatsoever for cross grained or curled stuff"

http://swingleydev.com/ot/get/71734/thread/

Has anyone ever seen an original copy of this ad?


----------



## D_W (20 Mar 2017)

swagman":2kvlwnli said:


> > My preference is to use the term "chipbreaker" since that is the role I assign to it - the breaker or re-directing of a shaving (or chip). This has little to do with history. Context is important.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lee Valley's product descriptions are not a legitimate source for information about the use of chipbreakers. They have to cater to users who are generally in the middle of the full gamut of beginners problems.


----------



## Corneel (20 Mar 2017)




----------



## nabs (20 Mar 2017)

another cap-iron question (you can never have too many!): as Derek mentioned, the setting of the cap-iron also changes how the chips are deflected (very close = straight, too close = accordion crinkle, normal = curled). 

When at a "normal" (i.e not very fine) setting, does the cap iron help curl the chip or would that happen anyway? The curled chips do seem to help to avoid clogging up my (double-iron) wooden planes. Is this all in my imagination? What happens with single iron woodies?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Mar 2017)

nabs":mrp09fvl said:


> another cap-iron question (you can never have too many!): as Derek mentioned, the setting of the cap-iron also changes how the chips are deflected (very close = straight, too close = accordion crinkle, normal = curled).
> 
> When at a "normal" (i.e not very fine) setting, does the cap iron help curl the chip or would that happen anyway? The curled chips do seem to help to avoid clogging up my (double-iron) wooden planes. Is this all in my imagination? What happens with single iron woodies?



Nick, this is an interesting area. I mentioned earlier that an indicator that when the chipbreaker is set for tearout control the resulting shaving straightens and flies out of the plane like at streamer. By contrast, with a common angle BD plane, the shaving will curl into a ball, sometimes quite tightly. These are more likely to jam the escapement. 

I learned to use the chipbreaker this way around 2012, having relied on high angle planes up to that time to control tearout on the interlocked woods I worked. At the time, my thoughts were that a set chipbreaker was akin to adding 15 degrees of cutting angle. This thought has been reinforced over time as the shavings from high angle planes (60 degree cutting angle), be they BU or BD, all produce shavings that are also straight. For example, shavings fly out of a HNT Gordon smoother (60 degree bed) and a Veritas BUS (12 degree bed + 50 degree bevel = 62 degree cutting angle) in the same way as a Stanley with a 45 degree frog and the chipbreaker set up close.

Perhaps Kees (Corneel) will comment on this.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## nabs (20 Mar 2017)

thanks Derek - the straight shavings that result from a close set cap-iron are very distinctive, but I did not realise the same thing happened with high-angle planes. Most interesting!


----------



## Corneel (20 Mar 2017)

The wear plays an important role in the chip formation too. Without a wear, the shaving curls up into a really tight roll. You can see this for example in a block plane with movable front part. Open the front part as far as possible and you will see how the shaving curls in a roll and stays there low down.

The capiron when set close increases the radius of the curl. This in combination with the wear prevent the curl from curling over and it is directed upwards instead. The same happens in a Stanley plane, alltough it has a very small, low, wear.

High angle wooden planes often are pretty tight between blade and wear, so there is no room for curling and the high cutting angle increases the radius of the curl too. In this case there is also no room for curling and the shaving straightens.


----------



## ac445ab (21 Mar 2017)

Hard to say what role the cap iron had in origin. May idea is that it was first intended as a chipbreaker for smoothing "difficult" woods and further appreciated as a more general performance enhancer, capable of stiffening the blade and adding weight at the cutting edge.

Ciao,
Giuliano


----------



## Corneel (21 Mar 2017)

I should correct my statement about straight shavings from high anmgle planes. I don't have much experience with those, so I got confused. A high cutting angle seems to create a wavy or rippled shaving, like in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeVTI6qXLLE

But he is taking very thin shavings. thicker ones tend to be straight, but now I don't remember how they flow out of a high angle plane without capiron.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (21 Mar 2017)

Kees, the Brese planes are not what I would term "high angle". They are generally 50 degree beds. That is not too far off a common angle (45 degrees).

Take a look at this video, where Terry Gordon planes with one of his 60 degree smoothers ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWUiu6tCFRE

In the next video, he uses a 55 degree trying plane. The shaving is not quite as straight, but pretty much so - quite different from the Brese plane ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5JJBK4lAQ4

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## ED65 (21 Mar 2017)

ac445ab":b8pd0yrl said:


> Hard to say what role the cap iron had in origin.


