# Replacement plane iron, standard thickness



## mathias (9 Feb 2015)

Hello,

I try to advance from fictive online woodworking to real woodworking at home work. Been reading different forums for years and recently bought a few planes to start.

I would like standard thickness irons, quality equal or better then the 1930-1950 original Record irons that came with the planes.

So far I've seen Stanley, Irwin Record and Faithfull. How are they in your opinion? Are there better ones?


----------



## Racers (9 Feb 2015)

Why do you need to replace them?

Why do you need standard thickness?

Have you considered replacing the cap iron? do they have Stay set cap irons?

Pete


----------



## mathias (9 Feb 2015)

I do not need to replace them but would like to have additional ones.

I do not need std thickness but have decided after reading different views to stick to std/thin irons. A personal choice.

Std cap irons, if replaced it will probably be stay set.


----------



## Racers (9 Feb 2015)

The square shouldered Record blades are very nice the equivalent ones would be the Ray Isles O1 Steel ones. 
Cap irons make a big difference stay set are nice but LN etc are good. 

Pete


----------



## mathias (9 Feb 2015)

Thanks Pete I'll keep them in mind though they cost quite a lot


----------



## Racers (9 Feb 2015)

I thought they where a bargain! £20-£25 for a very nice plane blade is very cheap. 
Quangsheng from Workshop heaven are similar price slightly cheaper for the 2" slightly more for the 2 5/8"

Pete


----------



## Mr_P (9 Feb 2015)

Aren't the Quangsheng thicker than standard ?

£20/25 bargain ??? You can get a decent plane for that or a rusty one for a lot less.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/281593142310? ... EBIDX%3AIT


----------



## Racers (9 Feb 2015)

Mr_P":1lt4e14x said:


> Aren't the Quangsheng thicker than standard ?
> 
> £20/25 bargain ??? You can get a decent plane for that or a rusty one for a lot less.
> 
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/281593142310? ... EBIDX%3AIT



Trouble is they usually have a line of pits under the cap iron! that can be hard work to get round.

Pete


----------



## Mr_P (9 Feb 2015)

Not a problem I've come across, very short is common though.

Usual problems with rusty "bargains" are cracks under the rust,deeply pitted soles and the cheaper they are the worse the packing.


----------



## heimlaga (9 Feb 2015)

If your old irons are good enough to use there is no need to waste money on a second set of irons. Just sharpen them as they get dull.
If your irons are worn out or too pitted you need to buy new irons.


----------



## mathias (10 Feb 2015)

I'd like to have extra irons if they don't cost too much.

Does any one have experience of modern Stanley, Faithfull, Irvin Record or other lower price irons?


----------



## Vann (10 Feb 2015)

mathias":u6s45dib said:


> Does any one have experience of modern Stanley, Faithfull, Irvin Record or other lower price irons?


I don't - but the modern Record and Stanley irons are generally considered to be of poor quality (with the edge-holding ability of a slice of cheese (hammer) - okay that's an exaggeration, but you get the picture). I doubt Faithfull would be any better.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Billy Flitch (10 Feb 2015)

Any old iron any old iron, any any old iron, you look neat talk about a treat,you look dapper from your napper to your feet. Sorry about that I couldn't help it.

In all honesty try the irons before you decide to do any thing, they may be better than you think.The steel planes have backing Irons the modern name for them is chip breakers but there job is still the same to back the iron up.


----------



## G S Haydon (11 Feb 2015)

The standard cap iron found on a stanley, record or the like are excellent. Stay sets and aftermarket are also good. Just be cautious buying aftermarket or bit's not original to the tool. There are consequences I read on this forum about eventually the lever cap screw shearing the threads on a frog due to it not having as much bite. A longer screw could be a wise option. 

The Ray Iles iron seems like a nice idea although I have no experience of it, I think it's standard thickness or perhaps a hair more? If you go for a thicker iron be prepared that you might have open the mouth up and further compound the lever cap screw issue.

I had a faithfull #4 and found the iron to be fine for my needs. It got sharp and cut wood nicely. YMMV


----------



## Cheshirechappie (11 Feb 2015)

I think for standard thickness irons, replacements are still available from Stanley and Irwin Record. Even if they don't quite match the supposed magical qualities of those made in the 1930s and 1950s, they won't be complete rubbish. They'll take a fair edge and hold it a reasonable time, and won't cost a fortune.

I've only used one Faithfull plane, a new No 3. The iron seemed a bit soft compared to others I have; it sharpened very quickly, and whilst it's edge-holding wasn't fantastic, it did a reasonable job; it was fair quality for the price, which was ludicrously low. (The rest of the plane was barely adequate, but, as I say, ludicrously cheap....)


----------



## David C (11 Feb 2015)

Ray Iles and Hock both use 2.4mm, i e 50% thicker than standard.

There used to be a Japanese laminated iron, Ax ?, which might be closer to original thickness.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Cheshirechappie (11 Feb 2015)

David C":xg50b11j said:


> There used to be a Japanese laminated iron, Ax ?, which might be closer to original thickness.
> 
> David Charlesworth



There still is - http://www.axminster.co.uk/japanese-lam ... ane-blades - though the thickness is not specified, it does appear similar to original thickness. The reviews on the site are positive, too.

Not cheap, though...


----------



## mathias (11 Feb 2015)

If my Record No4 isn't a frankenplane it was made 1931-1939 according to http://www.recordhandplanes.com and so it seems from the photos I have seen of the No6 that is on its way.

The No4 has the so called square iron and the thickness is 2.4mm. I have no experience of younger Record planes so I don't know of planes with 1.2mm irons (50% of 2.4mm)

Edit: or perhaps it should be 1.6mm as standard iron (1.6+50%=2.4mm) instead of above mentioned 1.2mm with regards to David's statement above?


