# Scraper planes



## shed9 (20 Dec 2017)

About to buy a scraper plane, purely because whilst I love the finish of a scraper I hate using them and the heat build up.

Currently looking at the LN range but finding it hard to find any good info on the web which compares the relevant attributes of differently sized scraper planes relevant to themselves and card scrapers.

Anyone used one or currently using one, would you buy again or avoid, any advice welcome.


----------



## Ttrees (20 Dec 2017)

I have a nice Stanley no.80, haven't used it since learning to set the cap iron though.
I wonder if I'll ever use it again :lol:
It may come in handy for glue ?
Tom


----------



## shed9 (20 Dec 2017)

Ttrees":3sb4cn9z said:


> I have a nice Stanley no.80



I did consider an 80 but the two handed motion put me off. Quite like the idea of a plane because of the two left and right control of cards - if that makes sense?


----------



## John15 (20 Dec 2017)

The Stanley 80 is a super tool for difficult grain and finishing. I regularly use mine.

John


----------



## Bod (20 Dec 2017)

John15":2gnjaca4 said:


> The Stanley 80 is a super tool for difficult grain and finishing. I regularly use mine.
> 
> John



+1 from me!

Bod


----------



## ED65 (20 Dec 2017)

shed9":2d99ivuy said:


> ...whilst I love the finish of a scraper I hate using them and the heat build up.


Wear gloves?

If you're after a shiny new tool with Christmas coming up fair enough. But if you just need the job done and gloves don't suit a holder for a card scraper can be knocked up from scraps in perhaps an hour, even less for the basic models.


----------



## NickN (20 Dec 2017)

For a REAL budget scraping job I even tried these... :mrgreen: 

http://www.poundland.co.uk/tommy-walsh- ... s-4pc-pack

Own a Stanley 80 but never got round to using it yet.

Some of the actual scraper planes look like nice tools - someone on here made their own and posted photos not long ago.

EDIT: Found that thread: scraper-plane-t109074.html


----------



## memzey (20 Dec 2017)

I’ve got an old Stanley 112. Lovely tool for certain jobs like glued up panels with reversing grain. Great at removing pva squeeze out as well but I’ve only found it really useful on hardwoods. Leaves softwoods somewhat woolly.


----------



## shed9 (20 Dec 2017)

ED65":2jy6wqpr said:


> shed9":2jy6wqpr said:
> 
> 
> > ...whilst I love the finish of a scraper I hate using them and the heat build up.
> ...



Tried it, holders and putting a something along the edges, just can't get on with it.



ED65":2jy6wqpr said:


> If you're after a shiny new tool with Christmas coming up fair enough.



To be fair that would usually be my own response if I'd seen this post. Genuinely looking for a better solution than what I have and my rationale for LN is that I'm done buying cheap tools to the job. That said, a Stanley 80 seems to be bubbling up as a viable suggestion, I may grab one and try before plumping for something more expensive.


----------



## Ttrees (20 Dec 2017)

Why not try learning to use the cap iron
I take it you do have a hand plane?


----------



## StraightOffTheArk (20 Dec 2017)

I've not used a 'proper' scraper plane, but the Stanley/Record 80 is fantastic, I found the spokeshave style grip very easy to get on with and on flat surfaces it's quicker/easier and a better finish than when I use a card scraper. I've been meaning to make a wooden scraper plane for no reason except I quite fancy having a bash, but with the 80 doing exactly what I want it to, I don't really have enough incentive.

HTH, Carl


----------



## custard (20 Dec 2017)

Using a card scraper on it's own is inherently difficult because there's no sole to reference from. This makes it tricky to start the cut at an edge without juddering, and to finish the cut on an edge without diving over and dubbing the arris. If you've spent hundreds of hours using a card scraper you _might_ get away with it, if you haven't then you almost certainly won't. 

So, imagine you've just made a table top with cross grain banding and some delicate inlay, you've sunk 40 or 50 hours into the top alone, and now you need to flush it all off and make it ready for finishing. Would a professional reach for a card scraper or something else? It's a banker's bet they'd reach for something else, most likely a Stanley 80 because it's cheap, reliable, and those critical few inches of sole take away the risk of a horrible and expensive cock-up. 

Keep the card scraper for localised jobs and curved work, for full surface finishing get an 80, a good random orbital sander with an ultra hard sole plate, or learn to plane with the cap iron set really close. 

The fancy Lie Nielsen scraper planes are seductive tools, but IMO as a user they're more trouble than they're worth. It takes far longer to re-sharpen a Lie Nielsen scraper plane blade than the card scraper style blade in an 80, you can't control the camber as easily as you can with an 80, and you'll have to spend quite some time fiddling around with the angles on a Lie Nielsen scraper plane to suit the timber (hint, the LN user manual is pretty dubious in this respect). 

Just my 2p's worth.


----------



## shed9 (20 Dec 2017)

Ttrees":23262dh1 said:


> Why not try learning to use the cap iron
> I take it you do have a hand plane?



Erm yes, far more than I need. 




custard":23262dh1 said:


> Using a card scraper on it's own is inherently difficult because there's no sole to reference from. This makes it tricky to start the cut at an edge without juddering, and to finish the cut on an edge without diving over and dubbing the arris. If you've spent hundreds of hours using a card scraper you _might_ get away with it, if you haven't then you almost certainly won't.
> 
> So, imagine you've just made a table top with cross grain banding and some delicate inlay, you've sunk 40 or 50 hours into the top alone, and now you need to flush it all off and make it ready for finishing. Would a professional reach for a card scraper or something else? It's a banker's bet they'd reach for something else, most likely a Stanley 80 because it's cheap, reliable, and those critical few inches of sole take away the risk of a horrible and expensive cock-up.
> 
> ...



