# About thick cap-irons



## GLFaria (10 May 2014)

How does one deal with thick cap-irons?
I mean, with thin, curved cap-irons, the normal practice, or at least my normal practice (which I readily admit may be wrong), is to build the front edge as a sort of knife-edge, by flattening and sharpening the underside, and polishing the curved surface of the upper side. I never worried much about the angle of the upper edge – it was just what would result from the curved shape of the cap-iron.






With thick cap-irons, at least the one I have seen, there is no such a curved surface. There is a flat surface on the underside, another flat surface on the upper side, resulting in a sort of a wedge, and possibly a very small flat at the edge.





So, how should one sharpen a thick cap-iron? The angle of the “wedge” seems too low for it to work as a normal cap-iron does in shaping the chip, so I assume there must actually be another (highly polished) small surface at the front, between the upper and the lower surfaces of the “wedge”.





Is my reasoning right? If it is, should this small surface be flat or curved? How high should it be? If flat, what would a good range for its angle?
(yes, I’ve read the article on Kato’s et al. experiments, but he seemed more interested in the effects on iron wear than on proper chip formation, so I don’t know if the conclusions apply in real, everyday planning life)

Thanks for any suggestions


----------



## Corneel (10 May 2014)

I think you are completely correct. For the angle alpha I choose something like 45 to 50 degrees. Set at 0.1 to 0.2 mm from the edge it is hard to find a timber that still wants to tearout. Very important is the close fit between capiron and blade face. Absolutely no gaps alowed here.

I did a short investigation to the several methods to avoid tearout and you can see the results overhere:
http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/cap_iron_study_by_kees_van_der.html


----------



## MMUK (10 May 2014)

I don't personally worry too much about angles on cap irons, I just make sure that the mating surface sits snugly against the blade so nothing gets trapped between them. I don't see the point of making a sharp (ish) edge. If you have a sharp edge as opposed to a flat strip on the cap iron, clamping down will add even more pressure to the blade which could cause it to warp. IMO, the bigger the footprint of the cap onto the cutting blade, the better. As long as the mating joint is tight.


----------



## Jacob (10 May 2014)

You shouldn't have to do anything to a cap iron unless it was faulty from the start - in which case send it back.
It needs to sit tight on the face of the iron and have an angle of well under 90º so that shavings will rise over it.

Don't want to be a party pooper but it has to be said - these modern planes with fat irons, thick caps and general over engineering are very much fashion victims*. Reminds me of Elton John.






Nothing wrong with the old designs - _and_ much easier to set up/sharpen and lighter.

*PS could think of them collectively as "Eltons". e.g. "Yawn here comes another Elton from a trendy modern tool maker!"


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 May 2014)

MM - That logic must surely dictate that you would be heavier standing on one foot?


----------



## GLFaria (10 May 2014)

Corneel":12gxqpec said:


> I think you are completely correct. For the angle alpha I choose something like 45 to 50 degrees. Set at 0.1 to 0.2 mm from the edge it is hard to find a timber that still wants to tearout. Very important is the close fit between capiron and blade face. Absolutely no gaps alowed here.
> 
> I did a short investigation to the several methods to avoid tearout and you can see the results overhere:
> http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/cap_iron_study_by_kees_van_der.html



Thank you very much indeed. I already read, and filed for further reading (thanks for the PDF), that study of yours. It helps understand why I had so many problems planing wood I intend to use for making my new plane handle. It is a very difficult wood, and I was planing it with my "common" setting, which is about 0.5mm cap-iron distance to the edge and somewhere between that and 1mm for the mouth width.
I must say I was a bit astonished with that 0.1mm you suggest. I can't see how one can reliably set a cap-iron that close - I would even say too close for feeling comfortable while setting it!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 May 2014)

Jacob":384mcpsp said:


> .....these modern planes with fat irons, thick caps and general over engineering are very much fashion victims......



Yeah. Those 18th and 19th century wooden-bodied planes with fat irons and thick caps were an utter disaster. Couldn't plane wood for toffee. Nobody managed to remove wood shavings until Leonard Bailey came along. :roll:

For what it's worth, my experience is that thicker irons (don't need to be that much thicker) and better cap-irons (the Record Stay-set/Clifton two-piece is good) do help to stiffen things up when planing harder woods. If all you work with is softwood or mild hardwoods, thinner irons will do.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (11 May 2014)

Why should it matter how thick the chipbreaker is as long as the leading edge is at least 45 degrees, and it is stiff enough to move reliably and easily into position close to the edge of the blade when used on a smoother? 

Well, there is a lot to ask in that one sentence. My experience is that the thin chipbreakers from Stanley are terribly flexible, and this flex makes it harder to set. Just yesterday I was using a Type 11 #4 1/2 and had a frustrating time with the chipbreaker "creeping" and then popping over the edge of the blade as the screw was tightened. Other Stanley chipbreakers are better in this regard. Is this just my experience?

By comparison, the thick chipbreakers from LV and LN are predictable. They do not flex. They do benefit from a micro secondary bevel to increase the angle at the leading edge from 25 degrees to about 45-50 degrees, but then they are ready and reliable. I dislike the two-part Clifton because the front moves. I have epoxied mine together, and now it works as desired. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Corneel (11 May 2014)

I set them with the screw half tight. I turn the iron around so I catch the light in the narrow line in front of the capiron. Then I push it forward as close as I can. You can also lightly tap with a hammer. You shouldn't measure the distance. Set it as close as you can, and when you still get tearout, set it closer :mrgreen: If you feel the plane bucking and the shavings look like fried bacon, set it a little further away from the edge. It takes a bit of practice, but no fear. If you push it accidentally over the edge it is not the end of the world, I just pull it back and try again.
Here you can find a video demonstrating how I do it: http://seekelot.blogspot.nl/2012/06/capiron-or-chipbreaker.html

Personally I have no problem setting the capirons on my Stanley planes. They all have the original ones. It was a bit frustrating to fit them to the cutting iron without gaps, but now that is mended, they are fine. My wooden planes are more troublesome. Some of them want to "swim" around when tightening the screw. Especially the Ulmia is bad. But I think I found the culprit on that one, it has a large burr on the upper end.

The exact angle of the capiron isn't important. The Stanley ones come around 45 to 50 degrees, which is fine. The LN, LV and QS ones have a leading edge angle of 25 degrees. That is really too shallow, so you'd better add a small microbevel. I do that freehand on a coarse stone, then lap it a bit on a finer one. Adding a bit of convexity is nice too. Hock is close to 40 degrees which is fine too, but a little low.


----------



## woodbrains (11 May 2014)

phil.p":382g4ayb said:


> MM - That logic must surely dictate that you would be heavier standing on one foot?



Hello,

No, standing on one foot obviously does not increase weight, but it does increase pressure, in this case double that of standing on two feet. However, though a finer edged cap iron will generate a higher pressure than a thick edged one, it will NOT make any difference to the bending force on the blade assembly. For the same force generated on the cap iron screw, the blade will be deflected the same, regardless of the pressure on the leading edge, all else being equal. The thicker cap irons from LN, Hock etc. etc. do not bend the blade assy, simply because they are flatter, it has nothing to do with their wider leading edges.

Mike.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 May 2014)

Your penultimate sentence was exactly what I was getting at.


----------



## woodbrains (11 May 2014)

Hello,

Undoubtedly, the thicker, modern cap irons are much, much better than the bits of old bent tin, that were offered before. Of course they too can be improved, but still will bend the plane iron, even if the leading edge is improved, so I still like the thicker ones.

