# Veritas PMV-II Plane Blades



## iNewbie (14 May 2013)

Worth the extra - thoughts?


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2013)

No.


----------



## Racers (14 May 2013)

I don't know, as I have never used one, and as such can't recommend or warn you off them.

Pete


----------



## AndyT (14 May 2013)

Like Pete said. 
But how can anyone give you a sensible answer, when we don't know:

How flush with cash / hard up are you?
How much planing do you do?
How much is your time worth?

As with so many things, there is a choice of different products at different prices. What is right for one person won't suit another.


----------



## clivethecarpenter (14 May 2013)

Jacob":1vhkg6vr said:


> No.





Lol


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2013)

You could ask Woodbloke (caveat emptor) as he was an enthusiast. He seems to have gone to ground but I'm sure it won't be forever.


----------



## iNewbie (14 May 2013)

AndyT":1ny0n5hj said:


> Like Pete said.
> But how can anyone give you a sensible answer, when we don't know:



As the blades have been out a few months I wondered if someone, might, now know.


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2013)

iNewbie":2tp8uorf said:


> AndyT":2tp8uorf said:
> 
> 
> > Like Pete said.
> ...


I'm pretty sure the answer would be no they aren't worth the extra money. What's it going to do that'd be so different from any other blade? sharpen itself? make a cup of tea? I think we would all know by now!


----------



## MIGNAL (14 May 2013)

The edge supposedly last a lot longer. Longer times between our beloved task of sharpening. Personally I'm NOT going to bother. I have numerous blades in old fashioned Carbon Steel. I even bought A2 , which really didn't live up to the hype.


----------



## iNewbie (14 May 2013)

MIGNAL":18en9exp said:


> I even bought A2 , which really didn't live up to the hype.



I guess thats one reason I'd like to know if this metal does.


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2013)

I don't know what the A2 hype was exactly but I must say it doesn't seem to be a problem and for some reason it's easy to bring back a sharp edge when it's getting a bit tired. I thought it would be difficult and require crazy sharpening techniques but no it's fine on a mucky old bit of oilstone!
I'e got 3 bits - one Hock blade in an old 4, one in a new Stanley SW4 and one on the LV LA BU smoother.


----------



## G S Haydon (14 May 2013)

Might be worth looking on some US forums


----------



## iNewbie (14 May 2013)

Thanks.


----------



## bugbear (14 May 2013)

Jacob":1bg8337j said:


> I don't know what the A2 hype was exactly but I must say it doesn't seem to be a problem and for some reason it's easy to bring back a sharp edge when it's getting a bit tired. I thought it would be difficult and require crazy sharpening techniques but no it's fine on a mucky old bit of oilstone!
> I'e got 3 bits - one Hock blade in an old 4, one in a new Stanley SW4 and one on the LV LA BU smoother.





mr grimsdale":1bg8337j said:


> Chems":1bg8337j said:
> 
> 
> > Just briefly whats the Pros and Cons of O2 vs A2?
> ...



I think Jacob and mrgrimsdale should have a debate, somewhere.

BugBear


----------



## Doug B (14 May 2013)

bugbear":3k19ipw8 said:


> Jacob":3k19ipw8 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what the A2 hype was exactly but I must say it doesn't seem to be a problem and for some reason it's easy to bring back a sharp edge when it's getting a bit tired. I thought it would be difficult and require crazy sharpening techniques but no it's fine on a mucky old bit of oilstone!
> ...




:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Now what was I saying :wink:


----------



## Peter Sefton (14 May 2013)

I reviewed the Veritas 01 chisels for Nick Gibbs and they came out very well, one of my full time students bought some 01 from us and is now a Veritas convert. I have a couple and more will be creeping into my kit as time goes by.

I have added the PMV11 to the website and have been playing with one for a couple of weeks but not long enough to make a truly informed review. I Know that Richard Maguire was very happy with the PMV11 in his LA Jack 
http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/?p=816

Richard will be demonstrating at our Open Day again this year I am sure by then we will both a given the PMV11 more of a testing.
I know WH Matt sharpened a PMV11 at the sharpening event on Saturday for someone but I am not sure who


----------



## Harbo (14 May 2013)

Having spoken to some folks who have examples of the steel at the Sharpening Event - they rate them highly especially for keeping an edge for a very long time.
I would rather take the word of professionals who have actual experience of them than a person who seems to have it for any forms of new technology?


----------



## dannykaye (14 May 2013)

For that sort of money you could buy the kit and the steel to make yourself a blade with pretty much any characteristics you wanted. Or buy a sensibly priced blade and a load of wood to use it on. There are lots of people who will teach you to make a blade, Ron for one http://www.hocktools.com/toolsteel.htm.


----------



## dannykaye (14 May 2013)

Why not build a plane round one of these? Don't try a low angle though DAMHIKT http://www.axminster.co.uk/veritas-blades-for-veritas-low-angle-smoothing-plane-prod821473/


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2013)

bugbear":2p8igy7r said:


> Jacob":2p8igy7r said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what the A2 hype was exactly but I must say it doesn't seem to be a problem and for some reason it's easy to bring back a sharp edge when it's getting a bit tired. I thought it would be difficult and require crazy sharpening techniques but no it's fine on a mucky old bit of oilstone!
> ...


Exactly what I am doing. First thoughts based on what everybody else seemed to be saying, second thoughts based on a bit of experience. I might change my mind again!

Am impressed by the way you hang on my every word BB - I can't remember these things half as well as you.







Doug also remarked on it earlier today:


Doug B":2p8igy7r said:


> .........
> Now what was I saying :wink:


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2013)

Harbo":1d6f0oeo said:


> ....
> I would rather take the word of professionals who have actual experience of them than a person who seems to have it for any forms of new technology?


1 I am a professional. 
2 I have it in for woodworker fashions and enthusiasms which often don't benefit anybody except tool dealers, PMV-II being a good example as it has been around for a bit, nobody has anything interesting to say about it* but it's selling (like hot cakes?). How many plane blades do you need in a lifetime? one per plane will see most people out.

PS except woodbloke, but he's disappeared?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 May 2013)

A PMV-11 iron costs roughly £40 more than a standard one. For a professional working on an hourly rate of £20 (and I suspect that's low for most pros), you need the iron to save you 2 hours work for it to cover it's extra cost. If it does twice as much work between sharpenings, that halves the sharpening down-time. If one sharpen takes 2 minutes (for the whole job, planing wood to planing wood) that's 60 sharpenings. So if it saves a pro one and a bit stops for sharpening per handplane per week, it'll pay for itself in 12 months. Worth it? On hard-headed economics, yes.

For an amateur, it's more down to personal choice. If you feel the first cost is worth it, why not? If you're happy with what you've got already, pass on it.


----------



## MIGNAL (14 May 2013)

Perhaps someone should compare PMV to the HSS blades. I have a couple of the cheap Chinese blades and whilst they do take longer to get sharp (more stropping) they also retain their edge quite a bit longer than 01. They are also considerably cheaper. 
BTW I wasn't knocking A2 blades. I just haven't found them to be any better than my good old carbon blades.


----------



## bugbear (15 May 2013)

Jacob":1lodk11z said:


> Am impressed by the way you hang on my every word BB - I can't remember these things half as well as you.



My memory does appear to be better than yours. And I do take pleasure in proving your unpleasant and insincere habit of saying whatever's counter to everybody else in a thread, even when that means you contradict yourself.

BugBear


----------



## Noel (15 May 2013)

bugbear":14gvsxk1 said:


> Jacob":14gvsxk1 said:
> 
> 
> > Am impressed by the way you hang on my every word BB - I can't remember these things half as well as you.
> ...



Take your pleasure elsewhere or find something else to do BB, please. Use the ignore function, learn not to read posts that upset you or just ignore them. Or just pretend you like Jacob but please do something more useful than this petty primary school nonsense.
Yes, we all know Jacob can be a right PIA at times as many others can be too (without naming names), but it's an internet forum, it's dead easy to avoid each other.


----------



## custard (15 May 2013)

I've been using a PMV iron in a Veritas block plane for a couple of months.

It's certainly easy to sharpen (it gets sharpened alongside A2 tools on diamond and waterstones, with grinding on a Tormek fitted with a Blackstone Silicone wheel) and there's no difference that I can notice versus A2 in ease of sharpening.

Does it hold an edge longer than A2? I'm afraid I'm not methodical enough in my use to really measure that. It seems to hold up very well indeed, still giving polished end grain cuts even after a full day's use, but that's hardly a scientific assessment! 

On balance I'm not sure I'll buy any more PMV plane irons, not because of any shortcoming in the steel but just because super long life doesn't fit particularly well into my style of sharpening and working wood. I tend to have multiple irons for my most commonly used tools, and I'll swap them out regularly during a project, then two or three times a week I'll dedicate an hour to sharpening all the used plane blades (usually when there's something good on the radio). So in that regime I'm discarding irons relatively early. The exception is chisels, where I touch them up every few minutes so PMV chisels may make more sense to me than PMV plane irons.


----------



## iNewbie (15 May 2013)

Thanks for your input custard.


----------



## ali27 (2 Jul 2014)

Unfortunately these blade as replacement for the stanley type planes are
only 2.5mm(0.1inch) thick. 

LV should provide us with an option for 3 mm thick replacement blades. Those 
could fit nicely in LN and the Qiangsheng planes. Heck I would even want a 4-5mm
thick plane blade which would result in not needing a chip breaker at all.


----------



## Bedrock (3 Jul 2014)

AndyT raised the sensible questions, in that it depends very much on what you do, amateur/professional, and what sort of work you do. CC did an excellent economic appraisal, if you are professional, but I query whether if you are involved in site work, or your preferred method of finish is an ROS, the extra cost is worthwhile.
Have a look at a recent article on line from Konrad Sauer (Sauer and Steiner) who reviewed PMV-II blades he had made for him by Veritas. He seems to be impressed, but he is at the very top end of plane making, and I suspect that that Veritas were concerned that he received the very best. No slur on Veritas intended, but there can be a difference between one offs and production quality, whoever makes the blade.
Mike


----------



## gasman (3 Jul 2014)

Ive got 3 pieces of PMVIII metal - 2 are in Veritas butt chisels and one in a small Veritas bevel up plane
I got the plane blade to see what they were like and on that basis, got the 2 butt chisels (2" and 1/2") as I liked it. I think they are fantastic - I keep them honed to 27 degrees and they retain an edge, IMHO for much longer than other chisels I have used. Just my happenyworth
Mark


----------



## bugbear (3 Jul 2014)

Bedrock":q1p07suy said:


> Have a look at a recent article on line from Konrad Sauer (Sauer and Steiner)



Link:

http://sauerandsteiner.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... m-v11.html

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (3 Jul 2014)

Oh boy, maybe one of these days we'll never have to hone again. I've personally not yet met the physical specimen who planes for hours on end without stopping or needing a break and can put these super steels through their paces.

Honing puts the rhythm into the workday. It's like a whole note rest in a piece of music. 

I don't like not knowing the status of a plane iron. If I haven't used it in days it is going to get touched up, regardless, before I put it to wood. Even if it feels sharp. Anything else is folly and putting project stock at risk. It's worth the minute it takes. 

What I read was one of the best testimonials for O1 steel that I've seen in quite some time, assuming one isn't afraid of having to visit the sharpening bench from time to time. I do appreciate the fact that O1 is his benchmark. It should be.

I guess if I bought a replacement plane iron in PMVII, what are these 50 bucks or so (?), then I'm going to need a minimum of a few hundred dollars' worth of new honing stones to go with? Shaptons or something of that order?

I think I'll pass, as gauche as this may be.


----------



## Jacob (3 Jul 2014)

bugbear":1aqzjl06 said:


> Jacob":1aqzjl06 said:
> 
> 
> > Am impressed by the way you hang on my every word BB - I can't remember these things half as well as you.
> ...


This thread reminds me yet again of what a poisonous little dwarf we have in our midst!

It's obvious that the new blades are pointless - the only enthusiasts are tool makers and sharpening enthusiasts. 
Innovation- centric is the term.
Sharpening enthusiasts do have a problem - having invested so much time , effort and money into sharpening, they want something in return - ideally something which doesn't go blunt. :lol: :roll: 
Not a problem for trad sharpeners of course.


----------



## CStanford (3 Jul 2014)

Jacob":3buif8ei said:


> bugbear":3buif8ei said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":3buif8ei said:
> ...



It does seem rather odd that those with the most extensive sharpening kit are often the ones most enthusiastic about steel that needs to be sharpened less.


----------



## Jacob (3 Jul 2014)

Can you blame them! The hours they spend frotting away with ever finer grits and pastes. :roll:


----------



## Racers (3 Jul 2014)

Aaaarrrrrggggg progress!!!!!!! where is my loom smashing hammer!

:shock: :shock: :wink: :wink:   


Pete

Longer time sharp = less effort pushing, think about it!


----------



## CStanford (3 Jul 2014)

Racers":1pb9ujt4 said:


> Aaaarrrrrggggg progress!!!!!!! where is my loom smashing hammer!
> 
> :shock: :shock: :wink: :wink:
> 
> ...



Pretty contorted logic to invoke the Luddites in a thread about cutters for hand planes.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jul 2014)

Why?


----------



## Jacob (3 Jul 2014)

Because if progress was the issue they'd be at it with power planers.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jul 2014)

"What a poisonous little dwarf we have in our midst"
This from the Jacob who never insults anyone personally. :?


----------



## CStanford (3 Jul 2014)

Jacob":wtzxscp3 said:


> Because if progress was the issue they'd be at it with power planers.



True, and most people have a blended operation any way. If they get a little tired or don't want to rip fifteen feet of tough material or thickness fifty board feet of some gnarly tropical species a switch gets flipped. Hand planing for the vast majority of folks just means cleaning up machine marks, their internet personae notwithstanding. This takes surprisingly little kit and certainly doesn't require an investment in replacement cutters for a large selection of hand planes in an effort to theoretically reduce honing time.

It's a fad, like swallowing a tapeworm to lose weight.


----------



## MIGNAL (3 Jul 2014)

Right! Let me think. 

I have two standard block Planes, an Apron Plane. A No. 4 , No. 4.5, No, 5, No. 5.5 and a No. 6. 
I have a lot more but those are good to be getting on with. At around £50 per replacement blade it works out to £400. 
With £400 I can buy 3,568 old woodies with mighty fine old Sheffield blades, complete with free chipbreakers!
I'll skip the PMV-1867 MkVIII, thanks.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (3 Jul 2014)

Mignal

Why do you need 3568 woodies?

:lol: I cold not resist. It is so predictable that so much [email protected] gets written by the predictable few.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (3 Jul 2014)

phil.p":3qrsird2 said:


> "What a poisonous little dwarf we have in our midst"
> This from the Jacob who never insults anyone personally. :?


No I don't as a rule, but he is particularly persistent in the snide comments and personal insults. 
I'd ban him. 
I've never called for anybody to be banned either (no doubt the troll will correct me on that! :lol: )


----------



## CStanford (3 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Mignal
> 
> Why do you need 3568 woodies?
> 
> ...



And I take it that you believe your point(s) of view aren't totally predictable?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (3 Jul 2014)

CStanford":1bguhn6f said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > Mignal
> ...



About as predictable as your presence on this forum, Charlie me dear. :roll: 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (3 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> CStanford":3drzgqec said:
> 
> 
> > Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> ...



"Buy everything in sight. It'll all sort itself out later." You have my permission to use that as your internet signature.

G'day =D>


----------



## gasman (3 Jul 2014)

I have never commented on this before - but I find it quite astonishing how quickly _every_ thread about sharpening, bar none, descend into name-calling and abuse. THE OP asked for an opinion on PMVIII blades - as far as I can see only 2 people who have responded have actually used PMVIII - the rest have mostly been increasingly-strident 'opinions' on whether the money is worth it. It saddens me as this forum is amazing in so many respects but one can see why many people have left because of this aspect. Sorry I think I have been on here long enough to say that
Regards Mark


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (3 Jul 2014)

Mark, you are right and, unfortunately, it has become too frequent of late. 