I've heard of the setup issues on the LN scraper planes but didn't know if this was user error and the point of sharpening makes a lot of sense. On the look out for an 80 type scraper it is then. 

Thank you all, appreciated as always.


----------



## bugbear (20 Dec 2017)

shed9":30u1xlsj said:


> I've heard of the setup issues on the LN scraper planes but didn't know if this was user error and the point of sharpening makes a lot of sense. On the look out for an 80 type scraper it is then.
> 
> Thank you all, appreciated as always.


I was going to recommend trying a #80, and then buying a LN if it didn't work out.

So I checked eBay for s/h #80's and found they're ... not as cheap as they used to be. Has Sellars been recommending them as a cheap wonder tool or something?

IIRC someone did a write up on the preparation and tuning of the #80 and its blade. I'll try to find the page.

BugBear


----------



## shed9 (20 Dec 2017)

bugbear":29hjq87i said:


> So I checked eBay for s/h #80's and found they're ... not as cheap as they used to be. Has Sellars been recommending them as a cheap wonder tool or something?




I'v noticed the price creep up as well although you can still get good condition frames with usable blades for decent money occasionally. They seem to be averaging £30-£50 at the moment and yes I suspect this is led by YouTube recommendations or something similar.


----------



## will1983 (20 Dec 2017)

I bought the axminster rider #80 as an experiment, once the blade is properly sharpened and the hook formed it gives a lovely finish to hardwoods. As stated earlier by someone though it doesn't really work on softwoods. I usually just reach for the Stanley #4 (with a close set iron) for soft woods.


----------



## shed9 (20 Dec 2017)

will1983":1pnhfmrf said:


> I bought the axminster rider #80 as an experiment, once the blade is properly sharpened and the hook formed it gives a lovely finish to hardwoods. As stated earlier by someone though it doesn't really work on softwoods. I usually just reach for the Stanley #4 (with a close set iron) for soft woods.



I did notice the Rider 80, not a bad price at the moment. Good to hear it is fit for use.

To be honest I wouldn't try and scrape softwood, it never works out without copious amounts of swearing for me anyhow. My intended use if for hardwoods only.


----------



## Chris152 (20 Dec 2017)

I bought one of these recently
http://www.axminster.co.uk/axminster-ri ... gLyWvD_BwE
works a treat on difficult grain and even I've failed to make a mess with it.


----------



## bugbear (20 Dec 2017)

will1983":3hl050wy said:


> I bought the axminster rider #80 as an experiment, once the blade is properly sharpened and the hook formed it gives a lovely finish to hardwoods. As stated earlier by someone though it doesn't really work on softwoods. I usually just reach for the Stanley #4 (with a close set iron) for soft woods.


Is the Rider a copy of the Stanley/Record design or the wider based Lee Valley style?

BugBear


----------



## David C (20 Dec 2017)

I used the Stanley 80 for years. It works very well but is difficult to start and complete a shaving because of the very wide mouth.

If you have a Stanley 80, a Hock blade will just about double the performance.

211 is the tool for veneered surfaces. No trouble starting (and finishing) due to the longer sole. This is the Rolls Royce tool but I think many people are put off by the extra adjustments. There are many things to get wrong when setting up a scraper plane!

I cover this tool in my DVD Five Topics.

David Charlesworth


----------



## woodbrains (20 Dec 2017)

Hello,

If the Rider version of the 80 really does have a blade hardened to Rc 63, then how can it be burnished? Do Axminster really just expect the user to hone the blade like a plane?

I have the Veritas version of the 112, which has an extra knob to put a bow in the blade, which the LN and original Stanley ones do not. I like the Veritas.

Mike.


----------



## cowfoot (20 Dec 2017)

Funnily enough, I was given a Lie-Nielsen 85 scraper plane for my birthday yesterday.
Tried it out for the first time this afternoon on some pretty wild European Cherry...
First thoughts - it’s slightly more of a faff to set up than Veritas version of the Stanley 80, but hot damn it’s foxy looking! Not sure I’d actually shell out the money for one, though.


----------



## ED65 (20 Dec 2017)

If anybody is interested in scraping softwoods I think you'll have much better luck with a very fine burr on a conventional scraper, or using a sharp edge with no burr.


----------



## ED65 (20 Dec 2017)

woodbrains":1dlcxlrr said:


> If the Rider version of the 80 really does have a blade hardened to Rc 63, then how can it be burnished?


Carbide?


----------



## Ttrees (20 Dec 2017)

ED65":fwxxvong said:


> If anybody is interested in scraping softwoods I think you'll have much better luck with a very fine burr on a conventional scraper, or using a sharp edge with no burr.



Thanks for that wee snippet ED65  
Maybe someday I'll run out of iroko, hopefully not though!


----------



## thetyreman (21 Dec 2017)

my veritas no80 is one of my favourite tools, I had a stanley no80 before that, it was good, but the handles on the veritas feels a bit nicer and it is heavier, I also had the no85 by LN and whilst it was extremely well made and nice, it rarely got used though, so it had to go.


----------



## David C (21 Dec 2017)

Sorry, meant 112 of course !!

David


----------



## bugbear (21 Dec 2017)

thetyreman":393ylvj7 said:


> my veritas no80 is one of my favourite tools, I had a stanley no80 before that, it was good, but the handles on the veritas feels a bit nicer and it is heavier, I also had the no85 by LN and whilst it was extremely well made and nice, it rarely got used though, so it had to go.