Mike.

Just to be clear, it is the flatness of the cap iron plate I am talking about, which prevents the blade assembly from bending, NOT the flatness of the front mating edge.


----------



## MIGNAL (11 May 2014)

I'm fairly certain I have a number of very old woodies with pretty substantial cap irons, as previously mentioned by CC. 
I know that you are probably referring to the newer manufacturers but I suggest that we give credit where it really belongs. That most certainly isn't with Clifton, LN or Veritas.


----------



## woodbrains (11 May 2014)

MIGNAL":14ypdyuw said:


> I'm fairly certain I have a number of very old woodies with pretty substantial cap irons, as previously mentioned by CC.
> I know that you are probably referring to the newer manufacturers but I suggest that we give credit where it really belongs. That most certainly isn't with Clifton, LN or Veritas.



Hello,

You'll get no argument from me, the old cap irons were superb. I suspect that the new, thick cap irons were introduced as a return to the old values, not something new. I had only been talking in the context of the newly introduced ones as an improvement to Bailey type planes. Sorry if my omission did not give due reverence to the older plane makers, who got it right before we were around. It is those modern, new fangled Leonard Bailey type things, that eschewed the traditional, well tried and tested methods of old, that we sadly had to deal with, until someone with some sense, re introduced elements of the old. Now we can enjoy these American house joiners' tools, made to perform somewhere approaching the performance of proper cabinet makers tools of old. :lol: 

Mike.


----------



## caroleb (11 May 2014)

> . I dislike the two-part Clifton because the front moves. I have epoxied mine together, and now it works as desired.



OK - now that someone else (of superior standing) to me has raised this I am going to jump on board and profess a total lack of understanding how the Clifton and StaySet cap-irons can possibly work as well as a one piece. Unless I am missing a fundamental aspect of the purpose of the cap-iron it surely doesn't support as well as a standard version.

Without someone copying and pasting 'Unless I am missing a fundamental aspect of the purpose of the cap-iron' with the addition of "You are" and not intending to totally derail the thread, can someone please explain this to me?

Thanks


Caz


----------



## woodbrains (11 May 2014)

Hello,

I guess there is enough flexibility in the epoxy joint to allow the toe piece to flex a bit, whilst holding both pieces together without play. I like them as standard, myself and can set them close enough to the edge with out any issue. But I suppose that will not suit everyone.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (11 May 2014)

caroleb":rv5060eh said:


> > . I dislike the two-part Clifton because the front moves. I have epoxied mine together, and now it works as desired.
> 
> 
> 
> OK - now that someone else (of superior standing)


We are all equal here!! Nobody has superior standing.


> to me has raised this I am going to jump on board and profess a total lack of understanding how the Clifton and StaySet cap-irons can possibly work as well as a one piece. Unless I am missing a fundamental aspect of the purpose of the cap-iron it surely doesn't support as well as a standard version.
> 
> Without someone copying and pasting 'Unless I am missing a fundamental aspect of the purpose of the cap-iron' with the addition of "You are" and not intending to totally derail the thread, can someone please explain this to me?
> 
> ...


The function of the cap iron is to transfer pressure from the lever cap cam to the blade face as near to the edge as possible, to hold it tight where it most matters. Ditto with cap irons on woodies with wedges - transfers the wedge pressure via the cap to close to the edge.
I don't know what Derek's problem is - the cap can't move once the cam lever is down tight. 
The stayset design has a clever detail which gets overlooked. This is that the front part sits in the slot of the rear part but loosely - it isn't flat. This means that when the lever cap pressure is on the cap iron bears tight on the face of the blade but may just touch at one point in the slot. A form of 3 point loading, but it's one point and a straight edge instead.
o


----------



## CStanford (11 May 2014)

Jacob":2ki0qsek said:


> caroleb":2ki0qsek said:
> 
> 
> > > . I dislike the two-part Clifton because the front moves. I have epoxied mine together, and now it works as desired.
> ...




Good post. Some might remember this thread: 3rd-party-chipbreakers-t76382.html in which it was claimed that the Clifton cap iron design was defective (Cohen, Charlesworth, et al.), when in fact it is not. Far from it, actually. I believe Derek recounted in that thread his efforts to file the slot in the Clifton chipbreaker which most likely ruined an intentional design feature (as another poster in the thread pointed out) and which you have reminded us of in your post above.

Clifton's version/design/take on the old Record StaySet is fantastic. The design is not defective in any way, shape, or form. It is as good or better than any on the market. It can be set closely. In the photo below, mine is set a bare hair's breadth behind the cutting edge. When the lever cap is snapped the whole unit is rock solid and the cap iron will not budge at all.

Here is what one can do when paired with a Hock iron in a 1980s era Record plane:


----------



## caroleb (11 May 2014)

I do understand the concept and purpose of the cap-iron - I just have some trouble appreciating the idea (nearly put fact there) that the two piece design can work as well as the stanley version. Doubtless it works - I do have a few of the Stay-sets and one Clifton version, and I know it works but still cannot quite appreciate why. As I understand it the initial purpose of the two piece, or double, iron was to allow the benefits of a thick blade without the drawbacks. That is to say it stiffens the whole blade assembly but using a thinner blade to allow easy sharpening, and presumably to cut back on materials, thus cost, used. 
And yet most, not all, folk seem to think that a thicker blade is a good thing. I have a Hock iron, as well as countless tapered and parallel irons from older planes that all perform very well. Could I say they perform better than one of the Tungsten steel record blades, or the Samurai blade in one of the no4's, which are thin blades coupled with a stanley style cap iron? No, I don't think I could. They inspire a degree of confidence but their overall performance is no better than a fettled, well set up Stanley or such. This may well be due to my own shortcomings in some respect, yet I am able to plane a curly, transparent shaving that floats nicely to the ground when airborne.
I am no engineer, I am reminded of that in the company I keep, but neither am I green or daft. I live to learn, so appreciate the forum greatly.
I am not under the illusion that the Stay-set is defective - of course it is not. I just don't quite grasp the whole idea. I am probably over-simplifying the concept. I do also understand the need to apply pressure to the cutting edge, but it just doesn't quite add up to me. I know it works - just don't get why! And I am not sure it works any better than the one piece! (duck and cover!)

Jacob - I thank you for your explanation. Woodbrains - why is the flexibility in the Stay-set a good thing? Mr Stanford - I am a little wary of setting the cap-iron that close to the edge for fear of adverse effect. I will edge mine forward and see if it makes a discernable difference. To the OP - thankyou for raising what is an interesting topic to me. Thankyou all.


----------



## GLFaria (11 May 2014)

caroleb":1d1z8n06 said:


> I do understand the concept and purpose of the cap-iron - I just have some trouble appreciating the idea (nearly put fact there) that the two piece design can work as well as the stanley version. Doubtless it works - I do have a few of the Stay-sets and one Clifton version, and I know it works but still cannot quite appreciate why. As I understand it the initial purpose of the two piece, or double, iron was to allow the benefits of a thick blade without the drawbacks. That is to say it stiffens the whole blade assembly but using a thinner blade to allow easy sharpening, and presumably to cut back on materials, thus cost, used.
> And yet most, not all, folk seem to think that a thicker blade is a good thing. I have a Hock iron, as well as countless tapered and parallel irons from older planes that all perform very well. Could I say they perform better than one of the Tungsten steel record blades, or the Samurai blade in one of the no4's, which are thin blades coupled with a stanley style cap iron? No, I don't think I could. They inspire a degree of confidence but their overall performance is no better than a fettled, well set up Stanley or such. This may well be due to my own shortcomings in some respect, yet I am able to plane a curly, transparent shaving that floats nicely to the ground when airborne.
> I am no engineer, I am reminded of that in the company I keep, but neither am I green or daft. I live to learn, so appreciate the forum greatly.
> I am not under the illusion that the Stay-set is defective - of course it is not. I just don't quite grasp the whole idea. I am probably over-simplifying the concept. I do also understand the need to apply pressure to the cutting edge, but it just doesn't quite add up to me. I know it works - just don't get why! And I am not sure it works any better than the one piece! (duck and cover!)
> ...