There is fairly good evidence that it was initially invented to help in controlling tearout. Certainly the first irons they were fitted to didn't need stiffening! They were amply thick by today's standards and bedded in a wooden plane under a substantial wedge.


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2017)

ED65":2pwoz1aw said:


> ac445ab":2pwoz1aw said:
> 
> 
> > Hard to say what role the cap iron had in origin.
> ...



They also increased the cost of a plane considerably due to the extra work in creating a second iron that was threaded with a cap screw, and slotting the cutting iron itself. If stiffness was the goal, it would've been cheaper to just make the main iron thicker.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (21 Mar 2017)

D_W":1e75cn1v said:


> ED65":1e75cn1v said:
> 
> 
> > ac445ab":1e75cn1v said:
> ...



Probably. Mind you, it seems it was worthwhile to forge weld a small piece of good carbon steel onto a longer piece of average steel to make a single iron, which would be the expensive way to do it now.


----------



## woodpig (21 Mar 2017)

I rarely use a plane so I don't have a great deal of interest in them but I was surprised to learn recently how thick Japanese plane irons are and how well they work. Why are western plane irons made so thin?


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2017)

For one, a thinner iron is faster to keep sharp when a grinder isn't handy.

Plus, western irons are held in place by a wedge, but japanese irons are unsupported across their width.


----------



## ED65 (21 Mar 2017)

Or another answer: because they can be. No point in making an iron thicker than it needs to be to function as it should.


----------



## nabs (22 Mar 2017)

I think it is pretty clear the cap-iron was not _only_ a stiffening measure - Leonard Bailey patented a modified cap-iron specifically to address issues that occur because he was using very thin irons (c.f https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=pate ... S72443.pdf) but cap-irons had been in use for at least 100 years prior to that, as discussed above.

Of course we can only speculate about why cap-irons were introduced, but it is surely plausible that they were added by someone(s?) trying to emulate the effect of a high angle plane, but with the convenient option to remove the effect when it was not needed (thus reverting back to an easy to push configuration). A good solution would be an angled piece of metal screwed to the top of the iron in a way that it can be moved back and forwards. Voila! the cap iron is born.


----------



## Corneel (22 Mar 2017)

Agree. That sounds like the most plausible explanation. And they were probably perplexed when the new solution actually worked a whole deal better then high angle planes.


----------



## woodpig (22 Mar 2017)

ED65":1ppv94s6 said:


> Or another answer: because they can be. No point in making an iron thicker than it needs to be to function as it should.



Lie-Nielson have their own view on that. 

_*"The blade is the most important part of a hand plane. Our blades are thicker, sometimes much thicker, than other manufacturers’ for a solid cut."*_

I've seen one dissenter, mainly on the grounds of cost, many others seem to agree that thicker is better but as I said I'm not really a plane nut.


----------



## nabs (22 Mar 2017)

.. well that was the point of the original post - thin blades do feel less 'solid' under some circumstances, and there are various ways to make them feel better (thicker blades, 2 part cap irons, 2 part lever caps). 

however, many (most?) people are more than happy with a standard bailey plane as they do everything they need without modification. The other salient point re. blade thickness, in addition to cost, is the thicker they are the longer they take to sharpen.


----------



## D_W (22 Mar 2017)

woodpig":2wh2mysh said:


> ED65":2wh2mysh said:
> 
> 
> > Or another answer: because they can be. No point in making an iron thicker than it needs to be to function as it should.
> ...



For someone with a good power grinder, thicker just means more time to grind. For someone without a good power grinder, thicker becomes a bigger problem. 

The strange thing to me is LN makes A2 irons, some of them over 1/8th thick that are very hard and resistant to grinding, and then they suggest to their customers that they shouldn't power/dry grind them. 

At any rate, the people at LN don't know much about cap iron use, and haven't. They made planes for years where the cap iron couldn't be set at the edge of the iron or the adjuster wouldn't have enough travel to get the iron out of the plane mouth. 