I am all for debate, but with reasoned arguments, not the bigoted pronouncements made here. 

For reference, I was one of the pre-production team that tested many steels for Lee Valley. These were tested blind (just numbers identifying the steels). Eventually PM-V11 rose to the top. I compared it with A2 and O1 and it was in a class of its own. My conclusions concurred with the results Lee Valley wrote up: PM-V11 will offer double the life of A2, which in turn offers about 3 times the life of O1. Those that argue that A2 does not obtain the fine edge of O1 are out of material with PMV-11 steel since by its very manufacturing method (powdered metal), the grain structure is in a class of its own. Finer and better grain. All this has been supported one more time by Konrad Sauer.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (3 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Mark, you are right and, unfortunately, it has become too frequent of late.
> 
> I am all for debate, but with reasoned arguments, not the bigoted pronouncements made here.
> 
> ...



Bigoted is an interesting term to have used.


----------



## Jacob (3 Jul 2014)

gasman":3ugqsqnm said:


> I have never commented on this before - but I find it quite astonishing how quickly _every_ thread about sharpening, bar none, descend into name-calling and abuse. THE OP asked for an opinion on PMVIII blades - as far as I can see only 2 people who have responded have actually used PMVIII - the rest have mostly been increasingly-strident 'opinions' on whether the money is worth it. It saddens me as this forum is amazing in so many respects but one can see why many people have left because of this aspect. Sorry I think I have been on here long enough to say that
> Regards Mark


Well I agree. 
But a certain level of disagreement should be possible without falling out. I've been disagreeing with Derek for years without exchanging a cross word!
The trouble is " a certain troll" makes a point of being really quite unpleasant, over and over again. He's obviously got a problem* and he spoils it for everybody else.

*personality problem; lack of one. Hey I could get into being insulting too!

PS and I don't think many people have left because of it - quite the opposite, this seems to be the busiest WW forum around and growing by the day. A healthy level of disagreement is a good thing - there's a big emphasis from some quarters to press a party line, which should be resisted.


----------



## ali27 (3 Jul 2014)

Derek do you know if LV will make these replacement blades for stanley thicker or offer
an option for thicker blades?

I wish LV would make these blades like laminated japanese blades. Just glue the softer
iron on the pmv11. This way we could use thick blades that are very easy to sharpen.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (3 Jul 2014)

Hi ali

The PMV-11 Stanley replacement blade is roughly between the Stanley and LN in thickness:







Above, from left to right: Smoothcut, LV, LN.

Link: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... lades.html

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Cheshirechappie (3 Jul 2014)

ali27":2pomzw90 said:


> Derek do you know if LV will make these replacement blades for stanley thicker or offer
> an option for thicker blades?
> 
> I wish LV would make these blades like laminated japanese blades. Just glue the softer
> iron on the pmv11. This way we could use thick blades that are very easy to sharpen.



If you really wanted a slightly thicker iron with a PMV-11 cutting edge, you could make your own 'laminated' iron by taking a factory blade and gluing a piece of mild steel sheet to the back. Mild steel sheet can be obtained in a huge range of thicknesses, so you can easily choose your own finished thickness. Use an engineering adhesive such as one of those by Loctite, degrease thoroughly before gluing, and trim the mild steel back to the blade profile after the glue has cured by filing.

Personally, I wouldn't bother; but it could be done.


----------



## pedder (3 Jul 2014)

Noel":25mley6v said:


> bugbear":25mley6v said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":25mley6v said:
> ...



Sorry for OT:

Why doesn't Jacob get the same wigging for giving completly unsubstantiell answers to a newbie? I think Paul is very helpful in debunk J.'s nature by this quotes. That part should be a signature for every single entry of J. 

He sounds like he know the PM-V11, but he doesn't. And he don't care what he says at all.

BTW. The ignore function just doesn't work at a troll, who frequent a thread like J. does. You just don't get anything. 

BTT

The PM-V11 is better and I won't buy a new Veritas without, but I don't go to replace my old blades. 


Cheers 
Pedder


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (3 Jul 2014)

During the last "LV free shipping" event, I ordered a PM-V11 blade for my Bailey #7 and for my 60-1/2 (I've got expendable cash, so it was a toss up between splurging on my hobbyist toys, trying the new Knobs Creek rye, or leaving a bit more for the kids to argue about). I did not upgrade any stones though, sticking with my oilstones and a selection of Spyderco's. 

I'm just a hamfisted amateur so maybe I don't have the needed refined tastes to permit me to discern the sharpening nuances between this new material or A2, but, in all honesty, it was not bad at all to get it hair popping sharp without a change of sharpening methods. Did it take shorter or longer? Don't ask me! Sometimes I can work on an O1 blade for hours and it's duller than when I began. Other times, I can take a piece of A2 and get it razor sharp in a millisecond. Guess it all depends upon how I hold my tongue.

I'm most interested in how the new material lasts in my block plane, as it it the tool that gets the most abuse (and most varied abuse). Will my perception of "lasting" have any validity here? Hail no! When in the shop and I hit a snag in a project, I let the smoke in my head clear by doing mundane tasks, such as pulling a blade and honing it!


----------



## CStanford (3 Jul 2014)

I'd love to understand, with as much specificity as somebody can muster, exactly what a little extra time between honings does for their woodworking or their lives, in general, since it seems like such a big deal to hone a couple times less per day than the average bloke.

One of the problems with these sorts of things are the participants who gush with the arrival on the market of every single new thing having to do with woodworking. It's hard to be taken seriously when, over the years, every new "thing" that comes out is the neatest thing since sliced bread and one's upgrade path is essentially to infinity.


----------



## MIGNAL (3 Jul 2014)

Well that's the obvious next step. Buy the new PMV -11 now and get hit with the new thicker version in a couple of years time - the current offering is a bit thin. Someone has already complained! Two years after that will be the new, new PMV-III. First in thin, then in thick again!  
I jumped off the ride a few years ago but if you still wish to jump on, what can I say? Enjoy it while it lasts, if you'll forgive the expression.


----------



## woodbrains (3 Jul 2014)

CStanford":2ivytw4j said:


> I'd love to understand, with as much specificity as somebody can muster, exactly what a little extra time between honings does for their woodworking or their lives, in general, since it seems like such a big deal to hone a couple times less per day than the average bloke.
> 
> One of the problems with these sorts of things are the participants who gush with the arrival on the market of every single new thing having to do with woodworking. It's hard to be taken seriously when, over the years, every new "thing" that comes out is the neatest thing since sliced bread and one's upgrade path is essentially to infinity.



Hello,

I suppose you are right, if it wasn't for Leonard Bailey making his mass producible plane pattern and almost everyone buying into that type of tool, wholesale, then we would still be having to put up with those anoying Norris infills and wooden, yes wooden planes with those interminable laminated steel blades. Progress, sometimes you win sometimes not. :twisted: 

Mike.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (3 Jul 2014)

CStanford":70sviwei said:


> I'd love to understand, with as much specificity as somebody can muster, exactly what a little extra time between honings does for their woodworking or their lives, in general, since it seems like such a big deal to hone a couple times less per day than the average bloke.
> 
> One of the problems with these sorts of things are the participants who gush with the arrival on the market of every single new thing having to do with woodworking. It's hard to be taken seriously when, over the years, every new "thing" that comes out is the neatest thing since sliced bread and one's upgrade path is essentially to infinity.



To respond to your first paragraph, probably not very much, but as far as spending your cash, whether hard earned or not, it is an individual's own decision. I could go sit at a bar/pub every afternoon/evening, but I don't. My vices are many, ranging from accumulations of books, Military & veteran memorabilia and tools (many vises).

My woodworking and implements to pursue it, are for my enjoyment. If I would have to adhere to a specific formula stating that to be a woodworking hobbyist would require me to walk and act as if I had a perpetual splinter in my sphincter, me thinks I would pursue some other hobby with less rigid requirements, such as becoming a politician. 

Now, I'm wondering how long it will be before we see something akin to an O1 blade with PM-V11 sprayformed to one side or the other, giving us a modern bi-metal blade?


----------



## matthewwh (3 Jul 2014)

I have sharpened PMV11, but not used it to the point where it needed sharpening again. I have however spoken with Rob Stoakley, who has, and he confirms that it holds its edge for a remarkably long time. 

It is certainly easy enough to hone using Aluminium Oxide and has the 'stone feel' of a plain carbon steel like T10 or O1 - you can feel a bit of bite and resistance so you know what's going on at the edge. The air hardening die steels A2 and D2 are like watching a video of yourself sharpening, it happened but you didn't feel a thing. 

In short, the manufacturers claims about PMV11 are genuine and honest, so if that's what you want, and you are happy to pay for it, you won't be disappointed.

Personally I'm very happy with good quality, properly heat treated carbon steel.


----------



## CStanford (3 Jul 2014)

matthewwh":32hyrd0l said:


> I have sharpened PMV11, but not used it to the point where it needed sharpening again. I have however spoken with Rob Stoakley, who has, and he confirms that it holds its edge for a remarkably long time.
> 
> It is certainly easy enough to hone using Aluminium Oxide and has the 'stone feel' of a plain carbon steel like T10 or O1 - you can feel a bit of bite and resistance so you know what's going on at the edge. The air hardening die steels A2 and D2 are like watching a video of yourself sharpening, it happened but you didn't feel a thing.
> 
> ...



Good and fair points. And one wonders when we hear that "PM VII holds its edge X times longer than carbon steel." Well, whose carbon steel? From what era? The best Sheffield had to offer? Stanley UK from the 1980s? I have not demo'd PMVII plane irons but I did demo a bench chisel. It was a beautifully made chisel but I found absolutely nothing at all remarkable about the steel. Nothing.


----------



## CStanford (3 Jul 2014)

Tony Zaffuto":25jnr6zn said:
 

> CStanford":25jnr6zn said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love to understand, with as much specificity as somebody can muster, exactly what a little extra time between honings does for their woodworking or their lives, in general, since it seems like such a big deal to hone a couple times less per day than the average bloke.
> ...



Buying replacement plane irons doesn't seem that particularly entertaining but I suppose there's always some bit of excitement in the anticipation, especially with all the internet sales puffery.


----------



## iNewbie (3 Jul 2014)

Jacob":22s313fw said:


> Well I agree.
> But a certain level of disagreement should be possible without falling out. I've been disagreeing with Derek for years without exchanging a cross word!
> The trouble is " a certain troll" makes a point of being really quite unpleasant, over and over again. He's obviously got a problem* and he spoils it for everybody else.
> 
> ...



Your point(s) when based on your opinion and not from _any_ objective use of such items/materials is pure BS for the sake of starting a disagreement. Its you who has the issue. BB's providing an objective point where you contradict yourself and talk b0ll0cks. 

I just wonder how much *time* the '_you shouldn't have/buy that_' brigade spend on regurgitating the same old anti-tool/sharpening tripe when they could be doing something far more constructive with their own, time! - instead of ironically advising others how much* time *they can save on...... sharpening!


----------



## Corneel (3 Jul 2014)

Tony Zaffuto":the5kraf said:


> Now, I'm wondering how long it will be before we see something akin to an O1 blade with PM-V11 sprayformed to one side or the other, giving us a modern bi-metal blade?



This reminds me of some research from the Japanese professors. I don't remember the details exactly, but they coated the clearance side of the edge (the bevel) with something very hard. The result was that the wear bevel on the clearance side developed only very reluctantly. The other side, the face side, is where the woodshavings curl over the steel, creating a hollow wearbevel. This effectively self sharpens the blade. The blade does get shorter, but the very tip keeps a narrow radius, while the convex wearbevel on the clearance side didn't grow too much. They measured the edge life in a handplane in kilometers, instead of the 100 to 200 meters of a normal planeblade. 

Of course, it would be a throw away blade, because sharpening the bevel would remove the coating.

(just some kind of interesting trivia).


----------



## matthewwh (3 Jul 2014)

Good and fair points. And one wonders when we hear that "PM VII holds its edge X times longer than carbon steel." Well, whose carbon steel? From what era? The best Sheffield had to offer? Stanley UK from the 1980s? I have not demo'd PMVII plane irons but I did demo a bench chisel. It was a beautifully made chisel but I found absolutely nothing at all remarkable about the steel. Nothing.[/quote]

Exactly! It behaves just like good carbon steel but the edge lasts longer, that's what it's meant to do and it does.

I agree that broad comparisons with 'carbon steel' are fairly meaningless, but when you look at the 'age defying beauty creams' being foisted on women, we don't have it all that bad.

Self sharpening pro-retinol plane irons with shellac applying lubra strip - because you're worth it!


----------



## CStanford (3 Jul 2014)

MIGNAL":3tte37um said:


> Well that's the obvious next step. Buy the new PMV -11 now and get hit with the new thicker version in a couple of years time - the current offering is a bit thin. Someone has already complained! Two years after that will be the new, new PMV-III. First in thin, then in thick again!
> I jumped off the ride a few years ago but if you still wish to jump on, what can I say? Enjoy it while it lasts, if you'll forgive the expression.



Rest assured that the product release pipeline is being well-managed. And it should be. Whiplash from being whipsawn is somebody else's problem, and a lot of people are surprisingly immune. Consumer psychology. A wonderful field for sure.

"Everybody's getting these," "it's what all the serious woodworkers are doing." "A-2? Oh my, so YESTERDAY" (cue a Lindsay Lohan Mean Girls giggle here) Last season's Prada, and so on and so forth. Sixty year old men aren't even immune. Not only that but more susceptible if anything.

98% of the heavy lifting is done with power equipment and somebody is sweating how long the edge on their No. 4 is going to last. 

It's fascinating.


----------



## ali27 (3 Jul 2014)

Cheshirechappie":2mgpcagv said:


> ali27":2mgpcagv said:
> 
> 
> > Derek do you know if LV will make these replacement blades for stanley thicker or offer
> ...



Hi, 

I hae already thought about that, but how do I cut the
slot. I have no fancy equipment. My thoughts were to
use a thick blade so there would be no need for a cap iron.
I wish LV or LN would offer such an option.


----------



## matthewwh (3 Jul 2014)

Hmmmm.

The cap iron isn't just there to make up the thickness. 

I would grind up a cheap old fat woodie blade and test your concept first.


----------



## ali27 (3 Jul 2014)

matthewwh":1qnq5ikt said:


> Hmmmm.
> 
> The cap iron isn't just there to make up the thickness.
> 
> I would grind up a cheap old fat woodie blade and test your concept first.



Hi Matthew,

I understand the function of the cap iron. When I
see infill planes with thick irons, but without a 
chipbreaker making beautiful shaving, I dont see
see the need for it. It's function is primarily to stiffen
the iron.

Would Ray Iles make such a custom blade? Thick
woodie blade you say? Good idea, but aren't those
tapered? Is that no problem?

Ali


----------



## G S Haydon (3 Jul 2014)

The modern single iron infills work just fine but I would hazard a guess that they are used for very light cuts only? There is a "Mr Cap Iron" of sorts on this forum and I'm no expert on this however the first recorded introduction into western woodworking was in 1767 and it was designed for limiting tear out. If a stiffer Iron was needed more thickenss could of been added to the blade. Also (and I'm risking looking a fool here) some japanese planes also have cap irons, I think also it was not to add rigidity but to control tearout. The cap iron concept did catch on for sure, single iron bench planes generally became roughing tools. Although not always heavily described in books from the past it's clear that people were aware that a close setting would control surface finish. From experience I have found this to be the case.


----------



## CStanford (3 Jul 2014)

Exactly! It behaves just like good carbon steel but the edge lasts longer, that's what it's meant to do and it does.

I agree that broad comparisons with 'carbon steel' are fairly meaningless, but when you look at the 'age defying beauty creams' being foisted on women, we don't have it all that bad.

Self sharpening pro-retinol plane irons with shellac applying lubra strip - because you're worth it![/quote]


Matthew, I tend to think that people make the mental comparison in these situations to the worst plane iron they ever owned. I think that there is an abundance of good Sheffield steel still around that will not be outlasted by 3 to 1 if at all.