You are welcome. I am happy for having raised this topic, it has become much more interesting than I ever thought it would...


----------



## Jacob (11 May 2014)

caroleb":14ugczmp said:


> ....... it stiffens the whole blade assembly but using a thinner blade to allow easy sharpening, and presumably to cut back on materials, thus cost, used.


It doesn't stiffen anything - it nips the blade tight at the edge, whether a thin blade or an old woodie with a thick blade. Material cost difference would be tiny.


> And yet most, not all, folk seem to think that a thicker blade is a good thing.


Fashion. Lack of appreciation of the clever engineering of the Bailey design. Think of the safety razor - thin blade tightly held works better than a thick cut throat.


----------



## woodbrains (11 May 2014)

Hello,

Thin cap irons rely on the flex in the steel to impart a pressure on the leading edge from the tightened cap iron screw. A thick cap iron will not so much, so needs the pressure of the lever cap to apply the pressure at the leading edge of the cap iron. Clifton do this by the hinged arrangement to allow the front piece to 'give' a bit under the lever cap pressure, left one piece, being as thick as they are, it would not happen as effectively. Joining the 2 pieces with epoxy resin will still allow the flexture of the front piece.

Razor blades have nothing to do with planing and cannot be compared as such. In a system that encounters the forces involved in hand planing, the stiffer the blade assy the better (to a point). A 3mm blade is more than twice as stiff as a 2mm one, and when kept flat with a better cap iron, benefits fron a firmer seating on the frog, so adding more stiffness. I don't see the downside of using better performing components to improve the overall performance of the tools.

I have never come across a standard Stanley or Record plane that did not need some attention regarding its cap iron. Some only a little smoothing of the leading edge, but others a complete re shaping, re bending, polishing etc. they are not at all good.

Mike.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (11 May 2014)

> Good post. Some might remember this thread: 3rd-party-chipbreakers-t76382.html in which it was claimed that the Clifton cap iron design was defective (Cohen, Charlesworth, et al.), when in fact it is not. Far from it, actually. I believe Derek recounted in that thread his efforts to file the slot in the Clifton chipbreaker which most likely ruined an intentional design feature (as another poster in the thread pointed out) and which you have reminded us of in your post above.



Charles, you are making that up. Since you have given the link, go back and read it again. 

I stated that there was slop in the Clifton that made it difficult to set close the edge of the blade. After all, that is the point of this thread, and it was there as well. David Charlesworth agreed with me and also fixed his together (with silicon). You suggested something silly to him and he called you bizarre. I think David has excellent insight :lol: 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (11 May 2014)

woodbrains":1wssopg2 said:


> .....Razor blades have nothing to do with planing ...


Really? I'm glad you told me! I've been trying to shave this lump of oak all day. :roll: Now you point it out - I see it doesn't have a beard.


> ....and cannot be compared as such.


Oh yes they can. The blade assembly is similar, and for a similar reason - to make an easily sharpenable blade in the Bailey, or a throw-away blade in the Gillette, both preferable to the heavy older alternatives.
There were attempts to make a throw-away blade for planes but I guess they weren't viable - they get a lot heavier use than chin shaving, and anyway sharpening isn't difficult (except to our new modern sharpeners of course :lol: ).


----------



## Spindle (11 May 2014)

Jacob":ccosybfn said:


> anyway sharpening isn't difficult (except to our new modern sharpeners of course ).



All abord who's coming abord  :wink:


----------



## Peter Sefton (11 May 2014)

Spindle":3cpizktu said:


> Jacob":3cpizktu said:
> 
> 
> > anyway sharpening isn't difficult (except to our new modern sharpeners of course ).
> ...



 Not playing today just got back from the Daventry show after a long weekend


----------



## CStanford (11 May 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > Good post. Some might remember this thread: 3rd-party-chipbreakers-t76382.html in which it was claimed that the Clifton cap iron design was defective (Cohen, Charlesworth, et al.), when in fact it is not. Far from it, actually. I believe Derek recounted in that thread his efforts to file the slot in the Clifton chipbreaker which most likely ruined an intentional design feature (as another poster in the thread pointed out) and which you have reminded us of in your post above.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, regards from Perth indeed. I think it's you who should re-read the thread.

From Gazpal:

"I'm a long term user/devotee of Record Stay-Set cap irons (I assume Clifton's two-piece cap irons are very high quality replica) and have never experienced problems mislaying nosing sections, or with loose fitting parts, or regarding accurate & fine placement for finish shavings. I tend to keep my Stay-Set planes for finer finishing work and my others for hogging off material. You simply position the two-piece cap iron in the same way as a one-piece example, before tightening the screw and setting it in the plane and - with the cap iron set correctly - there's no real need to use thicker irons.

There shouldn't be any need for faffing around with epoxy or silicon sealant when positioning two-piece cap irons, unless you suffer severely from the shakes or have poor hand:eye co-ordination."

... and from Mignal in the same thread:

"Exactly my sentiments. I'm baffled as to why some people seem to have trouble with dropping the nose section or positioning it. I've used a Stayset for 30 years, in an old Record No.6 that I acquired. At the time I'm pretty sure that I didn't even know what a Stayset was. I just used it. I can't ever recall having problems with it, even though the 2 piece cap iron was undoubtedly 'new' to me. I've checked mine yet again. What is remarkable is just how accurately the two pieces fit together. Quite honestly, you would have to call in the boffins from NASA to measure the 'play' in any of mine."

Mignal in response to Charlesworth:

"To obtain that degree of rotational slop in a Clifton chipbreaker would require a very poor fit. That rotaional slop is in respect of the full width of the keyed part. 
I cannot detect any slop in that direction, or forward/backward in both of mine. My after market Clifton 2 piece (from Axminster) are around 5/6 years old. I cannot detect that type of slop in my Record StaySet either- obviously much older. 
It would be informative if other owners of the more modern Clifton 2 piece would check theirs. I don't doubt what you are saying David but I just wonder if it is 'typical'. After all, I have a LV blade that is (and always was) a poor example. In terms of edge retention it is inferior to my thin Stanley circa 1980's blades. I suspect that what I received was less than a 'typical' example."

... and from Peter Sefton:

"This rotational slip *is not present on any of my Clifton's* [emphasis added], and I do not suffer with dropping the end section of the chip breaker any more than I drop any of my other tools. *The bottom section of the chip breaker often pivots on the centre point connecting it to the main plate, but this is not an issue; it ensures the pressure exerted by the lever cap lays the chip breaker's front edge totally flat on the blade without creating any other stress or bend within the cutting iron that may lead to flutter*."

... and Mignal again:

"Derek. What part of the Clifton chipbreaker prevents it from being set within 0.3 mm (or closer) to the edge? 
I can do it with simple ease but then again I don't drop the nose section either."