The last I heard from someone who had talked to deneb, they (LN, with deneb speaking on their behalf) described the cap iron as being too fiddly to set effectively and they suggest high angle frogs instead. I can understand that from their view of 1) wanting to sell the frogs, and 2) having beginners calling in with questions - setting a cap iron, if they provided instructions, would yield all kinds of support calls. The high angle frog just makes a plane undesirable to use and encourages someone to set it aside unless it's absolutely needed.

Certainly by 1900, thicker irons could've been made (and thicker caps) if professionals would've preferred it - it would've cost little extra. Stanley sold what professional people preferred. Thick irons didn't really become a thing until the skill level in setting up planes became low enough that people needed them to cover up bad setup. With the market the way it is now with new planes (most of the premium planes sold will get scarce use, they're sold to people looking for some escapism), thick irons will be needed on premium planes for quite some time. 

There have been sparse advertisements in the past (you guys are a lot better with the literature/ad copy history than me) of very thick "deluxe" or whatever they wanted to call them - anyway thick type irons for wooden planes. I had a Lamb jointer years ago that had one of those extra thick irons in it, and it was a pain even to grind on a power grinder. It must've been a quarter inch thick at the business end. I can't imagine what a user would've thought if they didn't have a power grinder or at least a very large coarse carborundum stone to maintain the bevel. Needless to say, you don't see them very often, which should tell us something. That was a double iron plane, too. It had little use, and so did the iron - perhaps due to the nuisance of sharpening it. It had been taken to a very steep bevel angle before it was put away, and it took a solid 5 minutes on a coarse CBN wheel to reset the bevel. 

One last side comment - the premium tool makers and instructors are always going to favor what helps struggling beginners, and sometimes errantly suggest it for everyone else. I liked those planes with the thick irons when i first started, too. I remember spending 45 minutes solid to set up a new LN iron and probably 7 or 8 to resharpen them each time I used them. Time goes on, and that long sharpening time starts to get really annoying.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (22 Mar 2017)

> The other salient point re. blade thickness, in addition to cost, is the thicker they are the longer they take to sharpen.



Thick blades - 1/8" to 3/16" - are quick to hone as long as they are hollow ground (which is favoured by those who freehand sharpen), or where the primary bevel is given a secondary microbevel (which is favoured by those that use a honing guide, but may also be freehanded). Sharpening thick blades is not efficient if one hones a full and flat bevel face (unless the blade is a laminated Japanese type). 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## nabs (22 Mar 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > The other salient point re. blade thickness, in addition to cost, is the thicker they are the longer they take to sharpen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I did not say thick blades were slow to sharpen, just _slower_  
As you rightly say, how much slower depends on your sharpening regime.


----------



## swagman (23 Mar 2017)

Within Baileys 1867 patent on the Cap Iron, the claim was made that _the cap iron, a thin piece of metal with a curved edge that's fastened to the cutter to keep it stiff. http://lemelson.mit.edu/resources/leonard-bailey_

Lets test that theory by removing the Cap Iron from a Stanley #4, and using the Lever Cap only to apply downward pressure over the Cutting Iron to it metal bed. For the sake of test purposes, the original Cutting Irons thickness was measured at 2.3mm (0.085 "). A much thinner gauge cutting iron when compared to most high end double iron metal bench planes being sold on the market now. 





Its more than likely that prior to 1867, Bailey was fully aware of previous work on Wooden Bodied Bench Planes, that had proven that a closely set Cap Iron could successfully reduce the potential of tear-out on reverse grain. As was the case with single iron Bench Planes, bedded a higher than common pitch angle. Bearing those factors in mind, I will only be testing this modified Stanley # 4 with the grain  on 2 types of timber. The 1st being a medium density Asian Hardwood, and the 2nd a high density Australian Hardwood. 

Before I forward the test results, would anyone care to forecast the likelihood that vibration (chatter) will be experienced at the cutting edge.


----------



## swagman (23 Mar 2017)

The results are in; 

working both fine and medium thickness shavings,  no signs of any vibration or chatter was experienced from the cutting edge. 

















The reader is left to draw their own conclusions from the above results.


----------



## Corneel (23 Mar 2017)

Ha ha, those chattery thin irons :mrgreen: 

I could imagine that in harsher situations, deeper cuts, endgrain, knots etc, this setup without a capiron would be more liable to chatter. But otherwise it is a remarkable result. BTW, I think the older Stanley irons are even thinner, more like 2 mm.