Did you notice any benefit/change from the longer sole of the Veritas over the Stanley.

BugBear


----------



## David C (21 Dec 2017)

The Stanley 80 had an alarming tendency to tip at the end of a stroke. This would cause a gouge in the surface, (if the work was to length).

For a similar reason, the short sole made starting a shaving a little difficult. Lots of serious fingertip pressure required.

Less wear on the fingers is a significant reason for seeking a 112.

David Charlesworth


----------



## thetyreman (21 Dec 2017)

bugbear":3qgtlrks said:


> thetyreman":3qgtlrks said:
> 
> 
> > my veritas no80 is one of my favourite tools, I had a stanley no80 before that, it was good, but the handles on the veritas feels a bit nicer and it is heavier, I also had the no85 by LN and whilst it was extremely well made and nice, it rarely got used though, so it had to go.
> ...



it does make a slight difference yes, the weight is a definite improvement and the angles of the handles are also an improvement, better quality casting, and the veritas blade is better in terms of how long it holds an edge, can't really say anything bad about it.


----------



## shed9 (13 Jan 2018)

To update this thread, I took the collective advice and bagged me a no 80 scraper today.

Been watching them on Ebay and either missed auctions or got sniped at last minute. Not been in a big rush so just waited for a decent one to come along.

Anyhow, went to a local woodworking event today predominantly to see if any local wood suppliers turned up and came across a used tool stand. Grabbed a No 80 scraper Sweetheart along with a No 81 scraper. Also bagged a No 18 B-casting block plane and a No 18 sliding bevel. Real happy with the prices.

Thanks for the input everyone


----------



## swagman (13 Jan 2018)

ED65":wpj06hom said:


> If anybody is interested in scraping softwoods I think you'll have much better luck with a very fine burr on a conventional scraper, or using a sharp edge with no burr.



Eds comment is worth noting, and falls within my own findings. The following shows Australian Cedar after being worked with a scraper plane that's had a hooked burr applied . The surface remaining feels lightly torn to the feel of the finger tips with the heavier concentration of raised grain localised to the outer edges of the surface. Note; the wood surface has been lightly chalked to highlight the heavier concentration of raised grain.





The surface was then reworked without using a hooked burr. That surface felt very smooth to the finger tips, with no visible concentration of raised grain along the outer edges of the board. 





The point being, some timbers will respond better when not worked with a hooked burr. 

Is that message any different to what LN are advising the user within their range of scraper planes; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHcgZiEOWPU


----------



## swagman (14 Jan 2018)

At 12.00min within the following video, the presenter shows the use of the pointed end of a Burnisher to govern the final angle of the turned hook. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7DflhyGFDU


----------



## D_W (14 Jan 2018)

We don't generally scrape softwoods.


----------



## David C (14 Jan 2018)

I have never seen a burnisher with that conical tip in UK.

If one pays attention to the burnishing angle it will not be necessary.

Best wishes,
David


----------



## D_W (14 Jan 2018)

David C":178ih1af said:


> I have never seen a burnisher with that conical tip in UK.
> 
> If one pays attention to the burnishing angle it will not be necessary.
> 
> ...




agreed - if the burnisher is polished and hard where it contacts the iron, it's up to the user to learn the touch needed by the profile (e.g., more is needed for a larger more broad contact point). 

David - I'll bet you are surprised to see how glowing my thoughts were about your instruction DVD on setting a scraper!! While we don't always agree, I'll bet I've sold dozens of that DVD for you over the years, but it alleviates the talk of scrapers as if they're a black box (they are, of course, no such thing - but if you don't set them up right, you fall back into LN's advice of just taking the easy way and leaving a sharp unrolled edge on them, and that's like driving a 6 cylinder car on two cylinders on purpose).


----------



## David C (14 Jan 2018)

David,
I was delighted by your comments. Thank you. I agree.

Please keep on selling the dvds, I need all the sales I can get.

It is frustrating to see the same problems turning up year after year when I know that answers and tips are available in my dvd.
Best wishes,
David


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (15 Jan 2018)

Phil Lowe is an excellent furniture maker and first class teacher (OK, second to David C). I have followed all his videos and would recommend them to everyone (his one on mortice and tenon joints is superb!). I have seen that video on preparing scrapers before, and support all he does except the inclusion of the pointy burnisher (at the end). I have never needed to do that. His results are as desired, but I do not believe that the pointy burnisher was a part of this.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## David C (15 Jan 2018)

Derek,
Thank you.
My favorite is Brian Boggs. There are a couple of videos on You Tube made by Fine Woodworking.

Best wishes,
David


----------



## swagman (16 Jan 2018)

David W, David C, Derek C.

Phil Lowe makes reference and use of the conical tip on the Stanley type burnisher to control the angle of the turned hook. Scraper Planes such as the Stanley #80 and #81 have a fixed bed that does not allow the user to tilt the blade further forward to compensate for an overly turned hook. Refer to the following Stanley Tool Guide; bottom of page 12 for further instruction on the use of the conical tip to control the hook angle. If you then move to page 13, which deals with a hand held scraper blade, there is no mention of using the conical tip of the burnisher, as a hand scraper can be titled further forward to compensate for an overly turned hook. The decision on whether one chooses to take advantage of this conical tip feature on a Stanley type burnisher should be left for every user to decide upon. http://www.woodworkinghistory.com/stanl ... e_1941.pdf


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jan 2018)

> The decision on whether one chooses to take advantage of this conical tip feature on a Stanley type burnisher should be left for every user to decide upon.