... Mignal yet again:

"Derek. I have numerous chipbreakers. I've long lost count the actual numbers that I own and have used over the years. 
*The Clifton chipbreakers (and the staySet) that I have show NO play, either rotational or forward/backward. That appears to be the same experience of the vast majority of people who have replied to this thread. I simply do not recognise the problems that you refer to. None of them. The method of placing blade and chipbreaker into the plane requires a slightly different technique but that technique can be acquired in seconds. It is so simple that I'm genuinely shocked that you didn't find the solution of using the index finger on the nose piece.*As such the Clifton chipbreaker is capable of setting with ease and your assertion that it is only suitable for rough work is clearly wrong. Perhaps your particular chipbreaker is a poor example but I guess we all experience poor samples of manufacturers products. If I did a review of my LV Plane blade it would rate lower than the 1980's Stanley blades that I own. It's obviously one that should not have got through, but it did."

END QUOTE(S).

As I said (and obviously several others as well) in this thread and in the other -- there is nothing wrong with the Clifton chipbreaker design. You were tinkering with something that simply did not need to be tinkered with. Cliffy chipbreakers work fine. They take a close setting and will hold it. Any assertion that they don't or can't perform all of the functions any chipbreaker is supposed to perform (pre or post "Kato & Kawai") is pure codswallop. If you don't understand the subtle design features or how to set one up properly, then humbly ask for assistance rather than ruining one with what you assumed to be fine fettling and improvement and then denigrating it on these woodworking forums. You don't know as much as you think you do, a fact clear to a lot more people than you would imagine.

If you feel that you received something with a manufacturing defect (of an otherwise competent design) then send it back and/or ask the manufacturer for help. This is precisely what you encourage Lee Valley customers to do rather than complaining on the internet. Follow your own advice.


----------



## Vann (11 May 2014)

caroleb":zf6xhl11 said:


> OK - now that someone else (of superior standing) to me has raised this I am going to jump on board and profess a total lack of understanding how the Clifton and StaySet cap-irons can possibly work as well as a one piece. Unless I am missing a fundamental aspect of the purpose of the cap-iron it surely doesn't support as well as a standard version.


The 2-piece provides better support. 

The patent drawing of Mr Bailey's double iron shows the cap-iron laying parallel (flat) on the iron right down to the point where it begins the distinctive hump. So, with the lever-cap down tight, the original Bailey design offered a three ares of pressure between the two irons. 
- at the top where the cam applies pressure; 
- at the bottom (leading edge); 
- and immediately above the hump in the cap-iron. 

The latter two pressure zones would be about equal, as the bottom edge of the lever-cap rests on the highest point of the hump, therefore the forces would be transmitted roughly equally to both top and bottom of the hump. 

While the design is great, in practice I've seen very few cap-irons of this design that are actually the correct shape. If the bottom edge is not bent down enough the cap-iron will not touch the cutting iron, making the whole thing useless. So manufactures (including Stanley) ensured that the bottom edge is bent down more than enough. This causes the top end of the hump to not be in contact with the cutting iron - and the result is the bending of the cutting iron we're all familiar with. 

An iron with a slight bend will not sit flat on the frog, unless maybe the lever-cap is clamped up excessively tight. So it has just two areas of contact with the frog- 
- at the top where the cam applies pressure; 
- at the bottom (leading edge). 
The area above the hump in the cap-iron is suspended above the frog. 

When the tip of the cutting iron hits a hard bit of grain the edge attempts to dig in. The end of the iron tries to pivot about the lower pressure point, and as there is no restraint above that point until near the cam the top, the iron flexes slightly and - hey presto - CHATTER. 

What the two-piece cap-iron does, is it takes away any resistance to holding down the cap-iron flat on the cutting iron, and in turn onto the frog, at that important point about 20mm above the cutting edge. It returns the cutting iron to Bailey's original concept. That the Record & Clifton cap-irons are thicker is just a bonus. It probably would have been difficult the manufacture them in thinner material (the Record patent shows a hinged design). 

Even the thicker Lie-Nielsen, Hock, etc. 1-piece cap irons look like they would exert a slight bending force on a cutting iron - which is probably not enough to bend a thick iron, but would probably bend a thin Stanley type iron. 

HTH (and you haven't got bored and fallen asleep (hammer) ) 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Vann (11 May 2014)

Leonard Bailey":21p5jum6 said:


> Be it known that I, LEONARD BAILEY, of Boston, in the county of Suffolk, and State of Massachusetts, have invented a new and useful Improvement in Bench-Planes...
> 
> My object is to use Very thin steel plane-irons, and in so doing I nd that they are liable to buckle under the pressure of the cap, which causes them to chatter, and makes them otherwise imperfect; and my invention consists in the providing of an auxiliary point of contact between the cap and plane-iron, and at the point where the plane-iron tends to buckle or rise from its bed or base, and thus have a pressure at that point in addition to that at the cutting-edge, which iirmly holds this thin plane-iron to its bed.
> 
> ...






Cheers, Vann.


----------



## MMUK (11 May 2014)

phil.p":1jrk2adv said:


> MM - That logic must surely dictate that you would be heavier standing on one foot?




Not heavier, just that your weight would be concentrated in a smaller area, thus greater downward pressure.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 May 2014)

If you weighed 15st and you stood on both feet on a scales the scales would read 15st. If you then stood on one leg on the same scales, the scales would still read 15st. If you are saying that the pressure is exerted further away from the pivot point, then yes, you are correct although over a few mil the difference would probably be academic.


----------



## GLFaria (12 May 2014)

Thanks, Vann.

But, if the idea is for the cap-iron to rest on the iron at three places, why is it that every cap-iron I have seen (not that many, but several), when not subject to the pressure of the tightened cap-iron screw, only touched the iron at two places - at the back and at the front? An then, when the screw is tightened, the cap-iron flexes until it rests fully against the iron (with the exception of the arched area), which becomes hopelessly flexed too. However, if one does not fully tighten the cap-iron screw, it will not stay securely in place.

What should one do to such a cap-iron? Bend the arched part back so it doesn't exert so much pressure on the iron, but just barely touches it?


----------



## MMUK (12 May 2014)

phil.p":3hmme7x3 said:


> If you weighed 15st and you stood on both feet on a scales the scales would read 15st. If you then stood on one leg on the same scales, the scales would still read 15st. If you are saying that the pressure is exerted further away from the pivot point, then yes, you are correct although over a few mil the difference would probably be academic.




I'm not talking about weight, I'm talking about pressure :roll: 

Increase the footprint, reduce the pressure. Decrease the footprint for the same load, the pressure increases.


----------



## Vann (12 May 2014)

I have this old dog of a plane (spare parts) with one wing broken off... :shock: 




...which allows a view of the cap-iron, cutting iron and frog seating. This shows no contact from the lever-cap pivot screw, down.

I thought I'd try a few double irons, to see if any seat the way Leonard Bailey intended.




1950s Stanley irons - Fail




1960s Stanley irons - Fail




1940s Stanley irons - close, but not quite.




Marples irons - Fail




1950s Record irons - Fail




1950s Record irons - Fail




1950s Record irons - Fail




Wartime Record 2-piece - look at that !! 8) Nice and tight all the way down to the top of the deflector. This is why I believe the Record/Clifton 2-piece is a good design of Cap-iron - it achieves what Leonard Bailey set out to do in 1867.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Corneel (12 May 2014)

While you are absolutely correct Vann, in practice you almost never get chatter when you pull the frog back so the iron rests solidly on the sole. This lowers the pivot point seemingly enough to make the matter mood. When you push the frog forward to close the mouth, the pivot point raises up, increases the lever two times or so and chatter is possible.