On the other hand Konrad Sauer said he still loves his carbon steel in the blog post that started this brouhaha, and one can only wonder why if PMVII will outlast it by a factor of 3 to 1. If this is truly the case (I think that was another poster's statistic and not actually Sauer's) then it would border on the irrational not to fully adopt the PMVII. Maybe he will in time. We'll have to see. But, fresh of what he described as a good experience with PMVII he still felt the love for his O1.


----------



## Corneel (4 Jul 2014)

G S Haydon":2tgskzjg said:


> The modern single iron infills work just fine but I would hazard a guess that they are used for very light cuts only? There is a "Mr Cap Iron" of sorts on this forum and I'm no expert on this however the first recorded introduction into western woodworking was in 1767 and it was designed for limiting tear out. If a stiffer Iron was needed more thickenss could of been added to the blade. Also (and I'm risking looking a fool here) some japanese planes also have cap irons, I think also it was not to add rigidity but to control tearout. The cap iron concept did catch on for sure, single iron bench planes generally became roughing tools. Although not always heavily described in books from the past it's clear that people were aware that a close setting would control surface finish. From experience I have found this to be the case.



Mr. Haydon explained it perfectly well. The modern day infill makers don't rely solely on a thick blade, they also use high bedding angles and very tight mouths. That makes a very dedicated smoother. Which doesn't do anything better then a versatile double iron plane. The classic infill planes, the Norisses and Spiers etc were almost always made with reasonable bedding angles close to 45 degrees and a capiron. Maybe they were on to something....


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2014)

ali27":2ceopuur said:


> .....
> I understand the function of the cap iron. When I
> see infill planes with thick irons, but without a
> chipbreaker making beautiful shaving, I dont see
> ...


With the Bailey design the function of the whole blade unit including cap iron is to make a thin blade viable - thin blades are easier to sharpen - and to facilitate quick removal/replacement/adjustment, which also speeds up sharpening.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (4 Jul 2014)

The cap-iron on a woodie or infill plane acts to break the lifting shaving and reduce it's tendency to break out ahead of the iron. (It's one of several strategies to control or prevent tearout, along with high bedding angles, very narrow mouths or a combination of those.)

The cap-iron in a Bailey-type plane does three things - the above, plus it also stiffens the rather thin, flappy blades many of the less premium planes are provided with, and it also has the small slot near the top that engages the depth adjustment mechanism. Without the cap-iron fitted, the depth adjuster won't work, and the plane would have to be set in the same way as a woodie or non-adjuster infill. (Providing a blade with a depth adjuster slot won't work in the long term - as the blade shortens due to sharpening, the slot will move downwards, shortening the adjustment mechanism range and eventually missing it altogether.)


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2014)

it doesn't work on it's own - it's the whole "blade unit" which does it - combination of cap iron, lever cap, frog, which turns a thin blade into a premium performer. Thicker blades then have no great advantage and take longer to sharpen.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (4 Jul 2014)

Jacob":2enbnnv1 said:


> it doesn't work on it's own - it's the whole "blade unit" which does it - combination of cap iron, lever cap, frog, which turns a thin blade into a premium performer. Thicker blades then have no great advantage and take longer to sharpen.



.... and you know this for certain .... and how?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Jacob":3939o48k said:
> 
> 
> > *Part 1*
> ...


First part is the whole rationale of the Bailey design. The whole point. Odd that it gets overlooked so readily. Odder still that people imagine that Bailey etc would skimp on the detail of blade thickness, having invested so much in the design and development over such a long period.
Second part - everyone knows this.


----------



## CStanford (4 Jul 2014)

The entire Bailey design REVOLVES AROUND a thinner iron for exactly the reasons Jacob stated. It's obvious on its face.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (4 Jul 2014)

You have empirical evidence to support your statement? 

Otherwise it is supposition .... just more blather.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (4 Jul 2014)

It's such a brilliant piece of industrial design. Timeless. Like the chair you're reproducing. It's like asking for empirical evidence that a Van Gogh is a masterpiece. Do you have any empirical evidence that Wegner's The Chair by Golly really isn't THE CHAIR? 

Everything about the Bailey was predicated on a much thinner plane iron than was being used at the time. 

Otherwise, one gets the feeling that Lee Valley must be about to introduce a line of really thick plane irons (or thicker than they currently produce) and this is the start of the campaign to soften up the beachhead for the full-scale internet marketing blitz and "review" lollapalooza to come. 

"Hey, I helped design it (we're told) it's only fitting that I should review it against its competition too." Yeah right, on the planet Biased a few solar systems from ours..

Paul Sellers pleads the case, though he is not in possession of a secret treasure trove of Bailey's letters and notebooks:

Leonard Bailey – Designer, tool maker, inventor and entrepreneur. 

Let me ask you a question. In the 1850’s 99% of the hundreds of thousands of woodworkers were using wooden bodied planes with thick irons which tapered from around5/32” thick to 1/8”. Because the irons were wedged into the body of the plane they needed something that would lock the position of the iron. That way, should fractional slippage take place, the iron wedged between the wooden wedge and the plane body to become immoveable. These irons were hammer forged by drop hammers and then ground to dimension. Leonard Bailey, one of the brilliant woodworking tool designers of the day and a cabinet maker to boot, decided to make a thin iron for his newly invented Bailey-pattern plane. Throughout the ensuing decades, 130 years to be close to precise, no one used a thicker iron. Why? Well it’s dead simple and it wasn’t because they were thick. Bailey’s newly invented thin irons actually worked and worked exceptionally well. They still do and no one can convince me that Leonard Bailey was a dummy when his planes remained virtually unchanged throughout one and a half centuries. No one can convince me that he just missed it and no one can convince me that there was in any way a shortfall in the invention. He was designing a whole plane and he was going against the traditions of the age. He faced great opposition, but Stanley Rule and Level stuck behind him not because they were trying to create a fashionable trend like so many mass makers of tools. No, he invented a plane with thin irons for a strategic reason, stuck to his guns and created an affordable plane. How amazing is that.

There is no doubt that the Bailey pattern plane was a well designed fit-for-purpose product and it is amazing that no one has really bettered it or come up with something different that matched its quality or bettered it. If everyone would readjust their thinking even just a little and look with serious consideration at the Leonard Bailey’s Bailey-pattern plane and then too give credit to the thousands upon thousands of ordinary woodworkers who used them for all those decades without change we would discover a plane of real value and substance. It was indeed a plane engineered to last, yet with the lightweight versatility of a bantamweight boxer.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (4 Jul 2014)

That is a weak effort by your standards, Charles. Not enough deflection. Throw in a few accusations of biased reviews or paid adverts, or something along those lines. You usually do.

After all that is said, you and Jacob still need to show us evidence that thin Stanley blades are the equivalent, or better, than thick plane blades, both in endurance and in performance. Either put up or ....

Waiting ... :roll: 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (4 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> That is a weak effort by your standards, Charles. Not enough deflection. Throw in a few accusations of biased reviews or paid adverts, or something along those lines. You usually do.
> 
> After all that is said, you and Jacob still need to show us evidence that thin Stanley blades are the equivalent, or better, than thick plane blades, both in endurance and in performance. Either put up or ....
> 
> ...



Evidence, like the little kangaroo court/Kabuki theatre totally rigged "reviews" you have a habit of posting?

Go ahead and spill the beans Derek, we know it must be coming. When is Lee Valley going to make the announcement?

You own a Bailey pattern plane (probably several). You recently posted pictures of it post-refurb I think. Go use it. It won't chatter, it'll do anything any other plane around will do. If it won't, the problem likely is not with the plane.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (4 Jul 2014)

Real research and real results Charles, not innuendo. 

Still waiting .... :-" 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (4 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Real research and real results Charles, not innuendo.
> 
> Still waiting .... :-"
> 
> ...



Mail me a Veritas plane and I'll be happy to do a comparison. I'll even involve other woodworkers to assure objectivity and honesty.

No company men, 'design consultants,' magazine editors, tool sellers -- nobody with any connections just people who work wood.

So, you going to tell us when the new LV irons will be out? If you tell me now, I'll wait and review one vs. a thin Stanley iron.


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> ...you and Jacob still need to show us evidence that thin Stanley blades are the equivalent, or better, than thick plane blades, both in endurance and in performance. Either put up or ....
> 
> Waiting ... :roll:
> 
> ...


One large part of the evidence is the hugely favourable reception given to the Stanley/Bailey design - millions of them bought and used to the almost total exclusion of any other designs. 
The amateur woodwork fashion for thick blades is very recent - nobody gave it a thought in the previous 100 or so years and it's based on lack of appreciation of the Bailey design. Neither Bailey nor Stanley, nor all their designers and makers following , nor all the millions of users, though to put thicker blades in their planes. Stupid idea - completely missing the point!
A lot of people can tell you of the excellent performance they get from thin blades - it crops up here often and is certainly my experience.
That they are easier to sharpen is self evident.
Endurance no different (AOTBE) an edge is an edge and needs resharpening according to how much work is done, nothing to do with thickness.
Basically a thin blade properly set up in a good Stanley/Bailey plane is equivalent to a thicker blade. This is the whole point of the design. Putting a thicker blade into the Bailey design is pointless as the cap iron then has no function except as chip breaker - it's not needed as a hold down and a thick blade takes longer to sharpen.
Simple stuff really!


----------



## CStanford (4 Jul 2014)

Jacob":2242823p said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > ...you and Jacob still need to show us evidence that thin Stanley blades are the equivalent, or better, than thick plane blades, both in endurance and in performance. Either put up or ....
> ...



One wonders what point Derek is trying to make with insinuating a thick iron into a Bailey-type plane. There are an abundance of vintage wooden planes available with thick irons from any number of places - auction sites, old tool dealers, etc. 

Any assertion that Bailey's thin iron was a design flaw, unintentional afterthought, or whatever it is he is claiming is obviously ridiculous. I actually have more respect for the man's intelligence to believe he doesn't think they work. He owns these kinds of planes after all. There's something else afoot.

As you've pointed out, all you need is the edge. The planes holds thin irons beautifully. Perhaps it is their ability to be rapidly honed that irritates Derek. This implies that much less frou-frou is needed with respect to one's sharpening set up.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (4 Jul 2014)

Hi Jacob

Hearsay is not evidence. There may be millions satisfied by their Stanley plane blades, but that does not constitute evidence that they are better than other plane blades. Find some research that directly compares like for like. Then you can make a statement that others will respect.

Charles, buy your own plane blades, if this it so important to you to debunk the many positive findings conducted on the PMV-11 blades. I know you have a PMV-11 chisel given to you by Lee Valley. Use it to form the basis of a research project. Show us how it is done. Present methodology that is able to be replicated by others (i.e. the scientific method), and produce the results that demonstrate why you continue to denigrate this steel - you are the only one I know who does so (and I wonder what that says?).

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## woodbrains (4 Jul 2014)

Hello,

There is more to industrial design than just the product being made. Much, and often to a greater extent, it is how it is made, too. Bailey blades are totally made from tool steel, which makes it a simple and cheap process, because there is no forge welding, heavy grinding etc. BUT tool steel is expensive, so keeping the iron thin, mitigates this and makes it easier to cut the blanks, tool steel being tough and all. Like everything in this world, it is a balance of compromise. Bailey blades are economical to make and work well enough for mild mannered timbers. Any thinner, they would be more economical, but work less well or not at all. Thicker, they would incur manufacturing penalties that would increase the cost, though work better. It was a balance, which works for most applications. People who demand/require better performance, due to the type of work they do, can find the compromise lets them down and after market solutions, or better planes are available. It is clear that the demand for these indicates that improvements can be made and are necessary for many. I find that planing softwood and mild timber, the aim of the Bailey design, standard planes are fine. (Though the steel of moder Bailey blades is not good) But I seldom plane softwood and often plane much more demanding timber. The difference between a thicker ironed plane and a standard one, in these circumstances is remarkable. Once my planes have the thick iron, I do not see the point in faffing around with anything else.

BTW Paul Sellers has a rack full of Vertas planes. It seems he preaches one thing and does something entirely different.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Hi Jacob
> 
> Hearsay is not evidence. There may be millions satisfied by their Stanley plane blades, but that does not constitute evidence that they are better than other plane blades.


Oh yes it does! Or are they all mad? (i.e. the plane design making the thin blade as good as a thick one and more usable - not a better blade as such.)


----------



## CStanford (4 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Hi Jacob
> 
> Hearsay is not evidence. There may be millions satisfied by their Stanley plane blades, but that does not constitute evidence that they are better than other plane blades. Find some research that directly compares like for like. Then you can make a statement that others will respect.
> 
> ...



Rob Lee did graciously say that I could keep the chisel he sent for me to demo; I think that this is his standard policy. However, I did not keep the chisel. I returned it with the waterstone he loaned me to hone it with.

As I've said before, I lowered the grind of the chisel and found that the edge very slightly outlasted a Marples Blue Chip I used for comparison. Maybe I hit the Blue Chip jackpot and got a batch of really good ones. I don't know. But that was my honest impression. 

I have not demo'd a plane iron from LV. 

I have used a HSS plane iron and I lost track of how long the edge lasted. Record and Marples used to sell these into the Australian and New Zealand market. Kunz still make them as replacements, FWIW. In the end, I don't care for sharpening HSS unless I have to - some turning tools are very hard to find in anything but.

I can think of no one but you who would call an over 100 year history and millions of satisfied users/planes sold "hearsay."


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (4 Jul 2014)

hear·say (hîrs)
n.
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## woodbrains (4 Jul 2014)

Hello,

At one time, every human being on the planet and all those preceding them, believed the earth was flat. Then one Greek bloke realised evidentially it wasn't. But still the world population continued to believe it was flat, for centuries later. There is no evidence, nor proof by consensus of opinion.

Mike.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Jul 2014)

Hundreds of millions of people use "Windows" (8 or 8.1 if they're unfortunate  )...


----------



## CStanford (4 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> hear·say (hîrs)
> n.
> 1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
> 2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.
> ...



We're off to a 4th of July picnic but I'll leave you with two thoughts:

1) In a legal sense (since you invoked it), and I say this quite confidently, you'd tickle your opponent in court to death by calling anything having to do with the Bailey design, its utility, its commercial success, anything at all -- 'hearsay.' It's laughable. You're out of your element here, Derek. 

2) The Sellers quote in my post above.

Why don't you locate an old Record HSS cutter and compare it to PMVII? It might be fun. You seem to be itching to do a review. Throw a current Kunz HSS in for good measure. 

I think Ward and Payne even made a chisel tipped in HSS at one time. I could be wrong on the manufacturer but I do know that a British concern did at one time.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (4 Jul 2014)

Charles, enjoy your 4th of July picnic. We'll spar more another time. (You will need to find a better comeback than that last one, however).

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## ali27 (4 Jul 2014)

Whether this new steel is anything special or not, I truly have no idea. I would like to
find out of course. So having people report their experiences here is only a good thing.

Furthermore I would expect from the woodworking gentleman here to behave more accordingly.
It's woodworking, we are not going to war. At times it seems that any potential progress makes certain 
woodworkers on this forum feel threatened and they will immediately object to it. As if this progress will 
dimish the status of their tools and therefore them as a woodworker. I find it weird to be honest. If you 
are fine using the stuff you do, then what is the problem?

Of course I respect people here who are protecting new woodworkers from buying unnecessary stuff.
=================================================================

It seems to me that a certain person(we all know who) on this forum is always objecting
to any ''progress''. Everything from the past is good and anything new is not needed. 

-Don't use a ruler for the ruler trick, just slightly lift the back of the blade
-Don't use a jig, not needed
-Don't worry about flattening your stones, just work the whole stone
-Don't bother with thicker irons, the thin ones are good enough
-Don't buy a thick cap iron, the bailey standard one is good enough.
.....................

