# Bevel-up, angle low: woodworker confused..



## charley1968 (30 Aug 2016)

Hi!
Could someone be so kind as to educate me on the different uses of low-angle, bevel-up, York-pitch, etc.
I thought i knew it all, but now i've seen that Veritas offers a low-angle smoothing plane as well as a bevel-up smoothing plane. And that send me spinning...
I always thought that to minimise tear-out, one uses a high-angle, ca.50-55 deg., on difficult woods. And i have a low-angle, bevel-up block plane, that's good for end-grain. But why would i use a low-angle plane for smoothing/ finishing , hence maximising chances of tear-out??
Thankee in advance: A.


----------



## Jacob (30 Aug 2016)

Basically they offer endless variations on a theme in the hopes that you will buy every item on offer!
Stick with just one or two until you are confident that you can get the best out of them and only then consider whether or not you need anything else - which will probably be no.
NB you don't need a special plane for end grain - it just has to be sharp. They are just trying to sell you another piece of unnecessary kit.


----------



## undergroundhunter (30 Aug 2016)

Jacob":3slg8icj said:


> Basically they offer endless variations on a theme in the hopes that you will buy every item on offer!
> Stick with just one or two until you are confident that you can get the best out of them and only then consider whether or not you need anything else - which will probably be no.
> NB you don't need a special plane for end grain - it just has to be sharp. They are just trying to sell you another piece of unnecessary kit.



+1 I use a 4, 5 or a wooden jack for soothing end grain. My only low angle plane a a stanley block and that gets almost zero use. If I cant get it with a normal bevel down plane then I crack the no80 scraper out. Its all just a sales pitch.

Matt


----------



## bugbear (30 Aug 2016)

charley1968":2fl00mwk said:


> Hi!
> Could someone be so kind as to educate me on the different uses of low-angle, bevel-up, York-pitch, etc.
> I thought i knew it all, but now i've seen that Veritas offers a low-angle smoothing plane as well as a bevel-up smoothing plane. And that send me spinning...
> I always thought that to minimise tear-out, one uses a high-angle, ca.50-55 deg., on difficult woods. And i have a low-angle, bevel-up block plane, that's good for end-grain. But why would i use a low-angle plane for smoothing/ finishing , hence maximising chances of tear-out??
> Thankee in advance: A.



It's all about Effective Pitch (sometimes called EP).

It's not the low-angle-ness that allows you to reduce tear out, it's the bevel up-ness combined with a high bevel angle that gives a high effective pitch, same as a high angle frog with a bevel down blade.

A low EP is good for end grain (see the late Leonard Lee's book), but a high EP reduces tearout.

BugBear


----------



## worn thumbs (30 Aug 2016)

I'll add my voice to the two previous comments.Sharp is much more important than anything else and a bevel down plane will probably have the bevel at a lower angle than even a low angle block plane.The users of honing jigs may protest that they know exactly the angle that their bevel is;I would be more impressed it they could achieve sharpness without gadgetry.


----------



## JJ1 (30 Aug 2016)

> I thought i knew it all, but now i've seen that Veritas offers a low-angle smoothing plane as well as a bevel-up smoothing plane.



One advantage of the Veritas Bevel Up Smoother is the advantage of being able to replace the blade in a matter of seconds to suit the job in hand, i.e. 25 degrees for soft wood and end grain, 38 degrees for minimizing tear out and 50 degree blade for even trickier timber. Another advantage is the blades will also fit the Veritas Low Angle Jack plane and the Veritas Bevel Up Jointer.
Veritas make some excellent planes so should you decide to go that route I'm sure you won't be disappointed.


----------



## undergroundhunter (30 Aug 2016)

worn thumbs":1zqw1pua said:


> I'll add my voice to the two previous comments.Sharp is much more important than anything else and a bevel down plane will probably have the bevel at a lower angle than even a low angle block plane.The users of honing jigs may protest that they know exactly the angle that their bevel is;I would be more impressed it they could achieve sharpness without gadgetry.




Of course you are 100% correct, sharp fixes everything, along with a tight set cap iron and a shallow setting you can plane most things. I also don't subscribe to gadgetry either.

Matt


----------



## deema (30 Aug 2016)

Very few people I believe work with highly figured wood, or woods where tear out is a real problem often. Bugbear has already highlighted that end grain cuts better with a low Effective pitch and tear out is reduced by a high pitch or York Pitch.

For every bevel down plane, the angle at which you sharpen and hone the blade is irrelevant. It doesn't affect the cutting action of the plane. This makes these type of planes easy to sharpen and set the blade by free hand sharpening.

For bevel up planes, the Effective Pitch is determined by the angle of the bed (say 20 degrees) added to the angle you sharpen the blade to (say 25 degrees). The EP is the sum of these two angles, (the example would be 45 degrees or 'common' pitch which most bevel down planes have as their standard pitch).

This makes getting a consistent cutting action dependant on how accurately you sharpen and hone the blade. The use of sharpening guides allows precise and repatative EP to be generated. However, for most people conversant and adept will have sharpened a bevel down blade in the time it takes to find the sharpening guide. 

The concept that bevel up planes are by nature low angle is not IMO correct. Most are effectively actually Common pitch, the same as a bevel down plane. You can resharpen a blade to increase the EP on a bevel up plane, and then resharpening it to another pitch but in doing so you wear out the blade quickly and it takes a lot of effort. For this reason most people wth a BU plane have two or more blades with sharpened to different angles . The cost of a decent blade is about the same as that of a frog with a different pitch for a bevel down plane. So to me there is actually no real advantage. BU planes IMO due to the need to accurately and repeatable sharpen at a given angle are more difficult to own than a bevel down plane.

Since most woods that will have tear out can be scrapped, most people I believe like me either use a No 80, scrapper plane or hand scrappers to tackle difficult woods. These guarantee that no tear out will occur, however don't leave as fine a surface as a plane. However, most people cannot tell the difference!!