So, Stewie, are you recommending it or not?

Phil Lowe is the only person I have seen actually use it. I cannot comment on the surface quality, since this is unseen, but the shavings I obtain appear the same as Phil's. I am very happy with the performance of my cabinet scrapers, which are created sans conical tip. 

I believe that the important aspect to achieving this performance is how one creates the hook. There are two aspects of relevance. The first is first drawing the steel out, and the second is a progressive turning of the hook. One or both of these is not done at all by most of the demonstrations I have seen (in videos and at shows). Instead, what is typical is a one-time turning of the hook. That makes it difficult to control the angle, and it ends up variable, not enough in parts and too much in others. Where the hook is turned at too high or too low an angle, it will not cut, and all you get is dust.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## swagman (16 Jan 2018)

Derek; the following scraper plane shavings are the result of using the burnishers conical tip to govern the blades hook angle. Note; the Stanley #81 has a fixed bed angle of 115*, and no tension adjuster to camber the blade. As a consequence, this type of Scraper Plane has a very fine tolerance in setting the correct hook angle on the blade. The use of the conical tip of the burnisher to control the turned hooks final angle (as recommended within the Stanley Tools Guide 1941) does offer the user a proactive advantage.

Stewie;

Hardwood;




Softwood;


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jan 2018)

What is the (surface and shaving) difference with and without the use of the burnisher point? That is what it comes down to - not whether one can make shavings, per se.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## patrickjchase (16 Jan 2018)

My, there seem to be some rather familiar-sounding arguments on this forum... 



swagman":207c2tev said:


> Derek; the following scraper plane shavings are the result of using the burnishers conical tip to govern the blades hook angle. Note; the Stanley #81 has a fixed bed angle of 115*, and no tension adjuster to camber the blade. As a consequence, this type of Scraper Plane has a very fine tolerance in setting the correct hook angle on the blade. The use of the conical tip of the burnisher to control the turned hooks final angle (as recommended within the Stanley Tools Guide 1941) does offer the user a proactive advantage.



There is indeed a potential advantage inasmuch as you are ensuring a uniform hook angle by "opening up" the hook to the burnisher's tip angle. I don't think anybody would debate that point.

There are also disadvantages, however. The spring steels used in scrapers are fairly brittle to begin with, made as they are of HCS tempered to Rc50 or so for modern ones from Bahco-Sandvik, LN, LV, etc. Turning the hook on such a scraper further hardens and embrittles the steel due to strain-hardening (a.k.a. work hardening), and then using the burnisher tip to push it back the other way work hardens and embrittles it still more. Imagine bending a coat-hanger back and forth, but keep in mind that scrapers start out from a much more brittle state.

Every additional bit of work potentially causes fractures to form and grow along the burnished edge, compromising the resulting surface finish. All of this of course assumes that your burnisher's point is perfectly hard and conical. If it introduces any defects of its own then the situation goes downhill even more rapidly.

It is inexorably true that "over-burring" the edge and then pushing it back to the desired angle with the point of the burnisher will carry some increased risk of edge damage and surface quality loss, versus just getting it right to begin with. I prefer to try to hit the final angle when initially turning the burr, and don't see the incremental angular consistency and precision that I might get by over-burring and "reversing" as worth the risk of edge damage and surface tracking.

Speaking of tracking, do you think that this sort of edge damage might have something to do with the "torn" feel that you reported a few posts back in your "with burr" results? While I don't have the specific piece you're working, that isn't what I typically observe with "cleanly" burred scrapers.


----------



## swagman (16 Jan 2018)

> and don't see the incremental angular consistency and precision that I might get by over-burring and "reversing" as worth the risk of edge damage and surface tracking.



Patrick; I think you may be overstating this concern with edge damage to the burr. One stroke with the conical tip of the burnisher is all that's required to reset the burr angle . Out of curiosity since you mentioned coat hangers. Aren't they normally made from a low carbon steel.!!


----------



## swagman (16 Jan 2018)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> What is the (surface and shaving) difference with and without the use of the burnisher point? That is what it comes down to - not whether one can make shavings, per se.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek



Derek; the following shows the difference in shavings and surface condition from the use/ and non use of the conical tip of the burnisher on hardwood.

Without the conical tip. Chalk was used to highlight the tear-out that was occurring to the surface of the wood. Type I shavings.




With the conical tip. The surface of the wood shows some spotting of reverse grain but no serious tear-out. Type II shavings.




http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html ... ation.html


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jan 2018)

If you say so Stewie. How long have you been an exponent of the pointed burnisher?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (16 Jan 2018)

Stewie - I don't use a burnisher with a conical tip. You didn't roll the burr properly on the top picture. That is an issue of yours, and not of the burnisher. Learning what the angle is and then repeating it without gadgetry is pretty easy, it's probably about 70 degrees from the length of the blade, and in my experience, it's also not particularly sensitive to pressure (the more pressure, the bigger the burr, but the scraper still works) - at least from what little I recall since I rarely use a scraper. The reason for that is that it's substantially inferior to a double iron unless you're planing veneer, and I'm sure many who use them have pretty ugly edges on the surfaces they finish. The #112 and #212 are better but still far behind a plane for most things.