In 18th century single iron planes (when the double iron was invented) they also used very thin irons. 3 mm thick (1/8") was normal. Later on they grew thicker, up to 4.5 mm. Those very early single iron planes needed very carefull bedding to avoid chatter. They used wedges with fingers reaching rather deep, but not all the way to the mouth. And in even earlier planes seen on images, they used a crossbar and a simple wedge without fingers. If they used those thin irons in these planes too, one could imagine chatter under adverse conditions. The plane with abuttments must have been a great improvement.


----------



## nabs (23 Mar 2017)

thanks Corneel - that is very interesting. Although I had seen pictures of low angle mitre planes with thin blades, I always assumed that for bench planes they had always been thick and tapered (at least until the end of the 19th C). 

Do you think think thin single irons are peculiar to the Netherlands or is that how it was in the UK also? Were the irons tapered or parallel?


----------



## swagman (23 Mar 2017)

> I always assumed that for bench planes they had always been thick and tapered (at least until the end of the 19th C).



nabs; if your discussing traditional wedge abutment bench planes, your not alone with that understanding.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Mar 2017)

nabs":2yz5y5zi said:


> thanks Corneel - that is very interesting. Although I had seen pictures of low angle mitre planes with thin blades, I always assumed that for bench planes they had always been thick and tapered (at least until the end of the 19th C).
> 
> Do you think think thin single irons are peculiar to the Netherlands or is that how it was in the UK also? Were the irons tapered or parallel?



An archaeological dig in Cutler Street, London unearthed from a wet pit (thus aiding preservation to some extent) a small coffin-shaped smoothing plane having a double iron. It's exact date of manufacture is uncertain, but may be between about 1750 and the 1770s. It's cutting iron is thin, about 2mm at the cutting edge, tapering to about 1mm at the other end, and the 'cap-iron' is not attached by a screw, but just held in place by the wedge.

http://taths.org.uk/tools-trades/articl ... -of-London

One plane does not make a trend. It's possible that it might be an atypical oddity, but the 'cap-iron' is roughly contemporaneous with the first known advert for same, and the iron is thin by later 18th century standards.


----------



## Corneel (23 Mar 2017)

nabs":3rryw9i1 said:


> thanks Corneel - that is very interesting. Although I had seen pictures of low angle mitre planes with thin blades, I always assumed that for bench planes they had always been thick and tapered (at least until the end of the 19th C).
> 
> Do you think think thin single irons are peculiar to the Netherlands or is that how it was in the UK also? Were the irons tapered or parallel?



I am sure about Dutch 17th/18th century planes. Tapered thin blades. i am slo pretty sure about Britisch, have that on good authority from oldstreettools website. When you look at the dimensions in the Seaton book you will probably also find thin irons. The same goes for moulding plane irons. Thin in the 18th century, much thicker later on.


----------



## D_W (23 Mar 2017)

swagman":3p5x3zy7 said:


> The results are in;
> 
> working both fine and medium thickness shavings,  no signs of any vibration or chatter was experienced from the cutting edge.
> 
> ...



Increase the shaving thickness. Thin smoother shavings don't generate chatter.


----------



## ED65 (23 Mar 2017)

That's brilliant Stewie, thanks for taking the time to document that test.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Mar 2017)

A bit of information about wrought iron, which might be of interest. Credit for the 'industrialisation' of wrought iron production is often given to Henry Cort, who patented the puddling process in 1783 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cort ) though he built on the work of others. Before the widespread introduction of puddling, wrought iron was usually made in a finery ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finery_forge ), a slower process.

Puddling did not become widespread until after 1800, so the cost of wrought iron was still significant in the 18th century compared to later years. It's possible that influenced plane iron design - more expensive materials resulting in thinner irons. As the cost of wrought iron reduced in the early 19th century, thicker irons became more affordable.

That's speculation, but I offer it for what it's worth.

(By the way - Corneel is right about the Seaton bench plane irons being thin compared to 19th century ones. They seem to have been about 0.125" or a bit less at the bevel, tapering to about 0.060" at the top end. So that's about 3mm at the business end and about 1.5mm at the top. Speculating again - that's consistent with their being made just before puddled wrought iron became commonly available.)