The two piece capiron is a nice design, but in reality the Bailey design works very well in most circumstances, even with the less perfect examples. The Bailey design has been a tremendous succes, much more were sold then the Record ones. 

I think that I prefer the two point contact of the Baily capiron instead of the correct three point contact, when setting the capiron very close to the cutting edge. You want good solid contact down there, otherwise shavings might force themselfs a way under the capiron.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 May 2014)

MMUK":3g9nh9gx said:


> phil.p":3g9nh9gx said:
> 
> 
> > If you weighed 15st and you stood on both feet on a scales the scales would read 15st. If you then stood on one leg on the same scales, the scales would still read 15st. If you are saying that the pressure is exerted further away from the pivot point, then yes, you are correct although over a few mil the difference would probably be academic.
> ...


 :roll: And I'm talking about pressure, too. The overall pressure exerted on the blade is going to be the same no matter what proportion of the cap iron touches it.


----------



## Paul Chapman (12 May 2014)

Excellent set of photographs, Vann, which clearly show why the Record Stay Set/Clifton two piece cap irons are so good. Thanks for posting.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (12 May 2014)

He's got a point of course but I wouldn't say fail to all the others. If the blade is flat against the frog and tightly nipped at the pointy end the cap iron is doing its job.


----------



## Paul Chapman (12 May 2014)

Jacob":2y4wj65s said:


> If the blade is flat against the frog



But it probably won't be when using the bent metal-type cap iron and a thin blade because the cap iron tends to bend the blade.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (12 May 2014)

Paul Chapman":3f15ts0y said:


> Jacob":3f15ts0y said:
> 
> 
> > If the blade is flat against the frog
> ...


Then the cap iron just needs bending a bit to make it all a good fit. The blade unit is pinned tight at both ends but needs adjusting to lie flat in the middle.


----------



## Paul Chapman (12 May 2014)

Whatever :lol:


----------



## Corneel (12 May 2014)

Please explain Paul?

I thought the capiron bends the blade upwards, so the blade rests on two points, at the top and at the bottom. So pressure is exactly where you want it, at the bottom. Fact is that most Bailey plane irons have a gap when installed between the frog and the blade, soemwhere half way up.

It is easy to demonstrate the bending of the iron under planing forces. Put a piece of paper between blade and frog so it just nips up tight under levercap pressure. You might have to fiddle a bit with the screw to have it just right. Then extend the blade for a very deep cut. Push it against the edge of a board, and you can feel how the piece of paper releases when you push the plane. This is the effect Vann described. The edge hits a hard bit of wood and the blade bends. The fulcrum point is the top of the bevel when the frog is pulled back, so the top of the bevel is actually resting against the sole. When you push the frog forward, closing up the mouth, the fulcrum point is quite a bit higher. The higher this point, the longer the lever, thus also the more the blade bends.


----------



## Paul Chapman (12 May 2014)

Corneel":3gzg201u said:


> Please explain Paul?



No need - Vann's photographs show quite clearly what the problem is with the bent metal-type cap iron and a thin blade and how the Stay Set-type cap iron solves it. Besides, this issue has been debated many times in the past and I don't feel inclined to go over it all again.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (12 May 2014)

Come to think - the stayset applies force at 3 points; edge, under the cam and at the joint. The ordinary cap iron will do exactly the same if it is bent up a bit.


----------



## Corneel (12 May 2014)

Just reread your messages and I now see what you were writing. Sorry.

Indeed, the blade is lifted from the frog. Chater is possible, for sure, but in reality very rare. The planes work very well in standard setup. They have been in production for 147 years now. Millions and millions were sold and used in all types of work. As soon as the patents ran out they were copied by countless other manufacturers. It was a professional tool.

Now, do we hobbyists really need to think the design was flawed and needs an upgrade?


----------



## Corneel (12 May 2014)

Jacob, the problem with bending up the capiron tip is lost pressure at the tip. You have to proceed carefully, otherwise you might end up with shavings under the capiron.


----------



## GLFaria (12 May 2014)

People, you finally got me confused :? . 
In the end, should I or should I not bend a standard Stanley cap iron back to reduce the force it makes and the bending of the iron?

Technically speaking, I feel that the Stay Set makes more sense than the Bailey. The fact that millions of these have been produced and sold may have more to do with price, marketing and the dominance of Stanley than for it being an intrinsically better solution.


----------



## Corneel (12 May 2014)

No, I wouldn't because there is no problem with the Bailey ones. Make sure thet the end fits very tight to the cutting iron, with absolutely no gaps. And then enjoy your plane. 

The stayset is the better design, but from 1867 to 1931 only the Bailey pattern was available, not just from Stanley, but also from Sargent, Record, Marples and many more. Somehow they made do with that "crapy piece of bent tin".


----------



## Vann (12 May 2014)

Corneel":2c8x766z said:


> Now, do we hobbyists really need to think the design was flawed and needs an upgrade?


It's not the design that's flawed, it's the execution. The design calls for the three pressure points, but in fact almost every example has only two - because of poor manufacturing and/or lack of understanding of the requirements of the design.



Corneel":2c8x766z said:


> ...but from 1867 to 1931 only the Bailey pattern was available, not just from Stanley, but also from Sargent, Record, Marples and many more. Somehow they made do with that "crapy piece of bent tin".


My older cap-irons are closer to the Bailey design. My newer ones are the worst. I think part of the reason they managed from 1867 to 1931 was because the cap irons were close enough to the design to work with a tweak (they were not yet crappy pieces of bent tin) but even then they had to resort to infills for the fine work :wink: .



Corneel":2c8x766z said:


> ...I think that I prefer the two point contact of the Baily capiron instead of the correct three point contact...


Good gracious man, settling for second best, you'll give us Dutchies a bad name. (hammer) 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## bugbear (12 May 2014)

Vann":1nmibehl said:


> Corneel":1nmibehl said:
> 
> 
> > Now, do we hobbyists really need to think the design was flawed and needs an upgrade?
> ...



I think the 3 point idea is not _*needed*_, even though Bailey thought it was, and stated
as much in his patent.

The evidence is apparent in all the "normal" Bailey planes that perform well enough for many purposes.

Which doesn't mean the performance can't be improved. The Bailey design is a very good point on the price/performance curve,
no more, no less.

BugBear


----------



## caroleb (12 May 2014)

I have learnt a lot from this thread, in spite of its politics, and thank you all for the lesson. I am always pleased to learn.

Caz


----------



## woodbrains (12 May 2014)

Hello,

2 point, 3 point, 10 points of contact whatever, simply MISSES. The point. It is really irrelevant how many points of pressure hold the iron down, but it should lie flat on the frog. The frog is a huge dampening mass and it would be silly not to utilise it, for the sake of a replacement cap iron or fettling the existing one to do its job properly. Bend the thing so a happy medium is found between it not arcing the blade and so no shavings can force their way under the leading edge. It is not difficult and completely reversible, so where is the harm?

The Bedrock was designed to eliminate the shortcomings of the Bailey, i.e. not having the best blade seating assembly in the world. It was and is a recognised fact that blade bedding on the Bailey is a weak point, apparently even by its manufacturer, hence the Bedrock. It is not rocket science to work out that we should optimise our Bailey planes however we can. The design was good initially, though not perfect and only got worse with time and production/cost expedients. Even a Bedrock plane with a bit of bent tin for a cap iron will perform less well than it might and will actually negate the advantage of its superior frog. I wonder if this is why production eventually ceased? Essentially was it de-specified into something that performed no better than a Bailey, but cost more and no one had the wit to do the simple fix?