At any rate, I have no trouble setting it with a round burnishing rod because I figured that I should remember the visual of the angle that rolls a proper burr. So should anyone else - especially given that it's a tool that I sharpen once every several years. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu7doUE1caw

Discussion of the burr at 6:00 and resultant shavings around 8:30 or so. I didn't make this video just to make it. Someone else having trouble with the 80 requested it in the comments of another video, so I obliged. These things (tool setup) are simple, and we should share them as such. Just as we should share what's useful and efficient in actual work.

That said, if someone uses a burr with a conical tip because they like the "product", that's fine. It is not, by any means, required kit, though.

(credit again to David C, because he showed this simple process - more or less - in a video, discussing about what the angle should be to roll a burr on a scraper, and he provided a suggestion for the making of a jig of scrap wood for people who cannot master it otherwise, but most will find that a starting point and discard it once they've learned what looks and feels right).


----------



## swagman (16 Jan 2018)

Derek; attached are the contact details for Phil Lowe. 

Philip C. Lowe, Director and Master Craftsman

The Furniture Institute of Massachusetts
116 Water Street • Beverly, MA 01915
Phone • 1-978-922-0615

Email • [email protected]


----------



## D_W (16 Jan 2018)

Oh, good lord - now phil lowe has a version of this burnisher available for purchase at $65. (Hock's lovely polished rod is $16).

Jeez. What a harsh punishment for refusing to learn something simple.


----------



## CStanford (16 Jan 2018)

Is a pointed burnisher essentially the same as a Veritas Tri-Burnisher?

http://www.leevalley.com/us/Hardware/pa ... 41070&ap=1

I have a Clifton burnisher but it's round. The Veritas burnisher does look like it would be more effective on shaped scrapers.

I have heard of using the tip/near tip of an awl to roll a very delicate burr or to get into a tight spot. A conical tip on an otherwise round burnisher might come in handy from time to time. Don't see it as a big deal one way or the other.


----------



## David C (16 Jan 2018)

I was disappointed with mine which was, NOT STRAIGHT.

David


----------



## CStanford (16 Jan 2018)

David C":6hi7lq4k said:


> I was disappointed with mine which was, NOT STRAIGHT.
> 
> David



The Veritas Tri-Burnisher?


----------



## David C (16 Jan 2018)

That's the one!

David


----------



## CStanford (16 Jan 2018)

I'm sure they would replace it...


----------



## David C (16 Jan 2018)

It was purchased many years ago, before I realized the customer service was so good.

David


----------



## CStanford (16 Jan 2018)

They have been around quite a while.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jan 2018)

For many years I have used a thin carbide rod ..












Happy with the results.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (16 Jan 2018)

CStanford":1g14pw4x said:


> Is a pointed burnisher essentially the same as a Veritas Tri-Burnisher?
> 
> http://www.leevalley.com/us/Hardware/pa ... 41070&ap=1
> 
> ...



The awl idea sounds nice since it doesn't carry a fat rod below the taper and would roll a burr on a very small scraper angle.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jan 2018)

> I have heard of using the tip/near tip of an awl to roll a very delicate burr or to get into a tight spot. A conical tip on an otherwise round burnisher might come in handy from time to time. Don't see it as a big deal one way or the other.



Charlie, I imagine the application for this is rolling a hook on profile blades for a #66 or similar, since that is what I have done. That is not the same as running the point along the hook on a cabinet scraper.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (16 Jan 2018)

No, I don't see the value in lifting an overturned burr with a point, but you can still use an awl to turn a regular burr on a tight inside radius.


----------



## swagman (18 Jan 2018)

Unlike the Stanley #80 the #81 Scraper Plane was never supplied with a thumbscrew adjuster to camber the blade. After tapping a new threaded hole, my #81 now has that additional feature.


----------



## D_W (18 Jan 2018)

It is a nice feature, and extends the time between burr reset, at least in large work (table tops, etc).


----------



## swagman (19 Jan 2018)

D_W":csgt6viq said:


> It is a nice feature, and extends the time between burr reset, at least in large work (table tops, etc).



David; its also allows you to manipulate the width of shaving. Below is a view of the modified Stanley #81 with the lever cap removed. 




I have also made a change to the way I prepare the burr before turning a hook with the burnisher. It is quite different to the methodology you outline within your video. 

This change in practice has achieved a noticeable difference in the type of shaving taken.


----------



## D_W (19 Jan 2018)

While all of the methods might be different (I'm just holding a burnisher around 20 degrees shy of 90), they generally do the same thing - turn a burr to the appropriate effective angle. You can do it a million ways as long as the result is the same. 

There is a whole long discussion about the size of the burr, turning it small to start and refreshing it as larger each time if using a card scraper, etc, but I avoided that above because I don't think people like to "go deep" on that sort of thing like I do. 

Agree on the flex - it does allow you to narrow the shaving, but that can be a pitfall if it's used too heavily (it will leave evidence on the surface whereas an unflexed blade will usually leave a pretty even surface if it's not overdone in one spot). I avoided that above, too. It's the kind of discussion that can only be had with a group of people who have already made mistakes with a scraper - most others will complain that it's too many details. 

I've been working in a scraper vacuum (except for floors) for most of the last five years, though, so this is only what I recall from trying to master the 112, 212 and 80. I liked the 212 the best, but it can also scallop due to the narrow width, and the only affordable version of the 212 is LN's (affordable being a relative term). Woe be to the person who allows a panel to sit overnight through a temperature change, only to try to do the final surface prep with a 212. If a board as cupped, it will be a difficult and sweaty session if the board isn't re-planed.


----------



## swagman (21 Jan 2018)

The following is the process i have settled on to form a hooked edge on my Stanley #81 Scraper Plane.