----------



## charley1968 (30 Aug 2016)

@bugbear: would that book you're referring to,be The Complete Guide to Sharpening?
Thank you for replying, all and yes, i'm aware that a keen edge works better than a dull.
And i don't quite agree with the statement that it's inherently better to sharpen freehand as opposed to using a jig..
But i'll open that can of worms at another time, ok?


----------



## charley1968 (30 Aug 2016)

That was an enlightening post, deema! All my questions answered. My sincere thanks for that.


----------



## Vann (30 Aug 2016)

charley1968":3jfl0l7l said:


> Could someone be so kind as to educate me on the different uses of low-angle, bevel-up, York-pitch, etc.
> I thought i knew it all, but now i've seen that Veritas offers a low-angle smoothing plane as well as a bevel-up smoothing plane. And that send me spinning...


Veritas make very nice planes, but they sure have a problem with terminology.

All their Low-Angle planes are Bevel-Up - with the low angle being 12°. They also make at least one Bevel-Up block plane that has a 20° bed and therefore doesn't fit in the "low angle" catagory. However:

Some of their planes share common blades. For example the 2¼" blade fits the BUS (bevel-up smother), the LAJ (low-angle jack), and the BUJ (bevel-up jointer). All three of these planes are 12° bed low-angle bevel-up planes - yet two are called "Bevel-Up" and the third is called "Low-Angle" #-o There's no difference (apart from the Veritas given name). No wonder people get confused.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Corneel (31 Aug 2016)

charley1968":2ue6be7k said:


> @bugbear: would that book you're referring to,be The Complete Guide to Sharpening?
> Thank you for replying, all and yes, i'm aware that a keen edge works better than a dull.
> And i don't quite agree with the statement that it's inherently better to sharpen freehand as opposed to using a jig..
> But i'll open that can of worms at another time, ok?



You allready opened it :twisted: 

Freehand is "better" for the one simple stupid reason that a well rounded handtool woodworker needs to sharpen more stuff then just straight edges. You undoubtably will have to sharpen a gouge, an axe, a knife or whatever, some day. And then it is nice to have the feeling in your fingers allready. I suppose all those things can be sharpened with yet another gadget, but what is better about having a drawer full of them and an empty bank account? Especially because freehand sharpening is not difficult (if you don't have some kind of handicap of course).

That's all. Thanks you. :mrgreen:


----------



## Jacob (31 Aug 2016)

charley1968":33bpd6fp said:


> @bugbear: would that book you're referring to,be The Complete Guide to Sharpening?
> Thank you for replying, all and yes, i'm aware that a keen edge works better than a dull.
> And i don't quite agree with the statement that it's inherently better to sharpen freehand as opposed to using a jig..
> But i'll open that can of worms at another time, ok?


Opening time!
It's inherently easy to sharpen freehand. 
It's inherently difficult to sharpen with a jig because; 
1 You need a jig, and other jigs for other tools, all of which have to be bought. 
2 You have to fit the jig precisely. 
3 Jigs don't work too well on worn stones so you may have to flatten therm. 
4 To flatten you may have to buy more kit such as diamond plates
5 If you flatten stones they don't last as long, and you have to replace your diamond plates eventually
6 er.. could go on (yawn!)


----------



## iNewbie (31 Aug 2016)

Well it didn't take long for Sharpening Jig Neurosis crew too spew...

Seriously this sh*t gets old.


----------



## ED65 (31 Aug 2016)

charley1968":3ko9r3uq said:


> I always thought that to minimise tear-out, one uses a high-angle, ca.50-55 deg., on difficult woods. And i have a low-angle, bevel-up block plane, that's good for end-grain. But why would i use a low-angle plane for smoothing/ finishing , hence maximising chances of tear-out??


It's not the bedding angle that matters it's the angle of the steel as it meets the wood, so different bevel angles change the angle of attack. I recently restored an old Stanley block plane and sharpened the iron at a ridiculously steep angle to improve its tearout performance (in combination with a tight mouth). 

What a low-angle plane allows you to do most easily is change the angle of attack from quite low to quite high by simply swapping in different irons. One iron can have a low-angle edge for very easy-planing woods (giving lower resistance) and another can have a high angle for more challenging woods (at the cost of higher resistance). 

BUT, this ignores the fact of the most important thing to ever come along when it comes to tearout prevention: the cap iron. The cap iron trumps _all other things _including sharpness of the edge, bedding angle, skewing, you name it.


----------



## YorkshireMartin (31 Aug 2016)

I have a bevel up jack plane (number 5 equivalent size). The bed angle (where the iron rests) is 12 degrees. I have 4 blades for it as follows:

25 degree toothed blade - acts like a row of tiny chisels. This is used for roughing out stock to make it flat and removing large amounts of material. It does not generally cause tear out, even on difficult grain.
25 degree bevel - For end grain. Total Angle of attack is 37 degrees. I sharpen this up to 400 grit.
25 degree with 35 degree secondary. Total Angle of attack is 47 degrees, similar to a typical bevel down (Stanley/record type) plane, which are usually 45 as standard. - For smoothing. On reasonably straight grained wood, this produces a perfect finish. Will cause tear out on complex grain at times. This is sharpened to 600 grit.
25 degree with 45 degree secondary. Angle of attack is 57 degrees. - For smoothing very difficult grain. Has never produced tear out for me, even on the worst sections of timber. Again sharpened to 600 grit.

It is possible to get a 90 degree blade so the bevel up plane will also act as a scraper for complex exotics. I haven't had the need for one yet as the blades I have set serve my needs.

I've found this simple plane with the above blades to do almost anything I ask of it and do it well.


----------



## custard (31 Aug 2016)

YorkshireMartin":2dje3rlp said:


> I've found this simple plane with the above blades to do almost anything I ask of it and do it well.



Martin, I admire your enthusiasm but cool your jets mate! You've had your bevel up jack for what, five days? 

I've used one for five _years_, on hundreds of projects, and scores of different timbers, but I'm not sure I've gathered enough practical experience to give such a ringing endorsement! 