I have to say, that while I respect every opinion, my personal opinion is that this person
is *deleted, top harsh and perhaps incorrect* and just trolling. I hope the forum owner will take some action because it is
at times really annoying.

Ali


----------



## G S Haydon (4 Jul 2014)

Ali as a fellow reader of posts here it's a really tough call and difficult to know where to draw the line. There is at times a bit too much extra emotion added to the postings. Both sides in whichever debate defend their postions with a great deal of gusto. After being on this forum for about a year I find myself used to it. Sometimes I've reacted foolishly and not kept things in perspective, we're only human after all! I would also I think be reluctant to see it end. My two peneth would be to make sure personal attacks are not welcome here and are policed appropriately but passionate debate on topics people have experience and knowledge of should always be welcome, even if they clash head on sometimes. Like I said, it's hard to know where to draw the line.


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2014)

ali27":1sdr5l95 said:


> ........
> -Don't use a ruler for the ruler trick, just slightly lift the back of the blade
> -Don't use a jig, not needed
> -Don't worry about flattening your stones, just work the whole stone
> ...


Yes I think that'll do for starters, I could add a few more things to the list! NB I do rate the stayset cap iron as an option. Not essential but is effective if you have a problem with cap irons.
I don't know why you find it annoying - the intention is to be helpful, or at least, discursive. 
It certainly helped me - I wasted a lot of time (and some money) with "the new woodworking" until I started getting back to basics. I personally am not annoyed by, say, the flattening craze, but I don't have to agree with it do I?
There is a lot of misunderstanding around - take that recent spat about "camber" - it seemed to me that a few people had no idea how or why it works (i.e. crudely - that a deeper/narrower scoop takes more material away for same effort) so surely it is helpful to talk about these things whether or not you agree with anything in the end.
It's called "discussion" in the grown up world.


----------



## matthewwh (4 Jul 2014)

Ali,

I understand where you are coming from, but it is worth remembering that Jacob also brings with him a wealth of experience. I for one have learned a great deal from some of his posts and others have encouraged me to examine my own opinions in a fresh light.

His pyrrhonic approach to new ideas may not be to everyone's taste, but it contributes enormously to the overall balance of the community. Once you learn to see beyond his sometimes astringent tone, you will find a dry, intelligent and challenging debating partner.

Who knows, in a few years time you might find yourself grumpily espousing the proven reliability of traditional PMV11 blades over their new fangled counterparts!


----------



## ali27 (4 Jul 2014)

I deleted ''dishonest'' because that is just too heavy a word and perhaps even wrong, so apologies
for that. 

I still think this person likes to stir things up just for his own fun now and then. He isn't abusive and 
remains neat. Perhaps his style is ''trolling the gentleman way'' now and then.

Or I haven't been able to get my plane iron really sharp the last few days and I am venting in the wrong
way.


----------



## G S Haydon (4 Jul 2014)

Nothing wrong with a bit of venting ali27


----------



## MIGNAL (4 Jul 2014)

ali27":3vfkbihh said:


> I deleted ''dishonest'' because that is just too heavy a word and perhaps even wrong, so apologies
> for that.
> 
> I still think this person likes to stir things up just for his own fun now and then. He isn't abusive and
> ...




Try a thin Stanley carbon steel blade, sharpened freehand on an Oil stone. Summat like 400 Grit, tops.


----------



## Doug B (4 Jul 2014)

ali27":1e3n80gz said:


> Or I haven't been able to get my plane iron really sharp the last few days and I am venting in the wrong
> way.




Perhaps try 



ali27":1e3n80gz said:


> -Don't worry about flattening your stones, just work the whole stone



:evil:


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2014)

MIGNAL":2v4wvl53 said:


> ali27":2v4wvl53 said:
> 
> 
> > I deleted ''dishonest'' because that is just too heavy a word and perhaps even wrong, so apologies
> ...


 :lol: 
I wouldn't progress to 400 grit until you know you can do a fair job with 250 grit. One step at a time!
Seriously though - you need to know what 250 grit sharpening feels like (in use on a bit of wood :roll: ) before you can appreciate the benefit (if any) of going further.


----------



## CStanford (4 Jul 2014)

ali27":wdt52lrb said:


> Whether this new steel is anything special or not, I truly have no idea. I would like to
> find out of course. So having people report their experiences here is only a good thing.
> 
> Furthermore I would expect from the woodworking gentleman here to behave more accordingly.
> ...



Ali, the plain simple truth is that you can add thick cap irons and thicker irons to a Bailey pattern plane and it really doesn't do much. I have a Record 4 1/2 that came to me with a Hock O1 iron and Clifton two piece, heavy cap iron. The plane works fine. But, I can take the guts out of a Record 6 (iron and chipbreaker) and put it in the 4 1/2 and it planes just as well with all stock Record parts. The only thing you notice is that the 4 1/2 is heavier with the aftermarket parts. It's this additional heaviness that make people think something good is going on. The only problem with this theory is that the wood's surface looks the same regardless. Honest.

You can tweak and fiddle to your heart's delight, but if Hock O1 and a Clifton Stay-Set don't make any difference then you're wasting your time. The Bailey design, when reasonably well executed, really is that good. Enjoy it! Don't let it irritate you.

Recall, also, that there is a challenge in this thread to anybody who can describe in actual and real terms what a longer lasting edge does for their woodworking. If honing an iron takes you more than two minutes (and this is a stretch) then something is wrong. The answer isn't an aftermarket plane iron.


----------



## woodbrains (4 Jul 2014)

Ok, I'll bite. Today I was planing some beech edge lippings on some veneered boards. There were many to make up several carcasses. I had a veritas LA jack A2 iron for levelling the end grain, a Record # 6 fitted with a Clifton iron and cap iron set, for levelling the lipping down to the veneer and planing the edges, and a Stanley #4 -1/2 with standard iron to do a bit of final smoothing. The Record was doing most of the work, the Veritas was doing the most demanding and the Stanley had an easy life doing nothing more than making a few lacy finish shavings. I did not hone the Veritas from the numerous jobs it had already done, the iron looked fine. The Stanley and Record were both sharpened to the same degree on waterstones. Before the end of the job, the Stanley required another honing, neither the Record, nor the Veritas needed touching; the Veritas especially was still producing continuous end grain shavings. The standard Stanley was barely able to cut at all, before I had to re-hone, about halfway through the job. The Record did not falter. This was only using very ordinary Beech, not an ornery wood. Whilst re honing is not a problem for me, the exercise did bring home to me that standard Stanley iron are next to useless, compared to almost anything else I use.

Mike.


----------



## matthewwh (5 Jul 2014)

On white wood you won't notice much if any difference between thin irons and thick, both work fine. Step up to tough natives like pippy oak or mild exotics like bubinga and the difference is like night and day.

You don't need them both to be thicker, even Clifton admit that putting their 2 piece cap iron on a 3mm thick iron is overkill, but you wouldn't spend more money making a worse product when you already make a good one. Fitting either a thicker cap iron or a thicker cutting iron (depending on whether your current iron is deficient or not) is the single biggest difference you can make to performance.

I was talking with a student at a woodworking school who had an old Stanley and a new Quangsheng. The Stanley was suffering from flutter so I suggested that he swap the cap irons around. The look on his face when he tried them was a picture! 

If you want to get into even more interesting woods the other stability benefits of high end planes become increasingly apparent, but for squeezing a bit more out of an old one, beefing up one of the irons gives a significant return on investment.


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2014)

You mentioned that the Stanley 4.5 took lacy finish shavings. Isn't that what it is supposed to do? And you had to re-hone it once, halfway through 'many veneered boards to make up several carcasses?' I'm frankly not seeing a major problem. I'm more apt to re-hone a smoother faster than a plane I'm using to work end grain. I've never been convinced that planing end grain is the be-all and end-all test or that in an instance such as yours that it's more taxing than smoothing longer lengths. It sounds like the other two planes were working narrow sections and the Stanley its full width. I'd say the Stanley was working plenty hard. One re-honing for a smoother working several boards is not an issue or a failure of any sort. It hardly renders it 'worthless.' And if in your judgment it is that, why would you use a worthless plane on such a mission critical application in the first place?


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2014)

matthewwh":jvpwjmkz said:


> On white wood you won't notice much if any difference between thin irons and thick, both work fine. Step up to tough natives like pippy oak or mild exotics like bubinga and the difference is like night and day.
> 
> You don't need them both to be thicker, even Clifton admit that putting their 2 piece cap iron on a 3mm thick iron is overkill, but you wouldn't spend more money making a worse product when you already make a good one. Fitting either a thicker cap iron or a thicker cutting iron (depending on whether your current iron is deficient or not) is the single biggest difference you can make to performance.
> 
> ...



Paul Sellers on plane chatter, worth a read:

http://paulsellers.com/2012/06/plane-ch ... -by-facts/


----------



## Corneel (5 Jul 2014)

It depends a bit on the plane too, I guess. My Stanley #4, made in the UK in a more recent decade, has the bad habbit of chattering a little bit on the start of a plane stroke on hard kinds of wood (Oak, jaoba, merbau, that kind of stuff). And it is with the frog all the way back so the iron has full support and the capiron close to the edge. You have to skew the plane and press on the front quite abit to prevent it from happening. With a thick Ray Iles iron installed, that bad habbit is gone. But my Record #5 jack with cambered iron and the very old Stanley #7 with straight iron don't have that issue at all with the standard blades. 

Chatter somewhere in the middle of the cut is indeed very rare, like Sellers sais too.

Regarding the PMV-11 blades, I'll buy one of these as soon as my old ones are worn out. That may take a little while.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2014)

woodbrains":2kqhrel4 said:


> ..... the exercise did bring home to me that standard Stanley iron are next to useless, compared to almost anything else I use.
> 
> Mike.


They are not standard though. You can find all sorts under the Stanley brand, including laminated.
For me the fact that one plane needs sharpening more often than another isn't an issue - it usually means they are easier to sharpen and it's an excuse for a mini break.

re grit sizes - Paul Sellers suggests 250 grit is good enough for most things. I agree, in fact if you can't get a good edge with 250 grit it's not likely to improve if you go on ever finer.
Beginners and others struggling might be well advised to just stick to a medium fine stone until they can routinely get good results, before moving on to higher numbers.


----------



## woodbrains (5 Jul 2014)

CStanford":24igvlmq said:


> You mentioned that the Stanley 4.5 took lacy finish shavings. Isn't that what it is supposed to do? And you had to re-hone it once, halfway through 'many veneered boards to make up several carcasses?' I'm frankly not seeing a major problem. I'm more apt to re-hone a smoother faster than a plane I'm using to work end grain. I've never been convinced that planing end grain is the be-all and end-all test or that in an instance such as yours that it's more taxing than smoothing longer lengths. It sounds like the other two planes were working narrow sections and the Stanley its full width. I'd say the Stanley was working plenty hard. One re-honing for a smoother working several boards is not an issue or a failure of any sort. It hardly renders it 'worthless.' And if in your judgment it is that, why would you use a worthless plane on such a mission critical application in the first place?




Hello,

I can still get the Stanley iron sharp as my fine Japanese set ones will allow, that is a function of my sharpening, not plane iron performance. The Stanley was working full width, to take of one or two fine finishing shavings. The Record was working full width taking many more, thicker, dimensioning shavings and narrow edge shavings. It did very much more work and if I reduced the depth of cut, would have been able to take the lacy shavings to finish as well. The reason I was using multiple planes was to work a bit of a production line, so I did not have to adjust and re adjust planes, so the Stanley let that down a bit by having to resharpen. Not a biggie, sharpening is not a problem, but it is a real world example of different steels having different edge holding properties, which is the debate we are having. The Veritas, like I said, hadn't been honed before I started that process, so already had work done under its belt. It did not drop off in performance after I worked it here, either. Incidentally, the end grain it was planing butted up to man made boards, with all the nasty hard glue associated with that and enevitable shaved some of that too.

If all three planes were as the Stanley, I would have had to do a lot more sharpening during that job.

All my Bailey planes were bought second hand and had irons in dubious condition, either worn to the slot, rust pitted to beyond reasonable salvage, or user abusers. This Stanley was an exception and still retains the iron it came with. When all the others required their irons replaced, wouldn't I have to be crazy to buy new, stock irons for them? Even QS T10 steel ones are nice steel, better finished and thicker, for a very low price. Aside from the blades that come in Kunz products (possibly their premium line excepted, I haven't tried those) Oh and Anant, I can't think of blades that perform worse. I wish that Stanley had a junker iron too, so I have an excuse to buy a better replacement.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2014)

woodbrains":1wrat451 said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Today I was planing some beech edge lippings on some veneered boards. There were many to make up several carcasses. I had a veritas LA jack A2 iron for levelling the end grain, a Record # 6 fitted with a Clifton iron and cap iron set, for levelling the lipping down to the veneer and planing the edges, and a Stanley #4 -1/2 with standard iron to do a bit of final smoothing. The Record was doing most of the work, the Veritas was doing the most demanding and the Stanley had an easy life doing nothing more than making a few lacy finish shavings. I did not hone the Veritas from the numerous jobs it had already done, the iron looked fine. The Stanley and Record were both sharpened to the same degree on waterstones. Before the end of the job, the Stanley required another honing, neither the Record, nor the Veritas needed touching; the Veritas especially was still producing continuous end grain shavings. The standard Stanley was barely able to cut at all, before I had to re-hone, about halfway through the job. The Record did not falter. This was only using very ordinary Beech, not an ornery wood. Whilst re honing is not a problem for me, the exercise did bring home to me that standard Stanley iron are next to useless, compared to almost anything else I use.
> 
> Mike.


Funny mixture of planes. Especially the 6 on veneered boards - a big brute for heavy work.
I'd be inclined to use a 5 or a 4 for the whole job, with a certain amount of sharpening and adjusting between processes. Using, sharpening, setting, adjusting are all part of the same process of planing. I wouldn't expect to do the last 3 first and then expect to plane without interruption. More of a continuous on-going fiddle.


----------



## woodbrains (5 Jul 2014)

Jacob":1xboqxx1 said:


> woodbrains":1xboqxx1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, I'll bite. Today I was planing some beech edge lippings on some veneered boards. There were many to make up several carcasses. I had a veritas LA jack A2 iron for levelling the end grain, a Record # 6 fitted with a Clifton iron and cap iron set, for levelling the lipping down to the veneer and planing the edges, and a Stanley #4 -1/2 with standard iron to do a bit of final smoothing. The Record was doing most of the work, the Veritas was doing the most demanding and the Stanley had an easy life doing nothing more than making a few lacy finish shavings. I did not hone the Veritas from the numerous jobs it had already done, the iron looked fine. The Stanley and Record were both sharpened to the same degree on waterstones. Before the end of the job, the Stanley required another honing, neither the Record, nor the Veritas needed touching; the Veritas especially was still producing continuous end grain shavings. The standard Stanley was barely able to cut at all, before I had to re-hone, about halfway through the job. The Record did not falter. This was only using very ordinary Beech, not an ornery wood. Whilst re honing is not a problem for me, the exercise did bring home to me that standard Stanley iron are next to useless, compared to almost anything else I use.
> ...



Hello,

They were the planes I had to hand, I wasn't in my usual workshop.

You fiddle away Jacob, one day you'll develop a no-nonesense method of work like I have! :lol: 

Mike.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Jul 2014)

Someone had a modus operandi slightly different to yours, Jacob. Put the man in the stocks for the day!
Seriously, are you honour bound to find fault with every other person? We all know you're perfect, but it gets tedious.


----------



## woodbrains (5 Jul 2014)

Hello,

Actually, the edge lipping was quite wide, ( 1 3/4 in ) as the carcasses were wider than half the width of the sheet material, so I had to make up extra width with the lips. A #6 was no disadvantage, veneered boards are practically engineering flat, so a long wide plane (with a flat sole) was no disadvantage whatsoever. I've done such tasks with a #7 before now.

Mike.