Others will recommend that you should continually remove the wire edged formed on the non bevel side of the scraper blade prior to turning the hooked edge with the burnisher. I would recommend you take the time to experiment with all the options available, and choose a method that will best work for you.

Stewie;

A 60 degree flat bevel is filed along the cutting edge, and then checked against a straight edge. 





The wire edge formed on the non bevel side of the cutting edge during filing is removed on a sharpening stone. The blade is then held upright at 90 degrees to the sharpening stone and the edge is jointed to form an exact straight edge. The resulting wire edge on the non bevel side of the cutting edge is again removed.





From this stage onwards, the wire edge that's formed during further stoning work is not removed, but is allowed to further increase in size prior to being turned over by the burnisher to create a hooked edge.

A fast cutting crystolon oil stone is the 1st stone to be used to form a slightly steeper secondary bevel. The wire edge formed is quite heavy to the touch and reaches across the full width of the blade. 





The secondary bevel is further worked on a finer grit stone to further increase the size of the wire edge.





The process is again repeated on a final finer grit stone. 





The cutting edge of the blade is then secured in a bench vise, with the burnisher held at 15 degrees to the primary face of the blade, The edge is then worked by the burnisher at that constant angle to form the hooked edge. Generally 2-3 full strokes are required.





The scraper blade is now ready for a performance test.

The 1st lot of shavings were taken with the blade cambering screw disengaged. Moderate force is required to work each of the shaving due to the full width of cutting edge being in contact with the woods surface.





The next lot of shavings are with the blade cambering screw in service with a 1/2 turn. The force required is slightly less than the non cambered blade as less blade width is in direct contact with the wood surface.





The final shavings were taken with a full turn of the cambering screw. The force required is slightly less than that set with a 1/2 turn of camber.


----------



## Bodgers (21 Jan 2018)

Anyone had issues with the Axminster Rider No. 80 with having to regrind the bevel to 45 degrees? I read sir Paul was not impressed with it as it was set to 30...
I might look for a used 81 if the Rider isn't up to snuff.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## thetyreman (22 Jan 2018)

Bodgers":hfu3e63z said:


> Anyone had issues with the Axminster Rider No. 80 with having to regrind the bevel to 45 degrees? I read sir Paul was not impressed with it as it was set to 30...
> I might look for a used 81 if the Rider isn't up to snuff.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



I doubt the axminster one is any good you'll be wasting your time and money sorting it out, regrinding the blade should not be an option. I'd go with the veritas cabinet scraper, they aren't that much more than the vintage ones with what they go for now


----------



## CStanford (22 Jan 2018)

Very nice Stewie,,, love the bench too.


----------



## D_W (22 Jan 2018)

thetyreman":3pqo08i5 said:


> Bodgers":3pqo08i5 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone had issues with the Axminster Rider No. 80 with having to regrind the bevel to 45 degrees? I read sir Paul was not impressed with it as it was set to 30...
> ...



Does anybody know someone who uses one on a regular basis for finishing? I think I've had four of them, and while it's interesting to learn to set them up, they're always more time and less good at the edges than a common stanley plane.


----------



## patrickjchase (22 Jan 2018)

D_W":1ex661qt said:


> Does anybody know someone who uses one on a regular basis for finishing? I think I've had four of them, and while it's interesting to learn to set them up, they're always more time and less good at the edges than a common stanley plane.



By "one" are you referring to 80-style cabinet scrapers?

Like you I prefer planes whenever the desired cutting geometry is viable in both types of tool. For example, the picture I posted in the other thread showed a scraper configured with the chip-breaking face set back ~0.004" from the cutting edge. That's a fairly easy geometry to obtain from a separate iron + cap-iron in a smoothing plane, so IMO there's little point in using a scraper for that if you've learned to use a double iron. The scraper's iron is softer to start, and burnishing always carries some risk of edge damage, so the net of it is that the plane delivers cleaner results. I set the burr the way I did in that picture to make it easier to image and because it's an appropriate configuration for a "heavy" tool like the 112, not because it's something I use routinely.

I do use scrapers when I want to do very light work with a very small burr, but I use card scrapers for that rather than scraping planes or cabinet scrapers.


----------



## custard (22 Jan 2018)

D_W":1svtoxfq said:


> Does anybody know someone who uses one on a regular basis for finishing?



You ask a good question.

I think scraping falls into that category of woodworking techniques that used to be more widely used a generation ago than it is now. Consequently scraping has far greater prominence in the classic woodworking texts than it actually enjoys in modern workshops, or at least in the ones I've seen. 

The quality of affordable abrasive papers is much higher than it was even twenty years ago. Throw in the fact that orbital sanders have also improved by leaps and bounds and it's easy to see why furniture makers today tend to regard scraping as a more specialised technique for occasional use, rather than a standard technique that gets used on a daily basis. Personally I'll use a card scraper for flushing down inlay, cleaning up internal curves, or stripping off old finishes; and occasionally I'll use a scraper plane on saw cut veneer that needs a lot of clean up work. But I'll often go months at a stretch without picking up either.


----------



## D_W (22 Jan 2018)

Thanks, Custard. Specifically, I meant that once you learn to plane (even though doing such a thing as final surface work may no longer be widely done), planing and using a card scraper is far more economical time-wise than using a #80, and the results are generally better.


----------



## David C (22 Jan 2018)

In my experience, scraper planes are indispensable for cleaning up veneered surfaces.

This is the task that virtually nothing else will do satisfactorily.