Issues I've found so far include the following,

-I started with a LN, the depth adjustment screw was both rough and stiff, I tried easing it with valve grinding paste but it didn't help, so I returned it. I've talked to a good few users of LN BU jacks and some share the problem and some don't.

-I switched to the Veritas version. The tote really wasn't to my liking, no problems I made a replacement, after all that's what woodworkers do. Overall I prefer the Veritas version (I find the lateral adjustment feature an asset rather than reaching for a little hammer) but hey, I know excellent craftsmen who prefer the LN version and produce great furniture, so I guess it's down to personal preferences at the end of the day.

-Whichever one you use BU is both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because of the versatility and efficiency. It's a curse because it's much harder to establish and maintain a precise camber on a BU.

-Forget hand grinding on a BU plane. On any thick blade you'll probably be re-grinding after every five to seven honings, and even with an extra course diamond stone it's just too slow to be practical. To use one of these planes _efficiently_ you'll need a powered dry grinder or a linisher. Which then means you'll need somewhere to put it, and on a dry grinder you'll also need a replacement stone, a grading wheel, almost certainly you'll need a replacement tool rest, and you'll definitely need the skill to use it. So that should all be factored into the equation when you're deciding if a BU plane is for you.


----------



## custard (31 Aug 2016)

worn thumbs":1hndxtg8 said:


> I would be more impressed it they could achieve sharpness without gadgetry.



The only thing that impresses me is the quality of the furniture that someone produces, I couldn't care less if they used a honing guide or not.


----------



## custard (31 Aug 2016)

ED65":2s2xugy1 said:


> BUT, this ignores the fact of the most important thing to ever come along when it comes to tearout prevention: the cap iron. The cap iron trumps _all other things _including sharpness of the edge, bedding angle, skewing, you name it.



And this is based on what? First hand practical experience or stuff you've read?

I've been working a lot with closely set cap irons since an American chap posted his videos on this forum. It's a really useful technique, but despite all my efforts so far, on many different timbers, I'm still a long way from saying it "trumps all other things". 

I'm about to start hand planing a highly figured slab of Bubinga that's about 1800mm x 600mm, so too big to pass through my thicknesser. As a timber it's roughly the density and hardness of a Rosewood, I'm not looking forward to it but it's got to be done. That job will add a _small_ increment to my own knowledge of closely set cap irons, but I'll still be a long way from a conclusion.


----------



## D_W (31 Aug 2016)

YorkshireMartin":6fqs2dbb said:


> I've found this simple plane with the above blades to do almost anything I ask of it and do it well.



They're just not very good for dimensioning (heavy work) when compared to older planes. Cambering the iron is a pain in the rear, the feel is off (in heavy work - plane with a higher center of gravity and a different handle orientation is much better), etc. In short, I can get done twice as much work (prior to smoothing) with two wooden planes as a person in similar fitness could get done with one (or two) bevel up planes. 

If one has a thickness planer and never really does heavy work, then they are fine. Never really caught on with professional woodworkers even though they were available from stanley for quite some time.

The notion is also floated that they are needed to do end grain work productively, but I find that to be false, too. A stanley works fine when set up properly.


----------



## D_W (31 Aug 2016)

custard":3bjg5yi0 said:


> ED65":3bjg5yi0 said:
> 
> 
> > BUT, this ignores the fact of the most important thing to ever come along when it comes to tearout prevention: the cap iron. The cap iron trumps _all other things _including sharpness of the edge, bedding angle, skewing, you name it.
> ...



It trumps all things. The market decided that over the last couple of hundred years, and especially in the era when professionals were working. 

As far as bubinga goes, though, I wouldn't want to do much of anything with any plane other than smooth it - especially if it's got some curl. If I had to work it (I have hand thicknessed cocobolo), then I would, though. Thinner shavings than softer wood, and no other difference.

Depending on what one is doing, the superiority of the cap iron becomes much more evident in penultimate work (trying, etc), but it also allows you to complete smoothing faster if you are working from rough. 

It also doesn't rely on sharpness to work. The only downside to it is that it takes a little bit longer for people to learn.


----------



## custard (31 Aug 2016)

D_W":3f5ndfok said:


> As far as bubinga goes, though, I wouldn't want to do much of anything with any plane other than smooth it - especially if it's got some curl.



I don't have that choice. It's a paying job and that's what the market wants.


----------



## D_W (31 Aug 2016)

custard":3k39rnb6 said:


> D_W":3k39rnb6 said:
> 
> 
> > As far as bubinga goes, though, I wouldn't want to do much of anything with any plane other than smooth it - especially if it's got some curl.
> ...



If it was for pay, I'd gladly do it, too. Wants are one thing when no money is involved, but something entirely different when there is.

Might be a reasonable place to use a hand power planer, though I'll admit on easy wood (beech, cherry, walnut, etc), I've never been able to make a hand power planer work any faster than just using a good wooden jack plane - it certainly induces less sweat, though.


----------



## AJB Temple (31 Aug 2016)

Until recently (last few years) I only had three hand planes (cheap No 4, Clifton rebate (very good) and a small block plane (recently replaced with Veritas version) and I am ashamed to reveal my ignorance but I have never given any thought to the whole BU/BD low angle or not discussions and for 20 years had no sharpening set up except a single stone and some fine emery paper. Mostly I just work with what I have and as I use the stuff constantly that has worked for me. I lot of my enjoyable (as opposed to utility) woodwork has been making musical instruments and some of the word is very awkward (rosewood, ebony, highly figured maple. birdseye etc). I have made a few scrapers to suit what I need, out of scrounged steel. I can't say I have ever had much of a problem with these limited tools (no P/T, no bandsaw, no lathe, etc). 

In the past few years as I am trying to ease back from my main business a bit, I have ended up with a fully equipped workshop and quite a few fine tools and proper machinery. I like them but I am not sure the finished products are any better (though I am quicker). By and large we don't really need tons of gear - we just need to learn to sharpen and to use simple tools well. 

I think you can handle end grain with lots of tools - quite often I have used a chisel to take off very fine shavings (I can sharpen stuff). I like a small block plane mainly because it fits the hand well for doing quite delicate trimming and I am a bit cack handed with a big plane. Some of us obsess a bit over gear.