----------



## MIGNAL (5 Jul 2014)

The type of chatter that Sellers writes about is really associated with 'difficult' wood, changing grain direction where the plane meets varying degrees of resistance to the cutting edge. The easiest way of dealing with that is to use a well set up Plane and a very sharp blade set to take wispy shavings. Even my '70's Stanley 5.5 with standard chipbreaker and thin blade works perfectly well on some Bubinga with switching grain. It works perfectly fine on Ebony too, although Ebony really does blunt blades in double quick time. My wooden Jack plane is fantastic at removing material on Ebony but at the expense of some tear out. It can't compete on that score, so I switch to ANY one of my metal Planes that are set up to deal with tear out - pretty much all of them! So it doesn't matter if that happens to be my new Stanley SW, my Record with a SS, my Stanley with Iles and 2 piece Clifton or my Stanley with standard chipbreaker and standard blade. Every single one of them will deal with some pretty nasty timbers. I don't view the 70's Stanley as being inferior to any other of the other Planes. It is well set up and happens to work extremely well. I've never done anything to it, although I suppose it may have been worked on before I acquired it.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2014)

phil.p":1l6l6b08 said:


> Someone had a modus operandi slightly different to yours, Jacob. Put the man in the stocks for the day!
> Seriously, are you honour bound to find fault with every other person? We all know you're perfect, but it gets tedious.


It's called "talking about woodwork" Phil. Are you in the wrong forum or something?


----------



## woodbrains (5 Jul 2014)

Hello,

A very sharp blade is the first course of action to avoid tearout, as Mignal tells us, which is totally at odds with Sellers telling us that 240 grit is as far as we need to go. I really have never met anyone who hasn't noticed that sharper is better. As I say though, Sellers seems to say one thing and do another, he has Veritas planes Sorby chisels and expensive diamond stones to much finer grit than 240 . He is obviously a good craftsman, but I just wish he would relay to the world want he actually does rather than what he would have us believe he does.

Mike.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (5 Jul 2014)

Charles wrote:


> Ali, the plain simple truth is that you can add thick cap irons and thicker irons to a Bailey pattern plane and it really doesn't do much.



Matthew replied:


> On white wood you won't notice much if any difference between thin irons and thick, both work fine. Step up to tough natives like pippy oak or mild exotics like bubinga and the difference is like night and day.



Charles countered:


> Paul Sellers on plane chatter, worth a read:
> 
> veritas-pmv-ii-plane-blades-t70487-105.html



OK, my turn.

Charles, did you actually read that post by Paul Seller .. in full?

First of all note that he is planing English Oak. I am familiar with this, for example, having a bench top made from the stuff. Compared with West Australian woods it is fairly easy to plane, much softer and relatively straight grained. I cannot see how anyone with reasonable experience would find their plane chattering - and that is the point Paul made.

Secondly, this is intended to be a post supporting thin blades, and the reason you have linked to it. I should point out that the original thread is not about thin versus thick blades, but about steel type, namely PMV-11. I have nothing against thin blades - indeed one of my favourite is a Smoothcut, which is the same thickness as a Stanley. Further, I have no problem with standard Stanley blades either. I use them. However they are reserved for benign timber. It is the abrasion resistance on "difficult" timber where the new steels score. On such wood A2 steel outlasts O1 significantly, and PMV-11 outlasts that many times. Why is this so important, you keep asking? Simply because on these woods, when the blade begins to wear, the surface begins to tear out or the surface shows significant deterioration. I have researched the wear of different steels in planing. Have you?

Thirdly, the post by Paul Sellers was interesting. What he revealed was that he does not need a chipbreaker on the Oak he used to avoid tearout - which goes to show that it is benign wood. Kees banged on (as usual) to Paul in that thread that he should have used a chipbreaker up close. Paul replied, "I had thick and thin shavings with the same results regardless of distance. Fact is that 1/32″ to 1/16″ seems ideal to me and that’s after 48 years in daily hand planing my work.". (I am not railing against the chipbreaker - I use it to good effect - just that Paul considered that it was unnecessary for the wood he works).

Now what I find revealing is that Paul goes on to write: "My experience is the frog is too far forward or too far back. If it’s too forward there is minute area for flex, if it’s to far back the iron is fulcrumed (not a word) higher up and also allows a minute flex under contention and so iterent flex allowed."

What this actually indicates is that a thin blade_ does_ flex - if the frog is too far forward or if the frog is too far back it flexes! Perhaps Paul should have listened to Matthew ...



> I was talking with a student at a woodworking school who had an old Stanley and a new Quangsheng. The Stanley was suffering from flutter so I suggested that he swap the cap irons around. The look on his face when he tried them was a picture!



Still, chatter on benign wood is a product of beginner planing. The issue of durability does not come up here. You still need to show that Stanley steel will keep up with PMV-11 on difficult woods.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2014)

I did read it and I think it's an interesting read. I'm not trying to cover up information that does not support my case. I posted an earlier Sellers link and found this one is well. I felt that honesty dictated that I post the second Sellers link.

Chatter can happen, perhaps for the reasons Sellers states, perhaps not. Swirly grain right at the end of the board and too little downward pressure, maybe starting the plane dead straight on the board running against swirly grain where a skewing motion might work best. Maybe the lever cap screw needs an eighth inch turn to the right. I also believe that an uneven/out-of-square grind or irregular curve on the end of the iron or the slightest of humps can cause some problems planing -- chatter and other issues. An accurately ground and honed iron has to be set dead square in the mouth. Subsequent changes in angles are done by skewing the plane. A plane with the lateral adjustment lever slammed to one side or the other to compensate for some other issue will not plane properly or predictably.

When some Bailey pattern planes (Stanleys/Records of a more recent manufacture date) it is absolutely possible to move the frog back so far that the iron is resting on the mouth and not actually the leading edge of the frog. This of course is an incorrect set up. There is some basic level of knowledge required to set up and use any plane. That they are not totally and completely silly person proof isn't a flaw. Sellers did try several plane settings well outside the norm just to see what happened and to see if he could pin down cause. Sounds reasonable to me. Frogs are adjustable by design. A setting at the extremes of travel, too far forward or to far back, is usually not correct. Unfortunately in later years Stanleys, Records, et al. were ground with mouths too wide. This might tempt one to move the frog too far forward in an attempt to close the mouth. 

There are several adjustments possible on a Bailey pattern plane and they all affect, quite markedly, how the plane will perform. Let's see: lever cap tightness, cap iron shaping, cap iron positioning, position of frog, tightness of frog screws, lateral adjustment, iron projection. Then there's the honing and proper shaping of the iron. A misshapen cutting edge is as bad as a blunt cutter. Any curve should be a regular radius and the amount of blade projection has to make sense vis-a-vis the shaping. Capirons should be shaped to fit the curve of the iron. The capiron distance from the cutting edge should be uniform all the way across the cutter. This provides the support the cutter needs all the way across the edge and makes the capiron effective at all points on the cutter's edge which is crucial.

When one does experience chatter it is almost always at the beginning of a plane pass and the plane rarely chatters all the way down the board. This is important, and I believe it's telling. For me, I just bear down harder a skew/slew the plane a little more at the start of the remaining passes on the board. Problem fixed. I absolutely do not see it as an equipment issue or some inherent design flaw. I bet I could make a Holtey chatter at the start of a pass on less than amenable stock. I don't expect anybody would believe that this would be cause to start swapping out parts on it.

I like how Graham Blackburn puts it:

The act of planing is more than pushing a sharp plane across the surface of a piece of wood. If this is all you do, the plane is liable to chatter, stutter, dig in, jam, and otherwise create frustration. You need to be gentle but firm. Like learning to ride a bike, your first stroke must be taken carefully, politely, but with a definite purpose. Push down on the pedals with confidence, not using blind strength, but with a firm confidence, such as you might use to lift an infant—gently, but securely, with no hesitation and yet with enough attention so that if the infant begins to panic your arms remain strong and enfolding but not imprisioning.

Of course, it can be difficult to do all this the first time. You don’t know how it will feel. You are unaccustomed to the resistance that a particular plane on a particular piece of wood will offer. The correct stance will help. Brace and balance yourself so that you will still be secure at the end of the proposed stroke. Breathe in and then as you exhale begin the stroke, firmly and with confidence and determination yet always alive to the possibility of resistance. Lift the plane at the end of the stroke before you lose your balance. (With experience you will learn how to move forward as you plane. For now take short, but complete passes.)

And if a fine shaving eludes you, check again that the iron is sharp, the capiron is fitted and adjusted well, the mouth is properly adjusted, and that the iron is set to the right depth and set straight in the throat—each of which adjustments is a subject in itself!


I appreciate Matthew's experience. I don't know if when fitting the new, thicker cap iron that the lever cap screw was adjusted or not. If not, the lever cap itself would have snapped down a good bit tighter over the thicker cap iron. The screw might have been backed off but it still snapped down tighter than before. It's quite possible that this was the reason for the subsequent success and had nothing to do with the new cap iron. And sometimes the cap can be too tight. The point is to gather a reasonable kit of tools around oneself and learn how they work and how to use them.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2014)

CStanford":grmvtp76 said:


> ......
> When some Bailey pattern planes (Stanleys/Records of a more recent manufacture date) it is absolutely possible to move the frog back so far that the iron is resting on the mouth and not actually the leading edge of the frog. This of course is an incorrect set up. .....


Hmm, have looked into this and can't agree. IMHO the frog and back of mouth should be dead in line so that the blade sits tight to the frog and partly on the back of the mouth too. This gives maximum support where it is needed - close to the edge.


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2014)

Jacob":1tdoj1s2 said:


> CStanford":1tdoj1s2 said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



Oh I agree and perhaps I wasn't clear. There is a frog setting back from the ideal position that you describe that will induce chatter. This is one of the extreme settings that Sellers found that caused chatter during his little experiment.


----------



## woodbrains (5 Jul 2014)

Jacob":l24ddyj4 said:


> CStanford":l24ddyj4 said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



Hello,

Surely he means the frog can be set so far back, the iron will only contact the sole of the plane at the mouth, and be lifted off the frog. This is possible and obviously undesirable. Using a thick iron frees us from the tool dictating the mouth opening by having to stick to lining the frog up with the mouth area. Modern Sranleys would end up with gaping wide mouths in this instance, the machining is so arbitrary.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2014)

woodbrains":3sj9ess9 said:


> Jacob":3sj9ess9 said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":3sj9ess9 said:
> ...



Yes, exactly. He was just establishing the boundaries of the settings to see what would happen. Predictably, nothing good happened at the extremes.


----------



## Corneel (5 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Thirdly, the post by Paul Sellers was interesting. What he revealed was that he does not need a chipbreaker on the Oak he used to avoid tearout - which goes to show that it is benign wood. Kees banged on (as usual) to Paul in that thread that he should have used a chipbreaker up close. [...]



It was a bit hard to comprehend what he wrote about, especially while I was watching the pictures on a cell phone. As far as I understand him, he got that surface in the last picture where you can see some light tearout when zooming into the picture, while plaining against the grain with the capiron set at 3/16". Well, it is no secret that you can cure that behaviour by setting the capiron a lot closer to the edge OR using a higher cutting angle in a bevel up plane. So that was what I wrote to him (banging on....), because Paul doesn't seem to know these techniques, or he doesn't ever (have to) use them.


----------



## woodbrains (5 Jul 2014)

Hello,

Having a plane iron sharpened to 240grit, a cap iron se to 3/16" and a wide open mouth, what exactly is being shown here? Even benign wood can be made to tear out if your tools are set up any old way? It is obvious that Sellers does not work with tools like these, when he does his normal work. Why is he trying to tell us different? It is clear he is blogging and writing articles for self promotion, which is fair enough. Maybe writing anti-articles is his way of getting lots of hits to keep his website high in the listings. Fiendish!

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (5 Jul 2014)

Well, he is not always easy to understand, but what I think he means in this article: http://paulsellers.com/2012/06/plane-chatter-myths-busted-by-facts/, is that you can get away with a really low tech aproach, and have to try hard to get real problems. That's his main philosophy. I don't think he used 250 grit in this article, that was another article, which was written to remind us that super high grits ain't always neccessary. In that article he was plaining pine and the only adverse effect was that he had to push harder. There is a lot of overkill in the current woodworking market, and that is what he is rallying against.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Jul 2014)

Jacob":1li5k3dz said:


> CStanford":1li5k3dz said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



So you can't agree that it's incorrect to have the frog too far back... but IYHO the frog and the mouth should be in line.
Jacob, you are so hell bent on disagreeing with people you are tying yourself up in knots.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2014)

phil.p":lo726uns said:


> Jacob":lo726uns said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":lo726uns said:
> ...


erewego. :roll: 
I think we all agree on this (except you of course). I misread Charles post in the first place - I thought he meant the blade should rest on the frog only, but he meant also the back of the mouth i.e. in line with the face of the frog. It's pretty clear if you bother to read the posts instead of just looking for something to whinge about.
If you find these sorts of chats disturbing have you thought of finding another forum or are you just going to continue sniping pointlessly?
These miserable little personal attacks p|ss everybody off. Nobody wants them. I think you should stop doing it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Jul 2014)

rearrange the following words - black kettle pot calling the the.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (5 Jul 2014)

Jacob wrote: 


> I misread Charles post in the first place ..



Charles has an annoying habit of changing his posts, sometimes writing something completely different. Correcting spelling is one thing (I did that above), but altering the post after other have responded to it is devious. You altered your post above 6 times (at the last count), Charles. Very devious - it is confusing Jacob no end.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## woodbrains (5 Jul 2014)

Corneel":12iqk46u said:


> Well, he is not always easy to understand, but what I think he means in this article: http://paulsellers.com/2012/06/plane-chatter-myths-busted-by-facts/, is that you can get away with a really low tech aproach, and have to try hard to get real problems. That's his main philosophy. I don't think he used 250 grit in this article, that was another article, which was written to remind us that super high grits ain't always neccessary. In that article he was plaining pine and the only adverse effect was that he had to push harder. There is a lot of overkill in the current woodworking market, and that is what he is rallying against.



Hello,

It is easy to set up a plane for best practice and always leave it so. Why doesn't he simply show that, then things are ready to go, no matter what we encounter. There is more faffing only half doing something and having to spend longer correcting a poor outcome, or re doing the sharpening and set up, to get the better result we failed to get because the plane should have been set up better in the first place. It seems there is a lot of conjecture about how fussy woodwork can be, but my planes do not take any longer to sharpen, set the cap iron or use than doing any of these 'simple' methods which still involve taking out blades, sharpening them, and re installing them, EXACTY the same procedure. It mystifies me why people invent things to puppy about. I couldn't make my tools simpler to maintain and use, yet I am constantly being told this, that and the other isn't necessary. Someone tell me how sharpening to a razor edge with only 2 stones can be made simpler and less fussy. But I know I won't get tearout on almost anything I work on.

Mike.


----------



## iNewbie (5 Jul 2014)

Jacob":22fh39hc said:


> phil.p":22fh39hc said:
> 
> 
> > erewego. :roll:
> ...



Nobody wants the pointless ' this is what you should do/own' regarding sharpening or tool ownership nonsense _you _continually spout. Doesn't stop you though, eh? 

You prattle on like a sellers sack-licking disciple while slaughtering any other person you deem follows some other (in you mind) Guru. Its all so funny, mind...


----------



## Harbo (5 Jul 2014)

I have no problems setting up my LV BU planes or my Holtey and have never experienced any chatter at all with them - no matter what timber I've used.
The only plane I've "chattered" is my Stanley No. 4 of 1960's vintage.

I must be doing something wrong?

Rod


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2014)

Yes, you likely are.


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Jacob wrote:
> 
> 
> > I misread Charles post in the first place ..
> ...



This is getting kind of creepy. This 'devious' stuff.

On another note, do you have a theory about why people who have had such sorry luck with Baileys still own them and still apparently use them? Why did you just fairly recently complete the refurbishment of one, to stuff it in a drawer to go unused since it's so sub-par, to keep as a whipping-boy or foil for some review down the road? 

Makes no sense to me at all.