David Charlesworth


----------



## D_W (22 Jan 2018)

David C":yzrutos7 said:


> In my experience, scraper planes are indispensable for cleaning up veneered surfaces.
> 
> This is the task that virtually nothing else will do satisfactorily.
> 
> David Charlesworth



That's the one situation that stood out in the back of my head - veneering. It's sort of like the toothed blade revival (a little bit different, but in terms of how common toothed blades were) - toothed planes were used to prepare veneer surface for glue IIRC (I'm not an expert on them), but now discussed as a tearout mitigating plane for surfacing (another tool that is a penalty for not learning to use a cap iron). 

I figured the #80 must've been so popular due to the volume of factory/production veneered furniture 100 years ago. But you see them used very little now. 

In terms of common solid wood work that we do (table tops, preparing panel surfaces after glue-up, etc), a scraper plane is pretty difficult to justify if you have a stack of work to do. 

If it's low quality production work, then both are pretty hard to justify compared to a wide belt sander or a progressive drum sander with increasing grit on each drum. But, we're not aiming to do that kind of work. 

I have done very minimal veneer work, I'll admit. Probably 5 square feet total in a decade, and in most of that, i sawed the veneer so that I could work it like solid stock.


----------



## D_W (22 Jan 2018)

patrickjchase":3g5v4k4u said:


> D_W":3g5v4k4u said:
> 
> 
> > Does anybody know someone who uses one on a regular basis for finishing? I think I've had four of them, and while it's interesting to learn to set them up, they're always more time and less good at the edges than a common stanley plane.
> ...



Could be opened up to 112s or other tools that are described by patrick leach as the next coming. They seem like a solution to someone having difficulty with tearout, but I'm reminded by a friend who has one and who just discovered the world of bevel up planes after having difficulty setting the cap iron. Having a BUS in hand cutting an effective 60 degrees pretty much eliminates the chance of his scraper ever being used. He did learn to set the scraper plane and have it work well, but grab a stack of wood and do half with a plane and half with a #112 and you'll use the plane for the entire stack the second time. 

Or to be more frank, I think scraper planes and cabinet scrapers are mostly used these days to see if you can learn to roll a burr and then have a fun time with test pieces where you don't care about the edges. I learned the same thing, and used both on a few projects (in solid) before I realized that they were a waste of time compared to planing. I realized at the same time that the mujingfang HSS ironed 63 degree smoother is pretty much an answer to nothing. Slow to use, poor surface finish and dulls quickly (even though it's HSS) due to the bed angle - and it's ultra sensitive to depth of set due to the combination of the bed geometry (more depth per N units of iron advancement) and the hard to push 63 degree pitch.


----------



## swagman (22 Jan 2018)

> Or to be more frank, I think scraper planes and cabinet scrapers are mostly used these days to see if you can learn to roll a burr and then have a fun time with test pieces where you don't care about the edges.



David; was that comment aimed in my direction. :mrgreen:


----------



## D_W (23 Jan 2018)

Only so much as you're like the rest of us!

That's what I did (mastered rolling the burr and then didn't like the tool that much), and I found it immensely satisfying to learn the touch of rolling a good burr every time. But each time I went to use the 80 or 112, and though not the same thing, the Muji 63 degree plane - I ended up thinking "it can't take this much effort to smooth a surface". 

It's good skill building for a card scraper, though, which will definitely see use. 

(I found the LN 212 a little bit more practical for less than perfectly flat surfaces and without torturing edges, but it's narrow enough that it leaves scallops with all but the lightest cuts).


----------



## thetyreman (24 Jan 2018)

talking of scraper planes, I fancy the miniature cabinet scraper plane by veritas, has anyone used this?


----------



## Racers (24 Jan 2018)

I have a small scraper plane which gets occasional use.

150mm long and 48mm wide 6mm thick blade.



DSC_0023 by Racers, on Flickr

Pete


----------



## D_W (24 Jan 2018)

thetyreman":1d3dikel said:


> talking of scraper planes, I fancy the miniature cabinet scraper plane by veritas, has anyone used this?



The black one? (that's sort of a dumb question, but perhaps there is a different one). 

It didn't get very good reviews when it came out. The LN 212 is the one to have if you're looking for something small. If the price with VAT in the UK is a problem, put it on saved search on ebay and eventually one will show up used. 

they are pricey, but if you just have to scrape, there's just something about the proportions (the narrow iron and the shorter sole) that make them faster and easier to use and less tiring than the larger planes (that's not a mistype - I've used a vintage 112 and both premium large scraper planes, and you can get work done faster with the 212 because of its aspects). 

IIRC (and this is digging deep), shaving ejection was a problem with the early veritas scraping plane, and while that may have been corrected, I haven't heard a peep about them since.


----------



## patrickjchase (24 Jan 2018)

D_W":3fj0eccf said:


> thetyreman":3fj0eccf said:
> 
> 
> > talking of scraper planes, I fancy the miniature cabinet scraper plane by veritas, has anyone used this?
> ...



I think he's referring to this: http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.a ... 10&p=73673. I've never used one of those, but it strikes me as more of a conversation piece or knicknack than something I'd use. If I'm going to use a tool that small then I generally will want it to work into tight spaces, and a "miniaturized 80" isn't the answer for that.

LV also makes a small scraping plane, which is their answer to the 212: http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.a ... ,230,41182. I have one. On the plus side its tllting palm-rest and full-width iron make it uniquely suited to working into tight corners. On the minus side it lacks the 212's cutting angle adjustment, the palm-rest is a bit fiddly in use, and as you say the shaving ejection isn't as clean as it could be because of how the iron retention works.