----------



## D_W (31 Aug 2016)

I don't build guitars or musical instruments, so I can't say this with authority, but I would say (based on the folks I know who build instruments), I don't think there is as much to be gained from one method to another as comparing dimensioning 50 board feet of wood for a furniture project. 

(as in, I'm a card carrying supporter of the cap iron, but I don't think there is any practical advantage on the time side when building instruments - little of the time is planing). 

George Wilson, over on the US forums, had made instruments for quite a long time before branching out, and he mentioned that he used a single block plane for many years when making guitars. I don't think for the early part, he had the means to get anything else. 

http://www.cybozone.com/fg/wilson.html

George has as much metal and woodworking equipment as anyone I know now. I don't think he ever used the cap iron to do anything, at the museum where he did most of his day work, they weren't allowed to use planes that had cap irons because the curators thought they weren't common enough. He's made some fabulous planes and scrapers, though.


----------



## ED65 (31 Aug 2016)

custard":1kclzlfg said:


> ED65":1kclzlfg said:
> 
> 
> > BUT, this ignores the fact of the most important thing to ever come along when it comes to tearout prevention: the cap iron. The cap iron trumps _all other things _including sharpness of the edge, bedding angle, skewing, you name it.
> ...


Both. Now my hands-on experience wouldn't be broad or deep but the results of my comparative tests were absolutely conclusive about the effectiveness and ease, confirming all the good things I'd read about using the cap iron for this purpose.

I've mentioned this before but should repeat it, the advice on dealing with tearout in writing is not at all uniform in books (this is across the board, amongst old texts all the way up to current books). There is abundant conflicting advice on how close you can/should set the cap iron and in fact whether to use it at all. The books that don't come down firmly in favour of the cap iron will invariably say to close the mouth or resort to scraping, sometimes both. 
(homer) In some modern writing they essentially tell you to give up, to rely on sanding instead.



custard":1kclzlfg said:


> I've been working a lot with closely set cap irons since an American chap posted his videos on this forum. It's a really useful technique, but despite all my efforts so far, on many different timbers, I'm still a long way from saying it "trumps all other things".


Well let me ask a question in return, have you found anything that reliably works better? 

The thing about the cap-iron setting that's so powerful is that reducing it always and immediately improves results and although a close-set mouth can sometimes equal the performance it is definitely trickier to get set up just _so_. 

That's not to say that the cap iron can prevent tearout 100% of the time but you can get damned close. It gives good results repeatably, with little fussing, which can't be said of a tight mouth. And as soon as you want to change your shaving thickness you have to start dialling it all in again, while the same positioning of the cap iron can be used for a wide range of shaving thicknesses.


----------



## ED65 (31 Aug 2016)

AJB Temple":24fs3q5o said:


> By and large we don't really need tons of gear - we just need to learn to sharpen and to use simple tools well.


Amen to that.

I find the simpleness of your sharpening setup a really interesting contrast with much of what I've read from luthiers and other instrument makers who seem to be, collectively, the ones most likely to obsess about achieving the Nth degree of sharpness on their edges so spend megabucks on sharpening gear and insist it's necessary to the results they require.


----------



## AJB Temple (31 Aug 2016)

ED65 Luthiers are making precision instruments of beauty and I think we like tools of beauty too. However, I started trying to make musical instruments when I was 16 (having made model aeroplanes for years before that) and had no money as I was just starting at university as well. If you have no money you learn to adapt. My dad was a toolmaking precision engineer and he taught me quite early on how to sharpen using very simple gear - basically an oil stone along with wet and dry on a sheet of thick glass. I could sharpen anything on it to a degree where I could get a transparent even shaving in maple by the time I was 18. All my stuff was cheap and mostly given to me for birthdays (I still have and use my Footprint chisels). Was a bit time consuming mind you. Nowadays I have everything from Japanese water stones, diamond plates, bench grinders and the Robert Sorby pro edge (excellent). Currently I am making a timber framed green oak building and I am running a handful of slicks and big chisels over the pro edge twice a day. Takes a few minutes and is super helpful. But I could do it by hand without spending £300 on the pro edge if I was less lazy! I don't bother with jigs.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (1 Sep 2016)

I am almost reluctant to post on this thread since many see me as biased towards BU planes. That is only partially so - I work largely with very interlocked timbers, and high cutting angles were my mainstay until a few years ago, when I began using chipbreakered planes. Now my choices are wider.

BU planes with high cutting angles provide a superior performance on interlocked timber surfaces. They remain a reliable style of plane, one that is easy to set up and use. I tend to use BD chipbreakered planes more now, but this is because they are easier to sharpen if your preference, like mine, is to freehand hone. BU plane blades are best honed with a honing guide.

It is a simple matter to hone a camber on a BU plane blade. The essence of this is a 25 degree primary bevel (for ALL BU plane blades - save your money and only get blades with a 25 degree bevel), followed by a 50 degree secondary micro bevel. The secondary micro bevel is cambered. Not the primary bevel. This is an efficient method that works on the principle of reducing the amount of steel to hone. This is a method I developed in 2008: 

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTe ... lades.html

I doubt whether many here will work interlocked timbers to the point where they can judge whether a high angled BU plane is better or worse than a chip breakered common angle BD plane. I do this frequently. The chipbreaker does have the edge. But this is irrelevant for most - for most, the BU plane will do all they need.

Regards from Peth

Derek


----------



## Woody2Shoes (1 Sep 2016)

Hi - 



Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I tend to use BD chipbreakered planes more now, but this is because they are easier to sharpen if your preference, like mine, is to freehand hone. BU plane blades are best honed with a honing guide.



I'm interested that you say this - I guess you (hand) hone with the chipbreaker still on. I take the chipbreaker off to hone (by hand or, obviously, with a honing guide), maybe I don't really need to when hand sharpening, although I usually have a very small gap between the cutting edge and the business end of the chipbreaker. I don't usually use a honing guide on my BU blades - unless I'm worried I've got the cutting edge skewed. This explains why I'm quicker with a BU plane - perhaps for not very good reasons!



Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> It is a simple matter to hone a camber on a BU plane blade. The essence of this is a 25 degree primary bevel (for ALL BU plane blades - save your money and only get blades with a 25 degree bevel), followed by a 50 degree secondary micro bevel. The secondary micro bevel is cambered. Not the primary bevel. This is an efficient method that works on the principle of reducing the amount of steel to hone.
> Derek


Excellent, another idea I wish I'd thought of!
Cheers, W2S


----------



## worn thumbs (1 Sep 2016)

custard":39ldvlyx said:


> worn thumbs":39ldvlyx said:
> 
> 
> > I would be more impressed it they could achieve sharpness without gadgetry.
> ...



And if they produce something other than furniture?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (2 Sep 2016)

Woody2Shoes":302q7fsn said:


> Hi -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A chipbreakered blade is just a blade with a chipbreaker, which may be set close. They are taken apart for sharpening.

The reason I say it is faster is that the primary bevel of the BD plane blade is hollow ground and then I just freehand sharpen on the hollow. Easy peasy.

With a BU plane, when working with a high cutting angle, it is necessary to use a guide to hone the specific high angle on a secondary bevel. This microbevel cannot be done freehand. It needs a guide. Using a guide takes more care and set up. Freehanding is quicker and easier for someone less patient with interruptions, such as myself. 

Resetting the chipbreaker on a BD blade does require extra time, but practice makes perfect. There is probably not a lot of time differences between the two. If you are a guide user, there is no issue to resolve.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (2 Sep 2016)

deema":3ufrhnh4 said:


> .....You can resharpen a blade to increase the EP on a bevel up plane,...


You can increase the EP angle on a bevel down plane too - it just takes a little bevel on the face side to whatever angle you want.
It works too - the steeper the angle the less the tear out and the nearer you get to a scraper action.
For some reason this doesn't feature in these endless plane arguments. I guess because it begs the question; what is the point of buying one of these modern retro BU planes? IMHO the answer is; there is no point at all.



> ...it is necessary to use a guide to hone the specific high angle....


Only if it is very precisely specific! But this is not necessary - a few degrees either way won't make any difference. 
So yes you can do it freehand and free yourself from a load of expensive kit; jigs, diamond plates for stone flattening and all that extra work.
And with the money you save by not buying heavy BU retro planes you can buy loads of wood instead!


----------



## bugbear (2 Sep 2016)

Jacob":29rf3542 said:


> You can increase the EP angle on a bevel down plane too - it just takes a little bevel on the face side to whatever angle you want.
> It works too - the steeper the angle the less the tear out and the nearer you get to a scraper action.
> For some reason this doesn't feature in these endless plane arguments.



But I remember when AndyT and I first told you about back bevels and EP, during a plane argument, when you were trying (and initially failing) to finish plane a table top with a cheap Acorn plane.

BugBear


----------



## iNewbie (2 Sep 2016)

Jacob":25anrlud said:


> deema":25anrlud said:
> 
> 
> > .....You can resharpen a blade to increase the EP on a bevel up plane,...
> ...



Said the man with an expensive Sorby Pro-Edge... You should try your grind free-hand and avoid that expensive kit. Imagine the wood you could have bought.


----------



## Jacob (2 Sep 2016)

iNewbie":clipyry5 said:


> Jacob":clipyry5 said:
> 
> 
> > deema":clipyry5 said:
> ...


I wouldn't advice grinding by hand. It's possible but very slow even with a coarse diamond plate. If desperate it's quite fast with coarse wet n dry in a pool of white spirit (i.e. paper backed not cloth, not stuck down).
Pro edge pays for itself - it's much better than a wheel.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (2 Sep 2016)

Jacob wrote:


> You can increase the EP angle on a bevel down plane too - it just takes a little bevel on the face side to whatever angle you want.
> It works too - the steeper the angle the less the tear out and the nearer you get to a scraper action.
> For some reason this doesn't feature in these endless plane arguments. I guess because it begs the question; what is the point of buying one of these modern retro BU planes? IMHO the answer is; there is no point at all.



Yes there is a point. It is called Centre of Effort.

You can add a 15 degree backbevel (which may be 0.5mm wide) to the blade of a common angle BD Stanley. This will create a 60 degree cutting angle. It should be capable of planing as well as any dedicated half pitch (60 degree) plane or a BU plane with a 60 degree included angle. In effect, all these planes should perform the same. The wood cannot tell the difference between the planes.

However, _you_ can tell the difference between the action of the planes when you push them. The 60 degree Stanley will be harder to push. A high-sided coffin smoother with a 60 degree bed will feel similarly hard to push. By contrast, a razee-type smoother or a low profile body, such as a HNT Gordon or a Chinese woodie, will feel completely different. Pushing from low down is more efficient. This is even more the case with BU planes. Further, as the handle becomes more vertical, or we push from the lower end of the handle, so we increase the efficiency. 

This is easy to test out: push your Stanley from the upper end of the handle, then drop your hand and push from the lowermost section.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (2 Sep 2016)

Jacon wrote:


> Only if it is very precisely specific! But this is not necessary - a few degrees either way won't make any difference.
> So yes you can do it freehand and free yourself from a load of expensive kit; jigs, diamond plates for stone flattening and all that extra work.
> And with the money you save by not buying heavy BU retro planes you can buy loads of wood instead!



Using a guide with BU planes is recommended _not_ to be exact with the bevel angle, but because a microbevel reduces the steel to be honed _when one wants a cambered blade_. If you do not need a cambered blade (such as when shooting or a jointer), then leave the blade flat or hollow and freehand it. However, if you do plan to use a microbevel, a guide is needed to achieve the bevel angle since it is too small to do freehanding. It does not need to be exact, but it is difficult to keep in the ballpark when the range is small (40 degrees and 50 degrees produces quite different results).