----------



## nabs (24 Mar 2017)

thanks cc - It is surprising that 19th C makers adopted thicker irons, when thinner versions were apparently 'good enough' in the previous century. I think you have a good theory - the disadvantages of a thin iron are not serious in many circumstances (and are sometimes non-existent, as Stewie demonstrates) and people were not prepared to pay for the relatively small advantage from thick irons until the price came down.

I wonder if there is a big difference in effort (grinding/heat treatment/quality rejects etc) between thick and thin?

nabs
PS I know that the Seaton chisels were a mixture of laminated and solid steel - is it documented whether the plane irons are one or the other?
PPS I still say that the Millers Falls two-piece lever cap rocks, despite all the above!


----------



## woodpig (24 Mar 2017)

I doubt there is enough of a difference in cost between a thin Iron and one a little thicker. The most probable reason for not fitting thicker irons are the other possible changes needed to the design in order to accommodate them. Manufacturers don't make changes to any product if it's selling ok, why would they bother. Premium brands on the other hand are expected to perform well straight out of the box and the manufacturers are prepared to spend a bit more time on R&D to achieve it. It seems the more money you spend the thicker the iron is even with the same manufacturer. I'm still impressed with what the Japanese seem to achieve with a nice thick iron fitted to a lump of wood!


----------



## D_W (24 Mar 2017)

I'd imagine Stanley kept the thin iron because that's what users wanted while there was a large cross section of people working at a bench, or working at a jobsite. If you were a joiner working in 1910, and you had two stones to keep your irons sharp, a thicker iron is not an attractive prospect - it just extends sharpening time. 

Making a modification to a bailey style bench plane - in terms of manufacturing process to open the mouth - would be pretty easy if there was a demand for it. There were some makers who did put thicker irons in metal planes (ohio tool did it here, and there are some others marked S&S or siegley or something that were thicker), but the market never developed a preference for them.


----------



## woodpig (24 Mar 2017)

I watched a review the other day about Stanley planes and the reviewer noted the increased thickness in the Iron fitted to the premium product. He owned both products and didn't complain about the time taken to sharpen the thicker iron, but then I guess a minute or two is neither here nor there in the scheme of things.


----------



## D_W (24 Mar 2017)

This is a modern day review, right? I think modern-day hobby woodworkers have a whole different set of priorities from what the market for these tools had 125 years ago. There are sharpening instruction videos now that show a 10 minute process with 6 stones, etc. I can't imagine someone on the clock before the days of everyone having an electric grinder handy would probably have a different point of view on an all steel iron (vs. a laminated one). 

FWIW, I think even the japanese irons are a bit punitive to sharpen traditionally, it's a fairly long process because it does require a long progression of stones, and even though most of the bevel is soft, it's still wide and has to be abraded, and a fair number of the modern irons appear to be rikizai (pre-laminated material) with a thick layer of hardened steel. The nicer irons have a more fully stretched hagane (hard steel) layer, and it makes a big difference in sharpening time if the grinder is foregone, perhaps halving sharpening. Irons like that are not common now.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Mar 2017)

From 'Modern Practical Joinery' by George Ellis, first published 1902, page 13;

"The common Wooden Stock plane is comparatively low in price, and will stand rough usage better than either of the others, being in fact practically indestructible. It works rapidly and easily, and can be adjusted by means of the cover iron to suit hard or soft woods. On the other hand, it will not produce so highly a finished surface as a metal plane; and it requires frequent shooting, and remouthing occasionally, to keep it in good condition. The English form of the metal plane will produce work of the highest class. It is of great weight and solidity, the latter quality having a great bearing on its results. It overcomes the resistance of cross-grain and knots easily by its great momentum, and "tearing out" is prevented by the extremely fine mouth. Its disadvantages are, that it is fatiguing to work, the friction between metal and wood is greater than between wood only, and in common with all metal planes, in our moist atmosphere it is difficult to keep free from rust or Verdigris, as it is made from steel or brass; and lastly, its first cost is relatively high.
The American type has for its chief recommendation cheapness and readiness of adjustment. It is easy to work in consequence of its lightness, but this quality also acts detrimentally in causing it to "chatter", which prevents the production of so high a finished surface as the English form is capable of. However, its general results are higher than those of the common wood plane. Many ingenious time-saving attachments make it a rapid worker, but it is very fragile, and will seldom survive an accidental fall from the bench."