----------



## D_W (24 Jan 2018)

patrickjchase":1bftr2ii said:


> D_W":1bftr2ii said:
> 
> 
> > thetyreman":1bftr2ii said:
> ...



I've never seen the small cabinet scraper, but if I was going to do any significant amount, I'd stick with a normal stanley 80 and the LN 212. I've not tried the LV plane that's there, but the 212 is known good, and the rotating handle is a gimmick, combined with an iron that's just too thin. I'd imagine they addressed the clogged shavings, but who knows.

I have seen the #80 used once to great effect (which is what influenced my purchase of it), and that was in an older video where Kelly Mehler was building a table and using one to smooth the top. I also remember why I bought the 212, but that's not important. I've not seen anyone use the #80 to the same extent that Kelly did since seeing that video.


----------



## patrickjchase (25 Jan 2018)

D_W":2odd460u said:


> I've never seen the small cabinet scraper, but if I was going to do any significant amount, I'd stick with a normal stanley 80 and the LN 212. I've not tried the LV plane that's there, but the 212 is known good, and the rotating handle is a gimmick, combined with an iron that's just too thin. I'd imagine they addressed the clogged shavings, but who knows.



Wow, you seem to have strongly held opinions about a plane that you've "never seen". But then, one should never let lack of knowledge or hands-on experience get in the way of a loudly voiced opinion.

0.040" is plenty thick for a 2" wide scraper, and on the same order as the thickest card scrapers (the classic Sandvik is 0.032", for example). The plane has a preload/camber screw in the center, which further reduces the required thickness. More to the point the blade for the "proven" 212 (the Stanley one, not the L-N reinterpretation) is the same thickness.

If I were going to critique any plane's iron thickness, it would be that 1/8" bit of deadweight in the middle of the L-N 212. You don't need much steel that for a regular plane, much less a scraper. All it accomplishes is to render sharpening much more difficult than it should be. A2 is also a very curious choice for something that's going to be burnished (those chromium carbides aren't good for the burnisher, nor do they deal well with being "rearranged" in that manner). I've heard that it's a perfectly decent plane once you rip that absurd iron out and replace it with a 0.04" sheet of blue-hard 1095, though.

L-N appears to have done that to cater to the "well-heeled but inexperienced" among their clientele who can't properly burnish an iron. Their manuals/videos make much of the fact that the thick iron can be used with an unhooked edge, though the resulting "shavings" look a bit dusty.


----------



## D_W (25 Jan 2018)

Patrick, if you'd have made something of note - anywhere - anything - I'd listen to your criticism. I haven't seen it. 

I have a #80 with a blade .042 inches thick. It would be more desirable if it was thicker. It can screech, and it is lacking the same feel that the LN 212 has by miles. 

I used the LN 212 with its fantastic iron and noted that it was sharp for a very long time, enough time for me to clean up an entire blanket chest panel that had 80 grit sanding scratches on it to a finished surface, something that 1095 would not accomplish. I'm sure I did that before you started woodworking. I've used the LN 112, the stanley 112 and the LV large scraper planes. The stanley 112 had a blade thicker than .040, but I would use either boutique scraper plane over it (with their thicker blades) in a second. I have never seen a single 1095 scraper blade that could come close to the longevity in scraping that LNs A2 irons have. 

You are talking about specs of steel, but have no experience with Lie Nielsen's iron vs. 1095, but don't let that stop you. If you believe that the chromium carbides will hurt a typical burnisher, you're free to also believe that I hold your thoughts and lack of demonstration of anything anywhere in the same regard as I hold my experience. 

There was a clear problem with LV's scraper plane when it came out (clogging). If it's been solved, great. If it's not known that it has, then I wouldn't buy it. Plain and simple. If I had a choice for a thicker blade in a plane of this style, I would certainly opt for it - from experience. Not from engineering superstition - from experience. I opted to try the 212 instead of the larger scraper planes when I was scraping the same blanket chest panels (using the plans from fine woodworkings "a blanket chest with legs") because wiley horne suggested that the #212 works better than the large scraper planes. He came to that by experience, not supposition. He was right. 

Until you make something of note, I won't respond to any more of your posts. It's clear you have read a lot and completed little. I am by no means a pro who makes three pieces per week, but I certainly won't be coming to you for suggestions on anything.


----------



## patrickjchase (25 Jan 2018)

patrickjchase":1sz6g3wt said:


> Wow, you seem to have strongly held opinions about a plane that you've "never seen". But then, one should never let lack of knowledge or hands-on experience get in the way of a loudly voiced opinion.



David I owe you an apology for this part. It was a cheap shot born out of frustration. As someone who has used the tool quite a bit I thought that I'd given a fairly balanced perspective, including the gadgetiness of the handle and the shaving ejection issue, and I felt that you ignored that. Even so I should never have gone there.

I do think that you are allowing your emotions in the moment to cloud your better judgment in this instance. In countless other threads on multiple forums you have extolled the virtues of HCS (i.e. 1095) and pointed out the issues that we both know that A2 has. Those issues are magnified in a scraper because of the demands of burnishing. If you think that HCS is preferable in planes, as you have said you do at basically every opportunity, then it can only be more so in this instance. If I felt like it I could assemble a pretty comprehensive reply to your most recent post using only your prior words, but I don't think there's much point to doing so.

w.r.t. sounds coming from thin scraper blades, we're supposed to be talking about woodworking and not acoustics here, right? Was there any problem at the wood surface?


----------