It is this reason that I turn to a BD plane. I prefer the simplicity of sharpening a bevel down plane blade, one that is hollow ground at 30 degrees, and then freehanded on the hollow. This is not a criticism of the BU plane, which can achieve the highest standards and do so simply, because there are those who only use guides, and the distinction I make is not relevant for them.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (2 Sep 2016)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> .....a microbevel reduces the steel to be honed _when one wants a cambered blade_. .....


I grind a blade to camber the shape I want, _before_ honing. 
Honing a camber onto a straight edge would be much more difficult - and pointless if you have a grinder to hand - even if just a coarse stone for hand grinding.
Derek you might as well argue that honing a straight edge onto a cambered blade could be a good idea!


----------



## Jacob (2 Sep 2016)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> ......This is even more the case with BU planes. Further, as the handle becomes more vertical, or we push from the lower end of the handle, so we increase the efficiency.
> 
> This is easy to test out: push your Stanley from the upper end of the handle, then drop your hand and push from the lowermost section....


But if we can do that (we can) then we don't need a BU plane. You don't have to hold the handle at the tip!


----------



## DTR (2 Sep 2016)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Yes there is a point. It is called Centre of Effort.
> 
> ......
> 
> However, _you_ can tell the difference between the action of the planes when you push them. The 60 degree Stanley will be harder to push. A high-sided coffin smoother with a 60 degree bed will feel similarly hard to push. By contrast, a razee-type smoother or a low profile body, such as a HNT Gordon or a Chinese woodie, will feel completely different. Pushing from low down is more efficient. *This is even more the case with BU planes*.



Sorry Derek, can you explain the science behind the bit in bold please? I get that pushing lower is more efficient, but what's the difference between bevel up and bevel down? The handles are in the same place.


----------



## custard (2 Sep 2016)

Here's a photo of a Bubinga slab that I'm about to plane by hand, because at over 600mm wide (and thats just the heart wood) it's too big for my machines. The piece at the end is an off-cut from the same board with some finish applied so you can see the incredible curl in the grain. Boards like this don't pose the _very_ worst tear out problem I've ever encountered, but I know from experience that a regular 45 degree pitch plane with anything like "normal" settings will just rip it to shreds.







Here are the bench planes I'll use. A wooden plane with a closely set cap iron, a Bailey plane with a 55 degree frog, a Bailey Plane with a 15 degree back bevel, a Bailey plane with a closely set cap iron, and a bevel up plane with a 60 degree effective angle.






I've done this type and scale of work many times before, so I've got a decent idea of what to expect. Here's another finished slab for the same client that was hand planed, this will be the 8th or 9th waney edged, slab topped desk for this particular client, and I've done many others for other clients. Incidentally, these are work station desks in a design agency, they'll have computer keyboards on them, which means they have to be flat enough to prevent a keyboard rocking. That rules out power sanding, sanding would get them _smooth_, but it wouldn't get them _flat_. Scraping? Maybe for the very final finish, but bringing down an ultra hard surface by any material amount when it's many square feet in size with a scraper doesn't bear thinking about. The only practical way of dealing with this is with a bench plane, even then it's monumentally hard graft. And that's something that often get's ignored in these discussions. It's one thing to waft a plane over a little off-cut, but when you scale the task up to real world dimensions then even small differences in work load become really important. I'm not looking for some theoretical optimum planing solution, I'm looking for the physically easiest solution that still delivers a flat, tear out free surface.






Here's close up of the figure on this other slab. There's ripple, there's interlocked grain, and this particular timber actually sinks in water so it's exceptionally hard to work. I normally spread these jobs over a couple of days, interspersing them with other builds to get a break.






I'll let you know how I get on.


----------



## Peter Sefton (2 Sep 2016)

This should be a great test custard, looking forward to how you get on.

Cheers for taking the time to share your experience.


----------



## D_W (2 Sep 2016)

custard":3k3id23f said:


> Here's a photo of a Bubinga slab that I'm about to plane by hand, because at over 600mm wide (and thats just the heart wood) it's too big for my machines. The piece at the end is an off-cut from the same board with some finish applied so you can see the incredible curl in the grain. Boards like this don't pose the _very_ worst tear out problem I've ever encountered, but I know from experience that a regular 45 degree pitch plane with anything like "normal" settings will just rip it to shreds.



I take back what I said about not wanting to plane it, it's a very attractive slab, and I'd love to plane it. 

On curl like that, I'd still only use the cap iron. If the earlywood is soft and leaves a scuffy kind of finish that invites blotch, it would take very little card scraping to really work that out of it. I'd hate to plane it with a high angle plane, it'll be twice as much work.


----------



## custard (2 Sep 2016)

D_W":3chwvk91 said:


> I'd hate to plane it with a high angle plane, it'll be twice as much work.



Stop giving away the punch lines!


----------



## D_W (2 Sep 2016)

Jacob":265zp59j said:


> Said the man with an expensive Sorby Pro-Edge... You should try your grind free-hand and avoid that expensive kit. Imagine the wood you could have bought.


I wouldn't advice grinding by hand. It's possible but very slow even with a coarse diamond plate. If desperate it's quite fast with coarse wet n dry in a pool of white spirit (i.e. paper backed not cloth, not stuck down).
Pro edge pays for itself - it's much better than a wheel.[/quote]

If done with old irons with a norton crystolon, and refreshed at each sharpening, it's just an extra step in the sharpening program - 15 or 20 seconds each sharpening. Of course, I'd believe the number of people who can do it accurately when I see it. I keep a set of ward chisels that way, and one stanley iron (rather than grinding them on a dry wheel) just out of curiosity. It gets tedious when we try to hone 6 times and then grind a bevel by hand. It's a lot like hand woodworking vs. power tools - when the tools change, the protocol is a little bit different. 

I wouldn't want to do it with powder metal 66 hardness irons 1/4th inch thick, though!


----------



## iNewbie (2 Sep 2016)

Relax and have a Krispy Kreme Dave - it was his sarcasm-meds for the morning.


----------



## D_W (2 Sep 2016)

iNewbie":19ns9zbj said:


> Relax and have a Krispy Kreme Dave - it was his sarcasm-meds for the morning.