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (12 May 2014)

woodbrains":1hmexup6 said:


> bedrock... I wonder if this is why production eventually ceased?.....


Basically it's not very good. Adjusting the frog is a dubious practice to start with, but having to work 3 screws _and_ reset the blade doesn't help much at all. Adjustable mouth a much better and more logical option.


----------



## woodbrains (12 May 2014)

Jacob":bsg13vkj said:


> woodbrains":bsg13vkj said:
> 
> 
> > bedrock... I wonder if this is why production eventually ceased?.....
> ...




Hello,

The adjustable frog may or may not be fiddly, but it is the firmer frog bedding that was the main advantage and the one I was referring to on the context of cap irons transferring ther pressure onto the iron onto the frog. The super rigid frog being a good thing and proving these things matter. Adjustable mouth is really more convenient and the new Stanley Sweetheart would have been great if it wasn't for Stanley again missing the finer points. The one piece frog casting on these further reinforces the need for a firm blade bedding.

I only handled one briefly and cannot recall exactly, so honestly Jacob, remind me of what the cap iron on these are like, please. Have they managed to keep the blade assy flat so it makes the most of the firm frog on these. I might get one if I have a bit of spare cash, as they could have a really superb plane here, for the price it would be worth the fettling. 

Mike.


----------



## bugbear (13 May 2014)

woodbrains":2zjr8tt2 said:


> The adjustable frog may or may not be fiddly, but it is the firmer frog bedding that was the main advantage and the one I was referring to on the context of cap irons transferring the pressure onto the iron onto the frog. The super rigid frog being a good thing and proving these things matter.



The *original* Bedrock improvements, from 1898 to 1911 did not include the "adjust the mouth with the blade in place" feature.
(this feature is handy, since you can see how big the mouth is as you adjust - with a normal Bailey you have to sort of guess, trial and error)

It only included the (superb) machined mating surfaces on bed and frog, secured with the obvious vertical screws.

I have a #608 in this style, and it's excellent.

I note that the Lee Valley planes have a rather unusual frog, in that it extends all the way to the sole, providing good support for the blade. But the frog also moves, on a large machined surface. Yet another way to skin the cat.

AFAIK the first BD plane with an adjustable mouth was the Marples X 4; an adjustable mouth is pretty much essential on a well thought out LA/BU plane, since the depth adjustment involves so much concomitant forward/back movement.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (13 May 2014)

Bedrock and normal both have frog held down by 2 screws, albeit a funny cam action on the bedrock. They both sit tight on the body. If equally well made then the differences between them are so little that they can't conceivably make any difference to performance. 
Which is presumably why the bedrock wasn't so desperately sought after and went out of production - just another gimmick with no great benefit.


----------



## MIGNAL (13 May 2014)

woodbrains":2zsgsxyi said:


> Jacob":2zsgsxyi said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":2zsgsxyi said:
> ...



The breaker on the Stanley SW is very similar to that of the LN. Half it's length it lies flat to the blade but obviously has the little step that contacts near the edge of the blade. 
With the breaker/blade assembled the surface that contacts the frog is about as flat as we will ever need. Of course if one really is of the OCD variety then I guess NO surface is ever flat. . . 
My only contention with the SW is that it's a very weighty affair and the slop in the Norris adjuster. The adjuster doesn't bother me but the weight does. It's a tank, rather than a nimble mini. Tank is perfectly fine for the very final 'smoothing' operation but I prefer the lower weight and feel of my '50's Stanley No. 4. The adjustable mouth on the SW is a breeze.


----------



## Jacob (13 May 2014)

I agree with that.
The cap iron lies flat on the blade overall so imparts no bend to it when tightened.
It's another fashionably over engineered object like Elton's boots. It'd be better with a normal thin blade, a stayset cap iron, a cam action lever cap. Good value for money though. The best of a dodgy lot.


----------



## Corneel (13 May 2014)

Just to shake thing up a bit. Here's another one who isn't happy with the stayset capiron:

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/w...d:+woodworkingmagazine+(Woodworking+Magazine)


----------



## woodbrains (13 May 2014)

Hello,

It seems there are manufacturing inconsistencies in the Clifton cap iron. This is a shame that the snug fit isn't achieved stright from the factory. I have not encountered any slop in the ones I have. The idea of the 2 pieces making a rigid assebly without bending the blade is well concieved, though, and I think better than the sprung variety normally encountered.

It seems the Stanley SH No4 does have a good capiron, making the most of its rock solid bed. The weight does not bother me as it is a final smoother after all, though it all depends on the use the end user puts it to as to whether the weight is a pain or not. i didnt like the rear tote shape and would have to re shape it if I had one. I quite like the cross dowel fixing though, but does that mean it will limit the handle shape; it has awfully flat sides? the back lash in the adjuster is excessive and I do not like the sharrp 'prongs' at the front end, around the adjustable mouth. I ca imagine damaging a nicely planed surface with that from time to time. Maybe a bit of judicious filing might smooth that out. The Norris adjuster requires a screw clamp on the lever cap, a cam lock will not work with that. it is just a shame the Norris adjuster is not as precise as it should be. the plane has all the elements of a fine tool, just needs minor fettling. Considereing the low price, could be really worth consideration.

Jacob, it is true that the frog on the Bailey's are good enough, but not if the blade does not seat on it! Good cap irons will turn an ordinary plane into a LN (etc.) rival, for little money. Let us not ruin a good thing for a h'apeth o' tar. I don't think I have met anyone who has used a LN bedrock of Clifton (price excepted) and not thought it was better than a Bailey eqivalent without modification/upgrade. There are engineering reasons for this and much has to do with capirons and firm blade bedding.

Mike. 

Mike.


----------



## MIGNAL (13 May 2014)

You do get tracks with the Stanley SW. It took me 2 minutes with some wet/dry to eliminate them. 
As for the slop in Clifton chipbreaker: none in mine (3 examples). Either a bad batch and/or worn tooling. It happens. Anyone who ever makes anything in sufficient numbers is going to eventually come across the odd poor example that gets through quality control. It happens to multi million £ companies like Ford and Toyota it's almost certainly going to happen to smaller companies. Send the faulty ones back! Makes perfect sense.


----------



## CStanford (13 May 2014)

Corneel":2stpbtm2 said:


> Just to shake thing up a bit. Here's another one who isn't happy with the stayset capiron:
> 
> http://www.popularwoodworking.com/w...d:+woodworkingmagazine+(Woodworking+Magazine)



Ahem, ahem.... Charlesworth, Cohen, and now Schwarz......

Anybody remember these guys:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... zy2A0HcklA

I just looked at my Clifton two-piece capiron. It actually doesn't exhibit a perfect fit (pretty far from it, really) where nose mates to body. And you know what? It doesn't seem to matter a bloody damned bit.

Here it is yet again (perfect bacon strip off hard, figured maple), in a plane whose frog is highly unlikely to be a perfect mating fit to its bed (I've never bothered to check), whose sole most certainly is not perfectly flat (I did check and just chuckled and happily use it anyway), and whose cutter had already been in use for fifteen or twenty minutes and certainly had nothing anywhere close to a 'perfect' edge (even to start with). The woodshop must be a miserable place to be for the frustrated machinist crowd. They are forever fiddling, fixing, futzing, tuning, and complaining about tools that seem to work fine in other people's hands. And this is done all the while they own a full kit (kit and a half) from other manufacturers built to practically aerospace specs. Makes no sense whatsoever. 