Oh look, I've edited this seven times.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Jul 2014)

Question - how do you set up a Bailey-style plane with a standard iron and standard cap-iron so that it will not chatter under any circumstances on any timber?


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2014)

Which plane? No. 4?

Part of the success will be up to the user and that may be and probably is the problem:

I like how Graham Blackburn puts it:

The act of planing is more than pushing a sharp plane across the surface of a piece of wood. If this is all you do, the plane is liable to chatter, stutter, dig in, jam, and otherwise create frustration. You need to be gentle but firm. Like learning to ride a bike, your first stroke must be taken carefully, politely, but with a definite purpose. Push down on the pedals with confidence, not using blind strength, but with a firm confidence, such as you might use to lift an infant—gently, but securely, with no hesitation and yet with enough attention so that if the infant begins to panic your arms remain strong and enfolding but not imprisioning.

Of course, it can be difficult to do all this the first time. You don’t know how it will feel. You are unaccustomed to the resistance that a particular plane on a particular piece of wood will offer. The correct stance will help. Brace and balance yourself so that you will still be secure at the end of the proposed stroke. Breathe in and then as you exhale begin the stroke, firmly and with confidence and determination yet always alive to the possibility of resistance. Lift the plane at the end of the stroke before you lose your balance. (With experience you will learn how to move forward as you plane. For now take short, but complete passes.)

And if a fine shaving eludes you, check again that the iron is sharp, the capiron is fitted and adjusted well, the mouth is properly adjusted, and that the iron is set to the right depth and set straight in the throat—each of which adjustments is a subject in itself!


I think a shaped and fitted capiron and the right amount of pressure with the lever cap, along with the aforementioned skill in the hand, gets you 99% of the way there. I'd choose a vintage plane from no later than the war and set the frog even with the back of the mouth of the plane, maybe slightly forward if you need a tighter mouth. About a 64th of an inch of "crown" to the iron is about right for a smoother but it MUST be a smooth curve from side to side of the iron. No dips or humps. SHAPE THE CAPIRON TO FIT THE CURVE and set it close to the cutting edge (closer than you would be able to measure with a shop rule). If the distance from the capiron to the cutting edge varies at all, go back and complete the capiron shaping. Set up accordingly the plane should not chatter. If it does you probably need to put more downward pressure on the nose of the plane, especially a No. 4. Don't be reluctant to change lever cap pressure by adjusting the screw. A very small amount of turn equals a pretty big change. It's an adjustment worth experimenting with on your particular plane. Mine tend to be pretty tight, so I get the iron centered and the projection about where I want it. Depth adjustments are a little tough and you only want to have to move the lateral adjustment a smidgen, if at all.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Jul 2014)

Any of them, but non-bedrock specifically.


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2014)

Cheshirechappie":f7kosmcf said:


> Any of them, but non-bedrock specifically.



See above. I have no advice for a Bedrock. I don't own one. I suppose It theoretically would tolerate a little more frog projection to close the mouth of the plane. Other than that, everything I said above.

Check the plane's sole for twist. If it's twisted you'll need to address the sole.


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2014)

Harbo":18ghxgol said:


> I have no problems setting up my LV BU planes or my Holtey and have never experienced any chatter at all with them - no matter what timber I've used.
> The only plane I've "chattered" is my Stanley No. 4 of 1960's vintage.
> 
> I must be doing something wrong?
> ...



Lee Valley, Holtey, and 1960s Stanley (UK I presume). Spend a little more money for an older U.S. made Stanley and then let's revisit the matter. With those other fine planes in the rotation it might make sense to drop it altogether. What, really, would be the point in sweating the performance of a 1960s Stanley UK plane with these other planes available?


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2014)

Chatter in the sense of those fine close parallel lines you get when you work a well set up plane hard, is probably unavoidable - except by working it less hard.
The other sorts of chatter seem to be down to badly supported workpiece, badly set up plane, etc, etc, Basically doing it wrong and hence avoidable.

PS those fine parallel lines I first encountered in glazing rebates of Victorian and older windows. At first I thought they were some sort of machine roller lines (perfect and regular like a thicknesser feed roller). Then I found you could get them by working a rebate plane hard - cuts with a buzz or zip noise.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2014)

woodbrains":2vw0qb6g said:


> ...., Sellers seems to say one thing and do another, he has Veritas planes Sorby chisels and expensive diamond stones to much finer grit than 240 . He is obviously a good craftsman, but I just wish he would relay to the world want he actually does rather than what he would have us believe he does.
> 
> Mike.


I think he is like a lot of us - in a state of constant dialogue with himself about how things are done - so sometimes he says/tries one thing, sometimes another. That's OK nobody should expect a definitive final answer to most of these issues - it's a process.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Jul 2014)

It wasn't a trick question, and I wasn't trying to be [email protected] - I'm not trying to trip anybody up.

Many moons ago, I was using my 1980s Record 07 (standard iron, standard capiron) to true up some beech. Hard stuff, but by no means as hard as some of the jungle-woods. No matter what I did, it chattered at the beginning of the stroke (never previously had that problem on the redwood and mahogany I'd worked before). Tried sharpening it - same. Capiron nicely fitted? Check. Skewing the cut on entry? Yep, tried that - still chattered. Shallower depth of cut? Well - that worked, but I was down to wispy shavings by the time it did - not much good for trying up several boards for a project; I'd have been there for weeks. Frog set to give a fine mouth? Frog set level with the back of the mouth? Yep - tried both. Planing slowly with heavy downward pressure? Yep, tried that. Chattered either way.

I solved that one in the end by just ignoring the chatter when trying up the boards, and taking it out with a very fine-set smoothing plane (brand new Lie Nielsen, not long after they were first available in the UK).

A year or so later, I fitted the 07 with a newly-released Axminster Victor iron - that's a Clifton iron before they were called Clifton. I've never had a chatter problem with that plane since, no matter what I've planed with it. My conclusion is that Bailey-type planes in standard configuration are prone to chatter when doing real work on harder woods.

Now. I'm only an amateur, and may well be doing it all wrong. However, I can only report my own experience. A 1980s Record 07 with standard iron and cap-iron chattered when working beech no matter what I fiddled with frog settings, planing methods etc., but when fitted with a slightly thicker iron it hasn't chattered since.

What was I doing wrong?


----------



## MIGNAL (5 Jul 2014)

I've used my 'standard' '70's 5.5 on all sorts of hardwood - Euro Box, Hornbeam, Laburnum, Oak, Beech, Bubinga, Indian Rosewood, Braz. Rosewood, Ebony, African Blackwood. 
It's certainly not prone to chatter, although it does have an old but thin (2 mm's) replacement Acorn blade.


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2014)

Cheshirechappie":37a09xpo said:


> It wasn't a trick question, and I wasn't trying to be [email protected] - I'm not trying to trip anybody up.
> 
> Many moons ago, I was using my 1980s Record 07 (standard iron, standard capiron) to true up some beech. Hard stuff, but by no means as hard as some of the jungle-woods. No matter what I did, it chattered at the beginning of the stroke (never previously had that problem on the redwood and mahogany I'd worked before). Tried sharpening it - same. Capiron nicely fitted? Check. Skewing the cut on entry? Yep, tried that - still chattered. Shallower depth of cut? Well - that worked, but I was down to wispy shavings by the time it did - not much good for trying up several boards for a project; I'd have been there for weeks. Frog set to give a fine mouth? Frog set level with the back of the mouth? Yep - tried both. Planing slowly with heavy downward pressure? Yep, tried that. Chattered either way.
> 
> ...



Cap iron was shaped to the blade's curve and set close? Did you adjust the lever cap screw to change the pressure (up or down?) Change the frog's position? I'm not being facetious when I say that I believe there was an adjustment or change in technique that would have worked. 

I came into the craft when the only replacement cutters readily available were the sames ones we already had in the plane. No help there. That doesn't help you, but I guess it changed my outlook a bit.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2014)

Cheshirechappie":3uewlhae said:


> It wasn't a trick question, and I wasn't trying to be [email protected] - I'm not trying to trip anybody up.
> 
> Many moons ago, I was using my 1980s Record 07 (standard iron, standard capiron) to true up some beech. Hard stuff, but by no means as hard as some of the jungle-woods. No matter what I did, it chattered at the beginning of the stroke (never previously had that problem on the redwood and mahogany I'd worked before). Tried sharpening it - same. Capiron nicely fitted? Check. Skewing the cut on entry? Yep, tried that - still chattered. Shallower depth of cut? Well - that worked, but I was down to wispy shavings by the time it did - not much good for trying up several boards for a project; I'd have been there for weeks. Frog set to give a fine mouth? Frog set level with the back of the mouth? Yep - tried both. Planing slowly with heavy downward pressure? Yep, tried that. Chattered either way.
> 
> ...


Dunno - but you fixed it! Could have been the blade, the sharpening, the set, the wood, your technique. 
I don't really get chatter - or rather, if I do I stop and start again. If the board is a bit convex then you might get a skip if you go for a full cut so you have to take out the middle first, and so on. Many variables.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Jul 2014)

MIGNAL":100mc9rk said:


> I've used my 'standard' '70's 5.5 on all sorts of hardwood - Euro Box, Hornbeam, Laburnum, Oak, Beech, Bubinga, Indian Rosewood, Braz. Rosewood, Ebony, African Blackwood.
> It's certainly not prone to chatter, although it does have an old but thin (2 mm's) replacement Acorn blade.



So your experience is different to mine. Jacob (above) reckons it's almost inevitable when working a plane hard - certainly what I found on the beech, but not since I've fitted a slightly thicker iron. Charles reckons there's always a way to avoid it, even with standard irons.

Maybe we should all just stick to our own ways and preferences, and stop bickering about it?


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2014)

Cheshirechappie":2mf2he9b said:


> .... Jacob (above) reckons it's almost inevitable when working a plane hard - ...


Only that type 1 chatter (Sellers 1st photo). The other sort is you doing it wrongly I'm afraid.


----------



## MIGNAL (5 Jul 2014)

Cheshirechappie":1sujdf76 said:


> MIGNAL":1sujdf76 said:
> 
> 
> > I've used my 'standard' '70's 5.5 on all sorts of hardwood - Euro Box, Hornbeam, Laburnum, Oak, Beech, Bubinga, Indian Rosewood, Braz. Rosewood, Ebony, African Blackwood.
> ...



I've experienced chatter with Woodies on 'hard' timber. A hollow on the sole (just in front of the mouth) also results in poor performance, with a tendency for the Plane to skip. All my Planes have been fettled, except the 5.5 (which may have been) and the Stanley SW.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Jul 2014)

Jacob":1xmtpqpc said:


> Cheshirechappie":1xmtpqpc said:
> 
> 
> > .... Jacob (above) reckons it's almost inevitable when working a plane hard - ...
> ...



Yep - that 'type 1' (Sellers 1st photo) was the sort I was referring to. Lots of very shallow parallel lines about 1/8" apart. I wasn't getting the Sellers type 2 second photo sort.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2014)

Cheshirechappie":f75ywywe said:


> Jacob":f75ywywe said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":f75ywywe said:
> ...


Well if it's cutting OK (except for the chatter) then reserve a few slower careful strokes to finish off smooth without the chatter. Perhaps resharpen and set for the final smoothing.
if that doesn't work use a different plane.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Jul 2014)

Well, I don't need to bother, now. Since it's had the Victor iron in it it hasn't chattered at all, not even type 1.

Maybe it's down to ways of working. Some just accept (type 1) chatter as 'one of those things' when working a plane hardish on harder woods, and remove the marks later with a different plane, or scraper, or sander. Other people don't want the type 1 chatter at all, and use other means - thicker iron, or Charles' tweeks, to avoid it. Maybe some planes - like Mignal's 5 1/2 - are just not prone to it.

Different people, different ways - as D.H.Lawrence once wrote.


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2014)

Cheshirechappie":13cyy89d said:


> Well, I don't need to bother, now. Since it's had the Victor iron in it it hasn't chattered at all, not even type 1.
> 
> Maybe it's down to ways of working. Some just accept (type 1) chatter as 'one of those things' when working a plane hardish on harder woods, and remove the marks later with a different plane, or scraper, or sander. Other people don't want the type 1 chatter at all, and use other means - thicker iron, or Charles' tweeks, to avoid it. Maybe some planes - like Mignal's 5 1/2 - are just not prone to it.
> 
> Different people, different ways - as D.H.Lawrence once wrote.



To the 'Victor' go the spoils....


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (6 Jul 2014)

What is interesting is that this is a discussion of actually working wood!

What works for one may not work (as easily) for another. Many of us here are not professionals and many of us here don't even have the time to learn to be accomplished hobbyists. So (in my case) it comes down to what can do the job. If I had the time, I would love to spend a week taking a course taught by Paul Sellers, though I would no doubt be a bit confused by what he may say and what he may actually do!

Years ago, when I worked for a living (started a manufacturing business (powdered metal parts) in 1989) I was a journeyman carpenter, and served a 4 year apprenticeship. This thread reminds me greatly of coffee and lunch break discussions I enjoyed among the older, skilled workers. All had their methods, all defended their methods as being the correct, only method. Discussions became really heated, but ended the moment the break time did and all returned to work. From the moment on, it was all for one and one for all. For that, though sometimes I may not agree with some posts here, I believe the intent is good and that is guidance in the skills that many have here and freely share.

There is not a single person in this thread that I would not enjoy meeting in person and listening to their methods of work!


----------



## CStanford (6 Jul 2014)

Jeff Gorman on chatter:

"Chatter is evidence of a plane's misbehaviour that produces regularly spaced very shallow marks very roughly 1mm apart or less. Look for a slack lever cam failing to properly hold down the cutting iron. * In fact, the only way I could get my Stanley smoother to do this was to so loosen the lever cap screw that the lever cap almost rattled as I worked. * [emphasis added] The lever cap setting screw should be so adjusted that one can only just release the lever with finger and thumb and the feed wheel can be conveniently operated. Naturally, the cap iron should be a good fit against the cutting iron."

http://www.amgron.clara.net/skitterchatter63.html


----------



## Jacob (6 Jul 2014)

Cheshirechappie":30h6ydk3 said:


> Well, I don't need to bother, now. Since it's had the Victor iron in it it hasn't chattered at all, not even type 1.
> 
> Maybe it's down to ways of working. Some just accept (type 1) chatter as 'one of those things' when working a plane hardish on harder woods, and remove the marks later with a different plane, or scraper, or sander. Other people don't want the type 1 chatter at all, and use other means - thicker iron, or Charles' tweeks, to avoid it. Maybe some planes - like Mignal's 5 1/2 - are just not prone to it.
> 
> Different people, different ways - as D.H.Lawrence once wrote.


Yep - it's down to "marginal gains" a la Team Sky- working on all details of what you have rather than looking for single solutions. 
So PMV-II is unlikely to help our OP (he has problems sharpening anyway, not to mention the problem of being an offensive twerp :roll: ).
And ever finer grits won't help anyone who can't get a working edge with coarser grits... and so on.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (6 Jul 2014)

Jacob":3iz3m0p0 said:


> Cheshirechappie":3iz3m0p0 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I don't need to bother, now. Since it's had the Victor iron in it it hasn't chattered at all, not even type 1.
> ...



In making reference to 'problems sharpening', I think you may have confused the OP with another poster. I'm sure we'll all ignore the slight aberration of a regular member who never insults others insulting another.

Out of vague interest (because I'm not in the market for a replacement plane iron) I had a quick whizz through what was available. Sources of information were APTC and Workshop Heaven, so whilst not a complete survey, probably sweeps up most of what's available. I looked at the prices and specifications of 2" Bailey-type bench plane irons, to get a fair comparison.

Cheapest are the Stanley like-for-like replacements, thin (2mm?), and about a tenner. Then there's the Quangsheng water-hardening thicker (3mm) iron at just under £20. Next, Ray Iles thicker O1 iron at £25 plus, and then the Veritas, Lie-Nielsen and Ray Iles harder steels irons and the Clifton multiple-strike forged O1 iron at about £40 - £50 (LV and LN are A2, Ray Iles is D2). Then the thinner Japanese laminated iron at close to £60, and the LV PMV-11 at just over £60.