Thinking this may be a bit of anti-American sentiment, I checked a few other tool descriptions. Under Hand Saws, he writes, "The American pattern of these saws has much to commend it. The handle is thrown well forward, giving great control over the saw when used horizontally. The blade is brought under the handle, which increases the stroke and reduces the liability of "kicking" or catching of the heel in the cut on the return stroke."

So no xenophobia there. Just an honest assessment by an experienced craftsman.

Wells and Hooper in 'Modern Cabinet Work' suggest a set of wooden bench planes, "Iron smoother plane, English make" and "Iron panel plane, 12 1/2", English make" in their list of tools. On page 6, they write, "The American planes are lighter, and flimsy in construction compared to those of English make, and are consequently cheaper, but they do not produce such a fine surface, nor last as long"

So there we have the opinions of well-respected writers on joinery and on cabinet work of about a century ago; the joiner recognises some advantages to a lighter plane, but the cabinetmakers prefer the heavier infill type. Neither of them even mention sharpening, but as they recommend the heavier-ironed woodies and infills, I think we can take it that they don't really regard any extra grinding time as a serious disadvantage.


----------



## D_W (24 Mar 2017)

Got a chuckle out of that. I never noticed a problem due to the "lightness" of american planes, but I can certainly understand why a writer who might have the desire to protect trades would not want to say something good about an economical mass-produced plane that can do as fine of a job as an infill (if set up properly).


----------



## AndyT (24 Mar 2017)

I've got catalogues from about the same date as those books, which have page after page of imported American tools. Some of them were limited use devices (like some current offerings by Veritas, possibly...) but others were basic tools - planes, saws, drills and the like. 

It would be interesting to know what proportion of sales the American tools achieved. Judging from what I have seen of the surviving tools in the second hand market, Stanley planes and Disston saws were the most successful.


----------



## D_W (24 Mar 2017)

To say those two dominated here in the states would be an understatement. We don't have much here that came from England early in the century, but the pound was strong then and people here were cheap, to say in the least.

I've been doing my part in increasing the number of English tools here, though.


----------



## ac445ab (24 Mar 2017)

D_W":1d4fd37b said:


> ...an economical mass-produced plane that can do as fine of a job as an infill (if set up properly).



In my experience, at least for smoothing planes, even the best Stanley plane, for instance a Bedrock perfectly set, does not perform so well as a good infill plane and I think that their massive double iron has a role in this.

Ciao
Giuliano


----------



## D_W (25 Mar 2017)

Once the cap iron is set properly, they're all the same. 

Well, except for the planes that don't have cap irons. 

I've got a self-made 55 degree bed infill with a 1/4th inch thick iron (a smoother) and a 3-4 thousandth mouth. It's not able to perform as well as a stanley plane with the cap set properly, but if one doesn't know how to set the cap properly, it's certainly easier to use because it can almost plane anything.

As far as infills go, something with a near common pitch double iron will leave it in the dust. 

The real difference between the two is how snappy you have to be starting the plane - with a lighter stanley plane, you have to give it a bump start. You can soft start the infill if it's heavy enough.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (25 Mar 2017)

I have a range of plane types. These include a common angle double iron infill (Spier) that is in like-new condition, a high angle single iron infill that is BD and a high cutting angle infill that is BU. I also have a common Stanley, a common LN #3, and a lower bed Veritas Custom #4. Lastly, there is a Veritas BUS with a high cutting angle. Oh no, lastly, I have woodies, some I built and some by HNT Gordon. I think that this covers all the possibilities 

All of these planes can be made to perform equally. Unltimately, the best finish comes from the Veritas Custom #4, which has a 42 degree bed. It is tear out proof when used with the chipbreaker. The UK-made Stanley #3 performs as well as the LN #3, and both are excellent on interlocked grain when using the chipbreaker. The Spier has a 47 degree bed, and it lay on my shelf for years (as did the LN when it had a high angle frog, since replaced) UNTIL I learned to set it up with a chipbreaker. Its performance with very average - no better than a Stanley minus a closely set chipbreaker up until that stage. The easiest plane to get great performance on is the Veritas BUS when used with a high cutting angle (62 degrees). It is simply plug-and-play. However, BD planes are easier to sharpen (I freehand, while BU planes require a honing guide. Another story ...). The hardest plane to push is a high angle BD infill. It sits on my shelf.