Ew, they don't sell those in the UK now, too, do they?

I may be out of the loop on the sorby pro edge thing, but does Jacob actually own one? That made me have a double take!


----------



## ED65 (2 Sep 2016)

custard":2o29hptv said:


> There's ripple, there's interlocked grain, and this particular timber actually sinks in water so it's exceptionally hard to work.


Best of luck with that!


----------



## iNewbie (2 Sep 2016)

D_W":2h8tig9r said:


> iNewbie":2h8tig9r said:
> 
> 
> > Relax and have a Krispy Kreme Dave - it was his sarcasm-meds for the morning.
> ...



He does and they do - some people just waited 10 hours for the doors to open! :shock: 

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/doughnut_fa ... _1_4681453


----------



## custard (2 Sep 2016)

I guess DW has seen this movie many times before!

First to fail in flattening the Bubinga Slab was the 55 degree frog. Besides the fact that it's very hard to push a 55 degree frog on a full width iron, you can still get traces of tear out on some timbers, as seen here,






I'm not knocking high bed angles. If I was a 19th century furniture maker working Oak or Mahogany all day every day then a 50 degree bed angle would be pretty much my first choice, it's not that much harder graft than a 45 degree frog, but it removes tear out in almost all cases on the everyday hardwoods you'd likely encounter. It's much harder work though on end grain and on softwoods it's also less than ideal. Maybe that's why Victorian and Edwardian woodworkers took to block planes? 55 degrees is surprisingly much harder work still, that's the point where the effort seems to climb exponentially. Also the planed surface isn't always that great, it's virtually useless on end grain, but for _most_ timbers it's a certain antidote to tear out. I guess it explains why it's so common to find single iron moulding planes with a 55 degree pitch, the iron is generally narrower than with a bench plane so for hardwood mouldings that would be a good compromise. 

After that all the planes worked, in that they all delivered efficiently thick shavings with no tear out. I've occasionally encountered timbers where 60 degrees isn't enough, but they're pretty rare and are often quirky situations. So given that all the planes worked, which worked best? As DW predicted, for my money it's usually a wooden bodied jack with a close set cap iron. 






I can't fully explain why, it's certainly not sentimentality in that I don't favour old tools just because they're old. It's still very hard work, but it's that bit less brutal than with any of the metal bodied planes, and you don't keep having to stop and wax the sole. I use two irons in this plane, a heavily cambered one to begin followed by a more regular camber, both with the cap iron about as close as I can get it. In both cases I'm aiming for thick shavings. I don't really get the modern obsession with gossamer thin shavings, the objective is to remove wood, so as long as you're not tearing out the surface why not aim to remove it quickly with as few strokes as possible?






After a couple of hours work there's a reasonable level of flatness across all of the top.






And now it's time to move on to turning a _flat_ top into a _smooth_ top. I could carry on with the wooden bodied plane. On some projects I definitely would, for example a 14 plus seater dining table is probably going to be 1.2 metres wide or wider, that's too big to efficiently reach into the centre, so you'll likely be kneeling on the workpiece and in that situation a higher wooden bodied plane is ideal. However, when I go back to finish the job tomorrow I'll probably choose the Record Jack with a closely set cap iron. At this stage the workload advantages of a closely set cap iron over a higher pitch is smaller, but it's still there, especially in very hard woods.






If I was working on my bench instead of on trestles, I'd definitely abandon the wooden bodied plane as soon as possible. I prefer a bench height that means a wooden bodied plane is too high and ungainly, instead of saving effort it starts to cost effort. Also even though wooden bodied planes are dead cheap most of them need a fair bit of work that's probably beyond the capabilities of a newcomer. Taking out wind and patching a sole, both with real precision, aren't simple challenges. Plus there's the fact that finding an old iron without pitting and then getting the cap iron to mate perfectly are headaches that a newbie could probably do without. Likewise I'm not going to completely endorse an old Bailey plane, there are many of the same issues plus you'll often get loads of slop in the depth of cut wheel which is an irritation. For some reason there seem to be plenty of old Record and Stanley irons that are convex on the flat, non bevel surface. I've heard that a blow with a nylon hammer will fix this, maybe, but it's never worked for me. So that means a long spell at a stone to achieve a cap iron mating surface that won't get jammed with shavings. All of these problems are pretty much avoided with a modern, premium hand plane, which means you can be up and working straight from the box. But if you're lucky, or have the patience to fix the problems, then an old Bailey will do almost everything you want, and with a closely set cap iron can do it all tear out free!


----------



## Droogs (2 Sep 2016)

Would have thought, you being a Barnsley boy, you would have used a #7 Custard :roll: :-"


----------



## custard (2 Sep 2016)

I think their logic Droogs is that an apprentice doesn't have a huge budget for tools, and besides they don't want to spend more training time fettling more than one bench plane. So the _single_ bench plane that can tackle _every_ job a client might possibly bring is the number seven.

I can see the logic in that, and for a skint teenager with forearms like a stud bull a number seven is a cracking choice.

The problem is it's heavy, unwieldy, and takes up a load of space on your bench. I still use one, mainly for jointing the edges of long boards, but for most day to day work I prefer something smaller and lighter.


----------



## D_W (3 Sep 2016)

That was a good story! You know you're in pretty deep when you have to limit tearout at the jacking stage (of course on a board like that, there is no safe direction).

Agree on the sentiment about using a 7 for everything, too. If that was a good method, people would've used it 200 years ago.


----------



## David C (3 Sep 2016)

Is that a high precision German straight edge?? Like wot I use to test plane soles.

David ~;-)#


----------



## Jacob (3 Sep 2016)

D_W":hjcoqqmq said:


> ..
> I may be out of the loop on the sorby pro edge thing, but does Jacob actually own one? That made me have a double take!