That's quite a selection, and a fair range of specifications, too. Should be something in there for all tastes. What slightly surprised me is that I'd always thought of Cliffie irons as being expensive relative to the competition, but it seems they're in about the same parish on price. Obviously, there's a premium for PMV-11, but not much over the thin Japanese laminated iron.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (6 Jul 2014)

The prices in the post above were from memory - here are the accurate ones. 

Price for one iron, 2" Bailey type, including VAT but without any bulk discounts or special offers. Sources, as above, APTC and Workshop Heaven. Thicknesses are approx - some are 1/8" (3.2mm).

Stanley 2mm £11-94
Quangsheng T10 3mm £19-00
Ray Iles O1 3mm £25-20
Lie-Nielsen A2 3mm £36-44
Ray Iles D2 3mm £37-20
Veritas A2 & O1 3mm £43-94
Clifton O1 3mm £46-60
Japanese Laminated 2mm £55-44
Veritas PMV-11 3mm £58-94


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Jul 2014)

Hi CC

I have compared these blades in two assessments recently, the first bevel up vs bevel down, and the second bevel down only. Both involved shooting end grain, which tested the edges severely for abrasion resistance.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... Plane.html

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

The results could be summarised as follows:

1. When shooting, a low cutting angle (37 degrees) in a BU plane outlasts and performs better than a higher cutting angle (45 degrees) in a BD plane.

2. Bevel down planes clearly benefit from a 30 degree bevel angle. It is significantly superior to a 25 degree bevel angle.

3. The Clifton HCS (W1?) blade proved to be the worst performer of all, even with the added insurance of a higher (30 degree) bevel angle.

4. The LV A2 blade in BU mode far exceeded the LN A2 blade in BD mode, even when the LV was honed at 25 degrees and the LN at 30 degrees.

5. Second best blade was the Smoothcut, a Japanese laminated blade. Third best was the LN A2 (note that a LV A2 was not used in BD mode).

6. Even the PMV-11 blade at 25 degrees in a BD plane is ordinary. Hone it at 30 degrees and it produces a performance that outclasses everything else.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Cheshirechappie (6 Jul 2014)

Hi Derek!

We've now got an objective comparison on performance and an objective comparison on price, so all we need is an objective comparison on sharpenability and we'll have totally confused everyone!

In the end, a lot comes down to either a) I've got it so I'll use it, or b) personal preference.

I like my Cliffie iron (they're O1 steel by the way - water-hardening grades seem to be just about unobtainable from steelmakers or stockholders in the UK), so despite it's dismal performance in your trials, I'm sticking with it - at least until I wear it out!


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Jul 2014)

Hi CC

O1 steel is a little easier to hone than the others, but not so much that this is a significant issue. It is relevant that my sharpening method is factored into this to understand why I say that the different steels are similar to hone. I hollow grind all blades on a Tormek, and then freehand on the hollow. The Tormek can hollow grind safely to the leading edge of the blade, and this reduces the amount of steel to hone to a minimum. As a result, all blades require no more than a few strokes on a waterstone. The waterstones are Shapton Pro 1000, Sigma 6000 and 13000. 

The PMV-11 steel is about the same effort to hone as A2, and does not require a special honing medium. None of the steels require a special sharpening medium (unlike PM steels, such as M4), if you hollow grind. A2 is definitely more work than O1 if honing the same thickness and if you are honing full bevel faces. 

Keep in mind that there are no thin A2 blades that I know of, and all comparisons that are done with Stanley HCS are not apples vs apples. That is not a good reason to use O1 steel, however, since they last considerably less time than A2 (e.g. Clifton vs LN).

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (6 Jul 2014)

Has anybody extrapolated or estimated how many honings in a real work-day might be saved by any of these 'superior' steels that won the competition? A couple or three? Ten minutes, tops. Does it matter? Nobody shoots end grain for eight hours straight. If you can mark a square line and saw to it, what maybe three swipes and you're done? Why are you guys showing so much end grain that it needs to be planed to perfection in the first place?

Test these steels four-squaring boards with a No 6. I know that you ASSUME the results will be the same but you might be surprised. Indulge us just this once. Quit using end grain tests as a proxy. It only consumes a very small percentage of the use of a hand plane. It's like testing a new airplane by taxiing it around the airport and never getting airborn. I'd personally be thankful if you never planed endgrain again in any of your reviews.

Four square ten to fifteen board feet of 4/4 rough sawn material for each blade tested THEN report the results. Too much work? Not enough time? Science, nobody ever said it was easy, quick, or inexpensive to do right.

And yes, I do realize you'll have to plane a little end grain when you're four squaring. That's OK I guess. It's real world.


----------



## iNewbie (6 Jul 2014)

Jacob":3l5vber0 said:


> So PMV-II is unlikely to help our OP (he has problems sharpening anyway, not to mention the problem of being an offensive twerp :roll: ).



Pure butler bait right there - should anyone expect anything less from the forums most prolific, Master-baiter...


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Jul 2014)

CStanford":2nw4iqsz said:


> Has anybody extrapolated or estimated how many honings in a real work-day might be saved by any of these 'superior' steels that won the competition? A couple or three? Ten minutes, tops. Does it matter? Nobody shoots end grain for eight hours straight. If you can mark a square line and saw to it, what maybe three swipes and you're done? Why are you guys showing so much end grain that it needs to be planed to perfection in the first place?
> 
> Test these steels four-squaring boards with a No 6. I know that you ASSUME the results will be the same but you might be surprised. Indulge us just this once. Quit using end grain tests as a proxy. It only consumes a very small percentage of the use of a hand plane. I'd personally be thankful if you never planed endgrain again in any of your reviews.
> 
> ...



Hi Charles

The reason it was end grain was simply because I was testing shooting planes. This did offer a unique opportunity to use BU and BD orientations with similar steels.

Your underlying argument is (1) that one should get enough distance from a O1 blade that it matters not whether one can get more with another steel, and (2) that O1 has a better edge (fine grain) and is worth the effort of sharpening more frequently.

It is possible to extrapolate to gain a picture for (1). Consider than the Clifton could not go beyond 22 passes on a short board length (I forget how long - possibly 9"). The LN A2 lasted a third longer. The LV PMV-11 was still going strong after 60 passes.

Even if you triple the passes for face grain, we are not seeing coverage that will last more than 15 minutes from the Clifton, about 25 minutes from the LN, and about 60 minutes from the LV PMV-V11. Now if you were planing for 3 hours in the day, you would have touched up the Clifton 12 times, the LN 7 times, and the LV 3 times. Assume that you can hone a blade in 5 minutes (including dissembling and re-assembling the plane), the Clifton is taking up an extra 45 minutes in the day over the LV. That is a significant amount of time in just a 3 hour-planing day. 

Point (2) is that the fine grain of O1 is an advantage. Well I agree it is over A2 - if you are not sharpening with modern media. On the other hand, PM steels have finer grain than O1, so you are actually worse off with O1 in comparison to PMV-11.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (6 Jul 2014)

INewbie, I'll answer your original question. Yes, PMVII does appear to be worth the extra if you accept: 1) you intend to confine its use to endgrain; 2) you assume that tests on endgrain are a fair proxy for the rest of the uses to which you might put the plane into which the PMVII is installed. 3) Saving an absolute maximum of forty minutes a workday (see my post below) in re-honing time makes a huge difference in your life.


----------



## CStanford (6 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> CStanford":10etpxk4 said:
> 
> 
> > Has anybody extrapolated or estimated how many honings in a real work-day might be saved by any of these 'superior' steels that won the competition? A couple or three? Ten minutes, tops. Does it matter? Nobody shoots end grain for eight hours straight. If you can mark a square line and saw to it, what maybe three swipes and you're done? Why are you guys showing so much end grain that it needs to be planed to perfection in the first place?
> ...



Oh, I see. Twelve times for the Cliffy in three hours of work.

I need to get a cloth to clean the spewed coffee off my screen.

Come on, Derek.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Jul 2014)

Then you extrapolate the figures for yourself. The details are there. Do the sums. 

Keep in mind that the wood used, Curly Marri, is very hard and interlocked. Planing its end grain is actually easier than planing its face grain. Of course, softer and straight grained US woods would produce different results. Nevertheless the ratios would be expected to be the same.

If you plan to work with Pine or Oak or Cherry, then your mileage is going to be different to using Jarrah and other hardwoods, especially those that are abrasive. Be sensible now. It would be a good idea for the UK contingent to do their sums as well.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (6 Jul 2014)

I at least appreciate the acknowledgment that face grain can be tougher than end grain. Testing steel on face grain, regardless of species, makes a lot more sense to me and certainly reflects how planes are used most of the time.

Your math works inasmuch as it's a closed system - your inputs equal your outputs. That said something still seems amiss, marri or not. At best, a vague uneasiness with the implications and extrapolations.

At any rate, I'm quite comfortable calling a honing every 15 minutes (four times per hour) a total worst-case scenario. That's catching the edge just as it goes off so the re-honing I would expect to take 90 seconds or less (certainly less with the premium media you use). 90 seconds four times per hour, 360 seconds per hour, six minutes per hour, eighteen minutes in three hours. Check me, please.

So, still, in three hours of continuous planing that's six minutes per hour spent honing for a total honing time of 18 minutes of honing over a three hour period. In essentially what would amount to a whole day there would be about 40 minutes (give or take) spent honing, assuming breaks for lunch and tea. And my scenario and further quantification of your own results assumes, quite generously, that the PMVII doesn't have to be touched at all during the day. 

And this is the absolute worst-case and won't be the case, obviously, day in and day out and at all times and in all places.

Life changing? Work changing? Worth all the Sturm and Drang? Worth the time you've spent teasing out the results? Hardly. In anybody's world, hardly.

This is why Australian museums of decorative art are full of pieces built in the difficult woods you always write about and built when high carbon steel was the only game in town. They just knocked them out without blinking. They had the 40 minutes in a day to spare given the end results they were after.

Now that all of this has been quantified and nicely tied up in a bow, can it be put to rest now? The worst-case has been established and it is entirely insignificant by any reasonable measure -- professional or avid hobbyist. Nice job. Your work is done.

Since you invoked 'the maths' though I can't help but be curious by what measure you find all this to be so groundbreaking. Please, tell me there's more. Given the work you've done this cannot possibly be all you have, a 40 minute time savings in an entire day, at best.


----------



## ali27 (6 Jul 2014)

Let me make this matter easy. 

-One advantage A2 has over 01, is that you could use
it about twice as long before you needed sharpening, correct?

-Another advantage is A2 is more corrossion resistant.
sharpening

-The disadvantage is that A2 does not get as sharp an edge as 01 with most 
waterstones and natural stones.

PMV11 supposedly gives an edge as fine(even finer?) as an 01 edge, but lasts
3 times longer. That seems great. There have been some reports from users
that this steel does indeed last longer than A2(and therefore longer than 01),but
I haven't read much about how sharp it actually can become. 

For me personally, I will only buy an iron if the edge can get super sharp. With A2
this is not possible(unless you use diamond honing). I need more information about
how sharp it actually gets with regular waterstones.

If Pmv11 can get as sharp as 01 or sharper even, lasts much longer and has some 
corrosion resistance, that makes it a real winner for me. 

Ali


----------



## CStanford (6 Jul 2014)

PMVII does not get sharper than a quality piece of O1 tool steel. This may be the new marketing thrust, but it's bunk. And the longevity claims in multiples (two to three times as long) arch one's eyebrows as well. I can personally attest that this is not the case with the chisels. Edges last a little longer, yep they do. Sharper initially? No. I think a skilled cabinetmaker would be willing to take a PMVII chisel through one more dovetailed corner than he or she might an O1 chisel. The time savings would be one O1 chisel honing session, about 90 seconds to two minutes depending on whether one took a moment to glance out the window or perhaps scratch their ear.


----------



## Jacob (6 Jul 2014)

ali27":j92diu05 said:


> ..
> -Another advantage is A2 is more corrossion resistant.
> ...


There's a trick to fighting corrosion which doesn't involve buying expensive blades - basically you keep them out of water. Not many people know this and the fashion for water stones doesn't help.
I've never had a corrosion problem in 50 years. I don't take special care except I wouldn't leave my kit out in the rain, or in a pond.


----------



## matthewwh (6 Jul 2014)

To get corrosion resistance you need to add chromium, add a bit you get better strength and hardenability, add more you lose edge taking ability, add lots you begin to get corrosion resistance at 12% but also begin to lose toughness. Which is why carbon steel chefs knives are preferred to stainless and no one has produced plane irons in stainless. 

It's easy to think that you could use price as a guide and just spend progressively more to get a progressive improvement in all aspects edge taking, edge holding, sharpenability, an so on, but it couldn't be further from the truth. 

Air hardening D2 die steel for example is like A2 on steroids, massive wear resistance, terrible edge taking. It is a complete pig to sharpen and expensive because it is also a complete pig to grind, but in a scrub plane or a jack where finish is not an issue the edge retention is very good. 

A2 is somewhere between D2 and O1, personally I'm not a big fan but others like it. I read somewhere that the difference in wear resistance is only 6% better than O1 - which leaves the rest of the claims that it holds its edge 5 times longer down to a different honing angle. Air hardening steels cannot be differentially hardened, they need multi-stage tempering to produce a decent grain structure so they are more expensive to process than oil hardening steels.

T10 on the other hand is an almost pure carbon steel, so pure that it requires a fast quench in water to harden it. Chemically it is very close to the steels used in Japanese chisels, straight razors and the older Sheffield blades. Because of its purity it takes a superb edge and has a higher optimum hardness of RC63 vs RC60-61 for the slightly more alloyed but far more predictable O1. The extra hardness translates to edge durability, I can certainly go significantly longer with T10 than I can with O1 (nothing scientific, just an observation). I'm sure if T10 irons were made in the UK or US they would cost 3 times the price.

O1 has become the standard carbon steel for edge tools in the west, it takes a very good edge and it's predictability makes it suitable for mechanised or hand production. It is also widely available. Although it is more predictable than water hardeners you could nonetheless spend a lifetime working with it and still be learning all the way through. You may have noticed that it is the steel by which others are measured - you don't become a global benchmark by accident.

PM steels are made from powder and usually baked into the shape of the finished object under pressure, however they can also be ground or machined. If moulding, there is a scale requirement to make production viable, which is why a relatively big (and forward thinking) outfit like LV can get to the sort of volumes that begin to make it a sensible proposition. PM steels offer new possibilities which we are really only just beginning to understand what they may be capable of.


----------



## Jacob (6 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> .... That is not a good reason to use O1 steel, however, since they last considerably less time than A2 (e.g. Clifton vs LN).
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek


Unless you are working in the old fashioned way and half your working life is taken up planing, or if you are an obsessive sharpener, it's likely that an 01 (or any steel) plane blade will last you for life. If you have several planes then several lives.


----------



## G S Haydon (6 Jul 2014)

Jacob":3b5jj9ez said:


> woodbrains":3b5jj9ez said:
> 
> 
> > ..... the exercise did bring home to me that standard Stanley iron are next to useless, compared to almost anything else I use.
> ...



I gave the 250 grit a try, although by the book is was 220 (coarse india) http://www.sharpeningsupplies.com/Sharp ... 21C60.aspx

I guess different peoples sharpening mediums are worn in a bit more than mine but 220 was like using a toothing plane. There was no way I could use a coarse india for any sensible task apart from light grinding. I gave it a light strop but it really was pointless.

I moved back to fine india and the surface finish was great again. I'm not sure I would recommend anyone try sharpening at 220>250 coarse india unless shaping a tool or removing a nick. The photos are on Euro Redwood which as we all know is milder than mild.