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy32 ... 9b94f5.jpg


----------



## Corneel (13 May 2014)

Well, if you want to set the capiron 4 thou from the edge and it has 4 thou slop, I can understand that it is irritating. But 4 thou from the edge is really really really close. When you put a 70 degree microbevel on the frontedge of your capiron, you won't ever have to set it that close.


----------



## CStanford (13 May 2014)

Corneel":3p6xb0fd said:


> Well, if you want to set the capiron 4 thou from the edge and it has 4 thou slop, I can understand that it is irritating. But 4 thou from the edge is really really really close. When you put a 70 degree microbevel on the frontedge of your capiron, you won't ever have to set it that close.



I really am going to 'take the pledge' not to even attempt to quantify or mention measurements for which I have no instrument capable of taking said measurement. As long as I have my eyesight it'll just have to do. It's worked well for woodworkers through the centuries, no?

My folding rule measures in sixteenths of an inch as its smallest increment. Everything smaller than that related to wood is "cut to fit." Anything related to setting up a hand tool will have to be 'by eye.'

This thousandths of an inch horse-puckey is really beyond the pale at this point, in my opinion. Aren't you tired of it? Do you own a lot of instruments (or even one) that can take these sorts of measurements? Has owning such sensitive equipment opened up new vistas in your woodworking? If so, how, exactly has it done so? I have no clue what 4 thousandths of an inch looks like. I assume it would look differently in every part of a room depending on the light. Heck, I'm sure it would look differently in different kinds of light or under different kinds of light bulbs. You know, you just set it close and then adjust it if need be. If it works, as it did in my example, just use the tool. Next time, make it work again. And the time after that. Before you know it, the tool simply 'works' when you use it.


----------



## Jacob (13 May 2014)

CStanford":3lurg3eq said:


> Corneel":3lurg3eq said:
> 
> 
> > Just to shake thing up a bit. Here's another one who isn't happy with the stayset capiron:
> ...


 :lol: Agree. I take your point but who are those chaps? Is Dave the one in the middle?


----------



## CStanford (13 May 2014)

Jacob":2p3z4xhx said:


> CStanford":2p3z4xhx said:
> 
> 
> > Corneel":2p3z4xhx said:
> ...



They're "The Three Stooges"


----------



## Corneel (13 May 2014)

CStanford":lhmcjpqm said:


> I really am going to 'take the pledge' not to even attempt to quantify or mention measurements for which I have no instrument capable of taking said measurement. As long as I have my eyesight it'll just have to do. It's worked well for woodworkers through the centuries, no?



Indeed. When I give some beginner advice about this I'd say "when you get tearout, set it as close as you can. If you still get tearout, set it closer". 

So to be very clear: DON'T attempt to measure the distance.

Really the only way I know to measure this precisely is with a digital microscope and calibrated software. But that is rediculous in the workshop. And not neccessary.


----------



## David C (13 May 2014)

Enough of this persiflage.

Poor old Charles is blundering about in the dim world of imperial measurement. He experiences fine measurements every day but has no language to describe them.

A fine finishing shaving is about one thou".
A comfortable hardwood shaving is about two thou". So is newspaper.
A reasonably heavy hardwood shaving is about 4 thou". So is the thickness of reasonable quality printer paper.

Perhaps it is this lack of language that makes him so cantankerous?


----------



## CStanford (13 May 2014)

David C":1zfvglau said:


> Enough of this persiflage.
> 
> Poor old Charles is blundering about in the dim world of imperial measurement. He experiences fine measurements every day but has no language to describe them.
> 
> ...



The 'dim world of imperial measurement...?' So, please tell us what your equivalencies listed above are X-thousandths of.... an inch would be my guess. The last time I checked the inch wasn't part of any system of measurement not correctly described as 'imperial.'

I think I'll take a page out of the newspaper, and one out of my inkjet printer, and put them in the workshop for purposes of comparison. I'm not sure how this affects anything relevant, but I *guess* it must be entertaining and somehow enlightening to one's woodworking. "Look, Ma, this shaving is as thin as the newspaper." "Why don't you go thinner, Sonny?" "But Ma, I'll never get finished like that," says Sonny.

Oh, I know -- this is like trial attorneys who include their testosterone level on their resume. Impressive. 

Go get 'em tiger.


----------



## woodbrains (13 May 2014)

Hello,

Oh Charles, we have to describe measurements in some form of language for the sake of comunicating what we do. No one measures these things, (except maybe in those competitions such as Japanese craftsmen enjoy).

For instance, that shaving you are overly fond of showing us, in fairly innocuous maple BTW is about 1 1/2 thou. Are you going to hog off a lot of material like that, no, that is for final finishing. Could you go finer than that? Yes, but that would probably require you to flatten the plane's sole, so if you don't need to, then don't bother flattening. If you do then do. Other craftsmen find the need, either out of personal pride or necessity, but it is daft saying it doesn't have to be done, if you are working to different parameters then that will dictate how fine, or not, the tool needs to perform. It is not possible to take a consistent shaving much thinner than the deviation from flatness of the planes sole. For the sake of a bit of lapping on wet and dry, I think the time would be better spent doing so, rather than arguing the point in not doing so.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (13 May 2014)

Who wants all these shavings anyway? I always bin mine without even measuring them. I'm more bothered about the finished surface of the workpiece. Am I missing something?


----------



## MIGNAL (13 May 2014)

woodbrains":2z8e2to8 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Oh Charles, we have to describe measurements in some form of language for the sake of comunicating what we do. No one measures these things, (except maybe in those competitions such as Japanese craftsmen enjoy).
> 
> ...



Fairly innocuous Maple? Looks like it has quilt and some birds eye thrown in for good measure. What's more it's pretty hard to tell just by looking at a piece of wood just how difficult it's going to be. After all, how do you know where the run out is? I've hand planed plenty of very highly figured Maple over the years. Even certain examples of very lightly flamed stuff can be more difficult than deep, broad figured examples. You really can't tell just by looking at a picture. My guess, based on experience of quilt, flame and birds eye, is that it would take an extremely sharp and well set up Plane to obtain such a shaving without tear out. 
I could be wrong though.


----------



## CStanford (13 May 2014)

woodbrains":1feoij68 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Oh Charles, we have to describe measurements in some form of language for the sake of comunicating what we do. No one measures these things, (except maybe in those competitions such as Japanese craftsmen enjoy).
> 
> ...



This morning I made shavings the thickness of a gauzy, sort of really fine tissue paper (best I can describe it). Finishing passes for sure. Is there an overriding need for me to equate that to another physical substance or even know what its absolute measurement is? It's a thin, gauzy finishing pass. What's the big deal? 

I suppose the question really is when did taking an ordinary thin finish shaving become so interesting? People book classes to learn how to take a thin shaving. It's ridiculous. It's like taking a class to learn how to sweep the shop floor.

I would beware of folks who have a vested interest in conflating simple tasks into something mysterious and difficult and replete with needless fine measurements, tool catalog metallurgy, and other sundry hoo-hah.

There's nothing here that Charles Hayward didn't cover in a page and half, or probably even less.


----------



## CStanford (13 May 2014)

MIGNAL":33zy560w said:


> woodbrains":33zy560w said:
> 
> 
> > Hello,
> ...



It was, and is (I still have some), far from innocuous.