Yes I'm not completely insane. It's much better than a wheel.
Grinding by hand without machine is possible but hard work. Helps if you have a long blade holder - say 2ft 2x1" with a saw kerf in the end to hold the blade. The work pressure holds the blade steady in a loose slot. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that - though you could round off the edges for comfort. Basically you can put a lot more pressure on a blade in a long handle. Both hands and body weight.
I like Custards story! I'll make more effort with woodies - I've got drawers full of them.
Re 7 as the one and only - I was taught 5 1/2 was the perfect plane. Only a bit smaller than a 7 and I'd still choose it if I had to. We also had one double sided oil stone - so with one plane and one stone you could do almost everything.


----------



## David C (3 Sep 2016)

A couple of people have mentioned the difficulty of maintaining a consistent cambered bevel for bevel up planes.

I believe the new SE-77 jig for the Tormek has solved this problem.

We shot some video this morning, which will appear on my You Tube channel soon.

The jig has successfully ground camber, suitable for my bench plane, block plane and bevel up plane.

This is the first time I have had a reliable and repeatable method for this task. 

It saves many many strokes on a coarse stone!

Best wishes,
David


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (3 Sep 2016)

I'll look out for it, David, but I find this surprising.

What type of camber? For a jack, or for a smoother? 

Would anyone wish to grind the minute camber for a smoother? I don't see that as realistic - the amount of camber is too small to grind reliably. It is safer to hone it in with a 1000 waterstone. As mentioned before, I add a high secondary microbevel on a 25 degree primary bevel. 

As for a jack, the large amount of camber (between 8 - 10" radius) is not any different from a BD plane since it is done on a 25 degree bevel. A BU plane requires about 1/2" more radius than a BD plane owing for the lower bed angle. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## David C (3 Sep 2016)

Derek,

Good point.

For the 62 bevel up jack, the 2" blade showed 0.5mm of light at the edges when presented vertically to a flat surface. The jig would have done more, I have not explored the maximum.

For my favorite 5 1/2 I find about 0.2 mm to be good for squaring edges, and may use less for wide surfaces.

I enjoy grinding this small camber even if it is not absolutely necessary.

My block planes get camber for the same edge squaring ability, and this is significant because of the low bedding angle.

Do you have a Tormek any more? If so I think you would appreciate this jig which is very clever.

best wishes,
David


----------



## AJB Temple (3 Sep 2016)

Custard. Posy above (with pics) was very interesting. Thank you for making the effort. AJ


----------



## Jacob (3 Sep 2016)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> ....
> Would anyone wish to grind the minute camber for a smoother? ...


Because otherwise it won't work as a smoother and will leave tram lines. It must have a camber. 
In fact all planes are better with a camber. 
If you freehand sharpen you tend to get a camber whether you want to or not!


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (3 Sep 2016)

You _grind_ the camber on your smoother, Jacob?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (3 Sep 2016)

I am one of the people who said grinding a BU plane for coarse work is a pain. 

it's not difficult, the issue is that you have to grind a lot more material off than you would with a bevel down plane to get the same result, and then the plane type itself does not feel right in heavy work. 

It's not difficult to hone appropriate camber freehand, or grind it freehand. It's easier than resorting to a jig unless one is a beginner. It's sort of like honing a skew iron. It seems hard to a beginner, but the plane tells you all the time whether or not you have it right or what minor adjustment you need to make. The jigs and all of that other stuff are cumbersome, and probably ultimately much less accurate than honing the skew as it needs to be for the plane to work well.


----------



## David C (3 Sep 2016)

The amount of metal that needs removing for a camber on a low angle jack, is considerable.

Many many strokes on a coarse stone if you start with a straight edge.

I can assure you that this is much easier and more controlled with the new grinding jig.

Less accurate it is not!

David


----------



## D_W (4 Sep 2016)

The less accurate comment was regarding grinding and honing skew irons. For a jack plane, I can't imagine resorting to a jig unless there were repeated repeated failures to understand grinding freehand.


----------



## David C (4 Sep 2016)

David,

I generally teach beginners.

They are certainly not going to have freehand grinding skills.

You are starting to sound like the guy who wrote that a 6 inch ruler for the ruler trick was "too much paraphernalia".

David


----------



## D_W (4 Sep 2016)

I don't believe the ruler trick offers much of an advantage to a sharpener with experience, but I've got nothing against it other than it's just another thing to locate. I had said long ago on sawmill creek that based on most of the tools I've received from people, if they were honest, they'd admit that they would be better sharpeners if they used the ruler trick and a microbevel. 

All of the grinding and honing jigs and flattening stones that should be kept flat just by sharpening, though, seems an impediment - not necessarily to a beginner (who may need it), but beginners are left thinking that various crutches are terminal technique.


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2016)

David C":1yurjjtx said:


> David,
> 
> I generally teach beginners.
> 
> They are certainly not going to have freehand grinding skills.


Should be the first thing they learn. It only takes a few minutes to get the idea. Then they can get by with just the one double-sided stone if they have to, and then proceed to a machine when they can.


> You are starting to sound like the guy who wrote that a 6 inch ruler for the ruler trick was "too much paraphernalia".
> 
> David


Was that me?
But it's much easier without the ruler. I call it "the without a ruler trick".


----------



## ED65 (4 Sep 2016)

Jacob":2qk3n5gt said:


> Because otherwise it won't work as a smoother and will leave tram lines. It must have a camber.


A plane iron does not need a camber in order not to leave tram lines. Standard advice from many sources was to round the corners of a smoother's iron to some degree or other, no camber of any kind. 



Jacob":2qk3n5gt said:


> In fact all planes are better with a camber.


_All _planes?


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2016)

ED65":31i0h33t said:


> Jacob":31i0h33t said:
> 
> 
> > Because otherwise it won't work as a smoother and will leave tram lines. It must have a camber.
> ...


That _is_ a sort of feeble camber - and it _isn't_ "standard" advice: it's for jig users who can't easily camber a blade in the proper way.


----------



## ED65 (4 Sep 2016)

Rounded corners are not any sort of camber. Camber is a radiused edge, period. 

It most certainly was standard advice to round corners Jacob. It has nothing to do with jigs, this was from before there were ANY honing guides, from the time when freehanding was de facto the only honing method.


----------