I do not see any magic in infills. I do not see a difference in light vs heavy planes (I also have a Marcou smoother, which weighs about 8kg! It is a remarkable performer, but not really better than a Stanley since I learned to set the chipbreaker). I have light woodies - a high hangle HNT Gordon is sublime, but also, at the end of the day, its performance is no better. 

Bottom line is that all these planes perform as wished when set up appropriately. I rather doubt that the sublties of setting up planes were common knowledge to handymen, and this opened the door over the years to many offerings as plane makers found ways to overcome apparent deficiencies. This is still the situation today. It is not intended as a criticism of the planes - as I indicated, they all work - just a comment on the lack of awareness that makes others work as well.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Mar 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I rather doubt that the sublties of setting up planes were common knowledge to handymen, and this opened the door over the years to many offerings as plane makers found ways to overcome apparent deficiencies.



From the back cover of 'Modern Practical Stairbuilding and Handrailing' by George Ellis, "Ellis has long been regarded as one of the finest writers in his field not only because of his abilities as a teacher but also his vast experience in the trades."

Ellis (1854-1930) wrote 'Modern Practical Carpentry', 'Modern Practical Joinery', Modern Practical Stairbuilding and Handrailing', 'Lessons in Carpentry' and 'Modern Technical Drawing'.

Percy A Wells, Head of Cabinet Department, L.C.C. Shoreditch Technical Institute; Silver Medallist, Royal Society of Arts.

John Hooper, Honours Silver Medallist, City and Guilds of London Institute; Silver Medal, Carpenters' Company, Cabinet Section.

Yeah - just handymen. Clearly couldn't hold a candle to today's dilettante amateurs!


----------



## woodpig (25 Mar 2017)

Thanks for the history lesson Cheshirechappie, very interesting. It sounds like we don't know any more now than they knew then. I got the Axminster newsletter in my inbox yesterday and on page one was a nice looking plane with a heavy looking plane iron, very topical!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Mar 2017)

Maybe it reflects that there aren't any "right" answers - just several available options; and that hasn't changed for over a century at least!

I suppose the lesson is to go with what works for you, and not worry too much about the endless discussion and people banging on continuously and at length about their own pet opinion.


----------



## woodpig (25 Mar 2017)

Cheshirechappie":2q7oxhuv said:


> Maybe it reflects that there aren't any "right" answers - just several available options; and that hasn't changed for over a century at least!
> 
> I suppose the lesson is to go with what works for you, and not worry too much about the endless discussion and people banging on continuously and at length about their own pet opinion.



Yes, spot on.


----------



## ac445ab (25 Mar 2017)

Cheshirechappie":2d2yogoy said:


> I suppose the lesson is to go with what works for you...



I agree. However this story of chipbreaker as definitive solution to all planing problems is interesting. 
If so, we no more need high cutting angles, adjustable mouths, bevel up planes, back bevels and so on....?
All I need is a good made plane with a good quality iron, an enough wide mouth and a properly set cap iron?

Ciao
Giuliano


----------



## D_W (25 Mar 2017)

ac445ab":jq6730bf said:


> Cheshirechappie":jq6730bf said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose the lesson is to go with what works for you...
> ...



You can use all of those other things instead of a cap iron, or you can just use the cap iron instead. 

You notice that there aren't many of those things (adjustable mouths on bench planes, high cutting angles, back bevels and bevel up planes) 125 or 175 years ago? Even when the metal bevel up plane came to market, it didn't sell much and it was marketed as a plane to smooth plane cutting boards with end grain oriented to the top. 

If you use the cap iron correctly, your plane only needs to be functionally sharp and nick free to leave a good surface, not straight razor sharp.


----------



## D_W (25 Mar 2017)

woodpig":1518miyu said:


> Thanks for the history lesson Cheshirechappie, very interesting. It sounds like we don't know any more now than they knew then. I got the Axminster newsletter in my inbox yesterday and on page one was a nice looking plane with a heavy looking plane iron, very topical!



That's what sells to hobbyists and new woodworkers these days. Most people come into the hobby hoping to use equipment to get a head start. I did, the same as everyone else, but I've dispensed of most of the stuff that I bought early on.


----------



## ac445ab (25 Mar 2017)

D_W":2m1kairu said:


> ac445ab":2m1kairu said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":2m1kairu said:
> ...



I would choose the second option, of course. :mrgreen:


----------