----------



## bugbear (13 May 2014)

Jacob":1be6wq7w said:


> Who wants all these shavings anyway? I always bin mine without even measuring them. I'm more bothered about the finished surface of the workpiece. Am I missing something?



The properties of the shaving are an excellent proxy for the cutting action of the blade, and much easier to see. This is a simple tip,
and I'm happy to pass it on.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (13 May 2014)

bugbear":2ab623q8 said:


> Jacob":2ab623q8 said:
> 
> 
> > Who wants all these shavings anyway? I always bin mine without even measuring them. I'm more bothered about the finished surface of the workpiece. Am I missing something?
> ...



I'm happy to pass along the tip to plane a piece of project scrap in order to adjust the plane to requirements before running finishing passes on live project stock. 

That said, I don't look at the shavings really. Sometimes their shape as they come up out the plane might be indicative of something. I simply look to see if the project scrap's surface (of the same species of course) will meet requirements for whatever the next stage might be - finished off the plane, or scraped and sanded to better accommodate the finish planned for the project. Really, the shavings do go in the garbage. It's the surface that counts.


----------



## woodbrains (13 May 2014)

CStanford":3f29dk4m said:


> MIGNAL":3f29dk4m said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":3f29dk4m said:
> ...



Hello,

OK sorry if your maple was a bit ornery, after all. The point is, though if you can plane to this thickness and thinner, as I believe you are doing, (those cottony shavings are good aren't they?) you cannot do it without a sharp blade (I never doubted they weren't.) or a flat sole. You might downplay the flatness of your plane, but it is flat, none the less. Intonatiing that it is just a bog standard, all planes come like this and everyone else makes a fuss over the fact, is a bit disingenuous . I have had many planes that needed flattening, before they would work, one particular example was so far out that by the time I had it flat, it was so thin under the frog, that it bent like tinfoil under the pressure of the frog screws. You might have been lucky, or got a used one that had been fettled by its former owner, but you have a flat plane. And how do we measure deviation from flatness but in thou's of inches, when comunicating what we are doing to others here?

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (13 May 2014)

I must have hit the Record plane jackpot. Every single one of them I own (8, 6, 5, 4.5 and 4) will take a really willowy shaving. Check that, I should say that I can't speak for the jack, I don't recall every asking it to work as a finish plane, and its iron is too heavily curved and would take a ridiculously narrow shaving if set really fine.

I have put a straightedge on the soles of my 4.5 and my 4, this being the rule out of a Starrett combination gauge. Neither plane tests terribly flat, there's light, but I suppose it could be the straightedge and not the soles. I did do a small amount of sole-fettling on the 4. I faired in some grinding marks on the bottom with a little sandpaper, a 20 or 30 minute job and rubbed a bump here or there (according to the Starrett rule). Nothing even close to a major sole flattening if memory serves. I have had this plane quite a while. It was one of only a few tools to survive a shop fire a few years ago.


----------



## woodbrains (13 May 2014)

Hello,

I have a preference for Record planes myself, the older the better in terms of manufacturing quality. But it was a Record 05 1/2 that was disastrously out of flat, as outlined above. 

20-30 minutes work with abrasives on a plane sole _IS_ flattening though, let us make no bones about it. I think you are a secret plane fettler and accuracy aficionado, you just don't like to admit it! No woodworker _needs_ the accuracy of a Starrett engineers square, after all. ( I have one and wouldn't be without it, but then I'm not afraid of talking about thou's)

Mike.


----------



## bugbear (13 May 2014)

woodbrains":2eq7okue said:


> 20-30 minutes work with abrasives on a plane sole _IS_ flattening though, let us make no bones about it.



In Paul Sellers plane tuning video, he flattens a sole in around 60 seconds. His techniques really are unbelievably good!

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (13 May 2014)

bugbear":5advtpsb said:


> woodbrains":5advtpsb said:
> 
> 
> > 20-30 minutes work with abrasives on a plane sole _IS_ flattening though, let us make no bones about it.
> ...



Hello,

Doesn't he do that edge fairing in thing, though. That makes me wince and makes no sense anyway. I'm sure he does the flattening bit prior to that efficiently, though.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (13 May 2014)

Does anybody else play the banjo in this forum?


----------



## GLFaria (13 May 2014)

Strange. I always thought woodworking was just about - well, woodworking, what else! It never ocurred to me it could be so much about passion! :roll:


----------



## CStanford (13 May 2014)

woodbrains":34wh1lu1 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I have a preference for Record planes myself, the older the better in terms of manufacturing quality. But it was a Record 05 1/2 that was disastrously out of flat, as outlined above.
> 
> ...



You bet it's flattening in the strictest sense. It's not really flat, though, to a Charlesworth standard. It's better than it was but it still shows a little light in its width, length, and on the diagonals. The funny think is that plane is probably the one I use the least but it's very capable.

Understand that I didn't start with 60 grit and hog off waste. If I recall it was more like 220 grit and the effect was as much polishing as it was anything. It's an old No. 4, I'll post a pic sometime, but it strangely had pretty rough treatment of the soles and sides. It was not Record's finest exemplar.


----------



## bugbear (14 May 2014)

CStanford":3t5siu35 said:


> woodbrains":3t5siu35 said:
> 
> 
> > Hello,
> ...



Any flatness problem that can be address with 220 grit was very minor, and a compliment to Record's factory. And you're fussier than I am on flatness if you even bother removing things that can be removed by 220 grit!

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (14 May 2014)

For the performance of the plane only three narrow areas are important. Toe of the plane. The area directly in front of the mouth and the heel. Light gaps between a straightedge and the planesole anywhere else on the sole do not matter.


----------



## bugbear (14 May 2014)

Jacob":1qv8r1gk said:


> Does anybody else play the banjo in this forum?



_A gentleman is someone who knows how to play the banjo and doesn't._ - *Mark Twain*


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 May 2014)

The definition of "perfect pitch" - a banjo in a skip, from thirty feet.


----------



## CStanford (14 May 2014)

bugbear":1ojqhpqi said:


> CStanford":1ojqhpqi said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":1ojqhpqi said:
> ...



As I mentioned in my post I was actually addressing grinding marks but certainly with an eye to knock down high spots as I identified them. It was flatter at the end than it was when I started but it was by no means what one would call a concerted sole-flattening effort, loins were not girded and float glass/machine tops were not brought into play (mostly because I have neither). The 220 grit was all I had around I'm sure. It was so spur of the moment I didn't go to the store for lower grit paper. I wouldn't read a whole lot into the process. I put the paper in a sanding block and hand sanded the sole. The paper wasn't tacked down to a reference surface. I did make a scribble here and there with a Sharpie. Perhaps it was precisely this casual effort that made it turn out so well. Sometimes trying too hard is counterproductive. I'm not so sure that spot sanding, like taking the high spots down on a board with a plane, doesn't beat attempting to lap the entire sole as if one were a machine. A lot of bananas have come out of the latter process. Find the high spot, sand the high spot, constantly checking with the straightest edge you have. Seems reasonable. One can't handplane the surface of an entire panel at once, yet we manage to make them pretty flat by a process of removing material from the high spots. A plane's sole is really no different.

Of course had I owned a Lie-Nielsen or Lee Valley smoother the whole exercise (fettling a Record) would have been the height of absurdity. Use the best tools you have and get the rest out of the shop. I'm not a huge believer in redundant tooling. All anybody really needs is one good smoother, jack, and jointer for stock prep. I have a No. 6 because I really do love them a lot. I could live without it though and probably should were I to totally put my money where my mouth is.


----------