----------



## CStanford (7 Jul 2014)

The job of a honing media is to collapse the ridges left by the media before it. A two-stone combination is effective and efficient. It could be coarse/fine or medium/fine or fine/extrafine. The first stone removes bluntness, the second stone collapses the ridges left by the first stone, the edge will then work regardless of which of these modalities you choose. As counterintuitive as it may sound, the fine/extrafine mode won't necessarily leave a 'better' edge than the coarse/fine combination. If you just work the bevel with the two stones and then strop the burr off an already polished and flat back then it's practically impossible for most tasks to tell the difference in performance between any of these combinations.

The deciding factor is how quickly you want to remove bluntness (no real need to dilly-dally) and how far the edge was let go to bluntness and beyond. It's an approach that minimizes investment of time honing and money-in-kit.

Fine/extra fine gives a slightly smoother entry into the wood which can be helpful when carving. For planing and normal bench work with chisels the others work fine as I think you already know and have experienced.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (7 Jul 2014)

CStanford":i99l6pj7 said:


> PMVII does not get sharper than a quality piece of O1 tool steel. This may be the new marketing thrust, but it's bunk. And the longevity claims in multiples (two to three times as long) arch one's eyebrows as well. I can personally attest that this is not the case with the chisels. Edges last a little longer, yep they do. Sharper initially? No. I think a skilled cabinetmaker would be willing to take a PMVII chisel through one more dovetailed corner than he or she might an O1 chisel. .......



Just for the record, that is utter and total misinformation. Charles, you must really have an issue to post such [email protected] There are a number of assessments out, including a few by myself (under scientific rules) and the one referred to at the start of this thread. What testing have you done with a scientific focus (tests with replicatable methodology). Your one-time use of one chisel no doubt was so biased you only saw what you wanted to see.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (7 Jul 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> CStanford":jlbyf1y0 said:
> 
> 
> > PMVII does not get sharper than a quality piece of O1 tool steel. This may be the new marketing thrust, but it's bunk. And the longevity claims in multiples (two to three times as long) arch one's eyebrows as well. I can personally attest that this is not the case with the chisels. Edges last a little longer, yep they do. Sharper initially? No. I think a skilled cabinetmaker would be willing to take a PMVII chisel through one more dovetailed corner than he or she might an O1 chisel. .......
> ...



'Under scientific rules...,' oh brother please. You must think the entire woodworking world other than you and the people who reflexively agree with you (the vast majority of whom are shopaholics or those who supply them) are total idiots. 

The sad and unfortunate thing is the the tools are fine. They don't really need the hype. They're good tools. Lee Valley doesn't sell junk. But for some reason you think it's your job to overhype, oversell, and overexaggerate the performance of every new tool they put to market. They're always, in essence, blowing some other tool brand out of the water. Kaboom. Always. And almost always brands considered to be their 'competition.' Ye Olde foil _du jour_. It's ridiculous, and sad, and counterproductive in my opinion. 

I'd be happy to own a set of PMVII chisels. They work fine. They are not Earth shatteringly fine, but they're fine. They cannot or could not be blamed for bad work. They have edges that outlasted the chisel I used for comparison, not by magnitudes but by a not necessarily insignificant amount depending on one's outlook. I do stand by the fact that they DO NOT get sharper. That's a bridge if not two or three too far. They just don't. If that was one of the production goals then it has not been achieved.

Peel yourself off the ceiling and come back down to the ground.


----------



## G S Haydon (7 Jul 2014)

Charles, of corse I do know that . I just wanted to try a 220 grit edge from my India. All I can say is a 220 India is not a useable edge.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (7 Jul 2014)

CStanford":2v5bhdll said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":2v5bhdll said:
> ...



Charles, this is my final post in this thread. I have answered all the issues that you raised, and others wanted to know.

The others here do not know you like I do. You and I have gone around and around for many years. Your "thing" is to drag out a thread with innuendo and misinformation. You are very good at this and others answer to put the record straight. The fact is that the only reason you began posting on this woodworking forum is that you have been banned from every other forum you frequented: Woodnet, WoodCentral, Sawmill Creek - banned for life for constant badgering, personal attacks, and misinformation.

See you on another thread, no doubt.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (7 Jul 2014)

G S Haydon":1c5waby6 said:


> Charles, of corse I do know that . I just wanted to try a 220 grit edge from my India. All I can say is a 220 India is not a useable edge.


OK perhaps substitute "medium fine" for 250. I'm a bit vague about grit sizes unless it's printed on the box. A double sided coarse/medium stone was a common beginners spec - any finer being wasted on a novice.


----------



## G S Haydon (7 Jul 2014)

Agreed Jacob, I had to search about the grit on a "coarse" India. I think a medium would do ok for getting used to things.


----------



## CStanford (7 Jul 2014)

Charles, this is my final post in this thread. I have answered all the issues that you raised, and others wanted to know.

Regards from Perth

Derek

You really haven't answered a couple of questions -- back when we were discussing thin irons and chatter on Stanley planes you never informed us why you own Stanleys at all, and indeed spent time fairly recently restoring one (beautifully I must say) if my memory serves from posts either on this forum or another. I think maybe the restoration was even done while your chair project was in limbo, certainly tool reviews and such were. I was wondering why in the world you took the time and what your plans were for the plane.

I also asked if you had a theory about why other people who posted their experience with Stanleys and chatter apparently still own them and still currently use them for important work while at the same time calling them useless by comparison to their other tools.

I was also curious about whether you had any comments about Jeff Gorman's entry about chatter on his website which I quoted in a post above.

I also assume that my math was correct in the post where I addressed your post about the Clifton iron that required a honing every fifteen minutes per your experimentation.


----------



## gasman (8 Jul 2014)

So, after reading all that jousting between our sharpening 'experts' I thought I would post some evidence of PMV-II for the OP's original question.
I am making 2 large display cabinets in sycamore at the moment. They are each 1000 x 400 x 1600
I finished the sides and doors over the weekend - and routed out 5mm rebates for the glass windows with a 18mm rebate cutter. Then I had to square the corners, and used my 2 Veritas PMV-II butt chisels for the first time 'in anger'. They come at 25 degrees and I have a 27 degree micro-bevel on them both.
In total there were 4 doors and 4 sides, 8 windows in each and 4 corners to each window - a total of 256 'corners' to chisel out and square. The frames are constructed with 5mm dominos so I was chopping through sycamore and beech dominos. It took me 2 hours or so, the chisels were sharpened before starting and then 2 hours later, with no sharpening at the end they looked like this:





I was so impressed - apart from one tiny blemish on the edge of the 2" chisel that you can see they were still sharp enough to remove hair - albeit by sawing rather than cutting!
Here are the 4 doors finished




They get my vote anyway
Cheers
Mark


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 Jul 2014)

I suspect this is the sort of answer the OP was interested in and will probably thank you for it.


----------



## jimi43 (8 Jul 2014)

phil.p":1l3tk0xn said:


> I suspect this is the sort of answer the OP was interested in and will probably thank you for it.



If indeed the OP is actually around as the thread is well over a year old and was resurrected recently to provide our very own "Speaker's Corner"....which was nice! :mrgreen: 

I think that bun fights like this (complete with aggression) are very interesting as they show that there are far too many variables in the mix in choosing tools, not all of which relate to the performance of steel.

Firstly, we have the user..."professional" in the true sense of the word...craftsman...DIYer...toolmaker (I wanted that bit added! :mrgreen: ), tinkerer, and tin opener! :wink: 

You then need to add disposable income into the mix...or indeed perceived value if you want to consider whether someone thinks it's "worth" buying.

Only professionals would have the need and see the full value of a tool which, once sharpened, stays sharp. Only to them does that quality matter.

Tool lovers and fondlers...(come on..you know who you are!!)...may also buy expensive steel for the academic interest...and from what I've seen of your operation Derek...I think you, like me, appreciate fine tools just for what they are.

Personally...out of all my chisels and most of my irons...those by WARD and WARD AND PAYNE are the ones I love the most and pick up first...and out of those..this little baby is one I will never ever part with...






It was cutting wood when ALL of us were not even tiny acorns and will continue to cut wood when we are all burnt up firewood...

It has a shattered handle...






...which I have no intention of repairing...simply because as far as I know...they haven't invented a chisel which has this sort of character and history etched into it's soul...






I've no idea how many Rockwells she has...but I reckon I can shave with her...every time I pick her up and she only needs a little tickle with me Coticule to get her going....

A very low maintenance lady indeed!

Cheers

Jimi


----------



## Corneel (8 Jul 2014)

Wow, she's got some legs!

As long as I can't find beautifully forged tools, bolsters and all, laminated steel and with handles full of character and age old history, made from PMV-11 or A2, the chances are slim that any one of these will enter my shop. The craftmanship of my Japanese chisels comes close, but these expensive new ones from America? Meuh.


----------



## G S Haydon (8 Jul 2014)

Nicely summed up Jimi and your thoughts are where I am right now. Not quite with the verve of your special one but it's still rather nice.


----------



## Racers (8 Jul 2014)

Second one from the left Ward & Payne nice, but the forth from the left is a Marples which is harder than a hard thing on a cold day!

Pete


----------



## CStanford (8 Jul 2014)

Lovely group of chisels.

I wouldn't mind at touching those up every hour or so of work. 

I have some later model but still really nice Marples square sided firmers with Ash handles. I do have Marples mortise chisels with boxwood handles and these are just unbeatable.


----------



## iNewbie (8 Jul 2014)

jimi43":1h08ucza said:


> phil.p":1h08ucza said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect this is the sort of answer the OP was interested in and will probably thank you for it.
> ...



I'm around - not as round as the Michelin-man, mind. :mrgreen: 


Thanks for the input Gasman. 8)


----------



## bugbear (9 Jul 2014)

Jacob":2ruy7ivs said:


> There is a lot of misunderstanding around - take that recent spat about "camber" - it seemed to me that a few people had no idea how or why it works (i.e. crudely - that a deeper/narrower scoop takes more material away for same effort) so surely it is helpful to talk about these things whether or not you agree with anything in the end.



Another superb strawman! You made a very specific - even mathematical - claim about optimal blade
shapes, which was easily proved to be quite simply wrong; the practice was wrong, even the maths was wrong.
There was no discussion about the mechanism or action of camber in general,
although I did note your attempts to start various discussions, as a distraction from your error - the old "Butler Swerve".

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (9 Jul 2014)

bugbear":3ky5rbpn said:


> Jacob":3ky5rbpn said:
> 
> 
> > There is a lot of misunderstanding around - take that recent spat about "camber" - it seemed to me that a few people had no idea how or why it works (i.e. crudely - that a deeper/narrower scoop takes more material away for same effort) so surely it is helpful to talk about these things whether or not you agree with anything in the end.
> ...


You still haven't got it BB and you are still making it a personal issue. You really do have a sorry chip on your sad little shoulder!

PS and your maths isn't very impressive - you completely failed to understand Ellis and co on handrail theory which is virtually maths free and certainly doesn't include your "narrow" trigonometry (whatever that is) nor the need or ability to add up columns of figures.. Nought out of ten on that one BB. Must try harder!

Camber can be summed up as I said above: _a deeper/narrower scoop takes more material away for same effort_. That's the principle and in theory a semi circular cut would be the most efficient in terms of material removal. A scrub plane approaches this, but in practice it's not quite that simple - not least because you might use the same plane on different materials and anyway who wants semi circular grooves.
If you actually had a go with a scrub plane you might get the idea BB. Keep working on it you might get there. It's not enough to keep squeaking _wrong, wrong_ :lol: :lol: 

As to the general discussion about steel - it seems that nobody can agree. In fact it probably doesn't make much difference which steel you use (within reason) but they will need handling differently. Hard ones take longer to sharpen but keep the edge longer, and vice versa. Same difference - just work with what you've got and stop looking at catalogues!


----------



## iNewbie (9 Jul 2014)

How about the alternative of: work with what _you've _got and stop telling people what _you_ think they should do, eh?


----------



## Jacob (9 Jul 2014)

Grow up a bit!
If you don't want to know what people think you should do, you shouldn't ask questions in the first place, eh?


----------



## bugbear (10 Jul 2014)

Jacob":1ecuf804 said:


> bugbear":1ecuf804 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1ecuf804 said:
> ...



No. I'm just trying to establush a simple truth.


> Camber can be summed up as I said above: _a deeper/narrower scoop takes more material away for same effort_. That's the principle andin theory a semi circular cut would be the most efficient in terms of material removal. A scrub plane approaches this, but in practice it's not quite that simple - not least because you might use the same plane on different materials and anyway who wants semi circular grooves.



Channeling my inner Paxman, and keeping it simple, clear and impersonal:

We have:

A) The effort required for a cut depends purely on the length of the cut.

We also have

B) The shape of cut that removes most material for a given effort is a semi-circle.

This follows nicely from (A) and was first proved by Archimedes. Very basic,
well established maths.

But we also have

C) Factors other than the length of the cut effect the effort required.

A and C are directly contradictory, and cannot both be true. So;
which is true?

Personally, I believe C to be true, since observation shows that depth of cut certainly affects
the efffort required.

A or C?

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (10 Jul 2014)

bugbear":2brq13ut said:


> .....We have:
> 
> A) The effort required for a cut depends purely on the length of the cut.
> 
> ...


Oh you have got it!! Well done!!! Though I doubt it was proved by Archimedes.


> But we also have
> 
> C) Factors other than the length of the cut effect the effort required.
> 
> ...


If you bother to read what I wrote I said "in theory" and "it's not quite that simple" etc etc
But it does account for why a scrub plane removes more material faster for a given effort.

Maybe you have misunderstood what I meant by length of cut - I meant the length of the cutting edge. So a flat 1" chisel will require a similar effort to remove a thin flat shaving, as the same chisel bent into a gouge ploughing much more material from a semi circular trough. Not quite that simple - as I keep repeating, but approximately true in principle or theory.
This is why a scrub plane works.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jul 2014)

No. It won't The bent one is cutting a proportion of end grain, the flat one is mostly parting long fibres. It's harder to plane end grain than long grain. The theory would work in cheese or plasticine or something with no grain structure.


----------



## bugbear (10 Jul 2014)

Jacob":2fu6a2r3 said:


> bugbear":2fu6a2r3 said:
> 
> 
> > .....We have:
> ...




I got it first time; it's obvious. Google "isoperimetric" ; the greeks were all over this one.



> > But we also have
> >
> > C) Factors other than the length of the cut effect the effort required.
> >
> ...



No misunderstanding; that is the only interpretation where (B) makes any sense at all.



> So a flat 1" chisel will require a similar effort to remove a thin flat shaving, as the same chisel bent into a gouge ploughing much more material from a semi circular trough. Not quite that simple - as I keep repeating, but approximately true in principle or theory.



Well, no. The distinction is expressed as clearly as I can in (A) and (C). If (A) is true, your theory holds. If (A) is false, your theory is not even true "in theory", let alone practice. In your 1" chisel example common workshop experience tells us that a 1" chisel taking a 1 thou shaving will require far less effort than your 1" gouge, so effort is overwhelmingly effected by factors other than length of cut. You can't just skate over this by saying "in theory".

If (for realistic example) depth of cut were to effect the effort required, it would follow ("in theory") that a shallower curve than a semi circle would be better, and this theory is a much better fit with reality. In this case, the maths to work out the exact optimal curve is rather complex, and even then, we'd still be assuming a homogenous workpiece, not wood with grain.

BugBear


----------



## iNewbie (10 Jul 2014)

Jacob":23qjmqor said:


> Grow up a bit!



Pot, Kettle, eh?



> If you don't want to know what people think you should do, you shouldn't ask questions in the first place, eh?




And my question was regarding PMV steel was : "_Worth the extra - thoughts?_"

I was looking for knowledgable info from people with experience, not some self-appointed internet ahswipe with a big mouth behind a keyboard. 

Nowhere did I ask for you opinion regarding your usual santiMOANious soapbox-butlah-lah-land, schtick, on sharpeing and purchases. 

Walk your own walk before advising others, eh?


----------



## Noel (10 Jul 2014)

Too many personal insults, especially the last post.


----------