----------



## Vann (12 Feb 2015)

mathias":1harfas5 said:


> If my Record No4...
> 
> The No4 has the so called square iron and the thickness is 2.4mm. I have no experience of younger Record planes...
> 
> Edit: or perhaps it should be 1.6mm as standard iron (1.6+50%=2.4mm) instead of above mentioned 1.2mm with regards to David's statement above?


Yes I don't think David has that correct. The older Stanley (USA) irons I have measure ~1.95 to 2.05mm thick, while the thickest Record irons I have are the oldest, at 2.4mm thick. The others all fit somewhere in between. 

Replacement irons seem to be all over the place - from 2mm to 3.175mm (and that's excluding some Lie-Nielsen and Veritas really thick ones made specifically for their own planes). 

If you don't want to spend much money buy a Faithfull iron and see what you think, before buying anymore. If you want a really good one, I believe the Japanese laminated "Smoothcut" (at just 2mm thick) is probably about the best there is for a really keen edge - and no problems with screws or yokes being too short. I bought a few Clifton irons, but haven't really put them through their paces (the only one that gets regular use is in my Cliffie No.3 and I'm happy with that). Another is fitted to a Record No.08, but to avoid problems with screws, yokes, and the need to file the mouth, I had it surface ground down to 2.75mm (from about 3.175).

HTH.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## David C (12 Feb 2015)

Well, I have just measured some old irons.

A Stanley rule and level 1.8mm, others 2 or 2.2mm.

The 50 % figure is clearly incorrect though I have seen it used re Iles replacement blades.

David


----------



## Corneel (12 Feb 2015)

A similar laminated iron as the one from Axminster can be bought straight from Japan, from "tools from japan". Look under Tsunesaboro planes (or however you write that). It is a lot cheaper and shipping isn't much for such a small item. It just takes longer.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (12 Feb 2015)

It may be worth a quick note to the effect that the stiffness of a plane iron, using classical beam theory, is proportional to the cube of the thickness. Thus, an iron 2.4mm thick is almost twice as stiff as a 2mm thick one. (A 3mm thick iron is more than three times stiffer than a 2mm one.)

It's true that the stiffness of the iron is bolstered by being firmly fixed to the cap-iron, but increasing the stiffness one element of an assembly can only help the overall stiffness.

A stiff plane iron is infinitely preferable to a weak and floppy one; too much flexibility means chatter will be much more likely.

It's interesting to note that the older Record irons were a bit thicker than more modern ones. Speculating a bit here, but could it be that iron thickness was reduced as much as they thought they could get away with to save a bit manufacturing cost? I have a feeling that 1.8 to 2mm is about as thin as a Bailey-type iron can go and still give fair performance most of the time. (From personal experience of a replacement Cliffie iron in a Record 07, the extra thickness definitely improves performance on tougher duties.)

Has anybody ever tried irons thinner than 1.8mm in a Bailey-type plane?


----------



## Vann (13 Feb 2015)

Corneel":2ltkrr8l said:


> A similar laminated iron as the one from Axminster can be bought straight from Japan, from "tools from japan". Look under Tsunesaboro planes...


I see they're 2.2mm thick, which has got to be better than the 2.0mm thick Axi irons.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## bugbear (13 Feb 2015)

Corneel":2js1r8uq said:


> A similar laminated iron as the one from Axminster can be bought straight from Japan, from "tools from japan". Look under Tsunesaboro planes (or however you write that). It is a lot cheaper and shipping isn't much for such a small item. It just takes longer.



here's a direct link

BugBear (who had to google it)


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2015)

mathias":2kdnxcb9 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I try to advance from fictive online woodworking to real woodworking at home work. ...


Getting bothered about replacement plane irons and all that jazz is one of the defining features of fictive woodworking. 
If you want to do real woodworking you use the blades you have and spend the money on wood instead.


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2015)

Cheshirechappie":2lvkt6qd said:


> ...
> It's interesting to note that the older Record irons were a bit thicker than more modern ones. Speculating a bit here, but could it be that iron thickness was reduced as much as they thought they could get away with to save a bit manufacturing cost? .....


No of course not. 
Reducing costs by skimping the most important element of the tool would be insane, not least because the amount of material and money saved would be tiny.
The reason for thin blades is that they are easier to sharpen. They save a lot of time. That's the whole point of the Bailey design in nutshell.
There would be some variation as makers tried different set-ups e.g. many Stanley and Record blades were laminated, which I guess might make them thicker.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Feb 2015)

Jacob":201e28f5 said:


> The reason for thin blades is that they are easier to sharpen. They save a lot of time. That's the whole point of the Bailey design in nutshell.
> There would be some variation as makers tried different set-ups e.g. many Stanley and Record blades were laminated, which I guess might make them thicker.



Why not even thinner, then? How about 1mm, or even thinner? Razor blades?

Is that why chisel makers made thin chisels, so that they were easier to sharpen? Makes you wonder why they bothered making registered firmers, or mortice chisels. And as for the wooden planemakers - well, they spent about three centuries getting it completely wrong, didn't they? Not to mention the infill planemakers. And yet craftsmen still bought their products, right up to WW2 and beyond - Marples didn't cease wooden plane-making until the 1960s.

No, Jacob - if ease of sharpening is a feature of thin plane irons, it's an incidental benefit. It's not the main reason.


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Feb 2015)

Jacob":1ju2cp89 said:


> Reducing costs by skimping the most important element of the tool would be insane



From the 1970s onwards, Stanley and Record skimped on every element of their tools........

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2015)

Cheshirechappie":2fuwzesg said:


> ....
> 
> No, Jacob - if ease of sharpening is a feature of thin plane irons, it's an incidental benefit. It's not the main reason.


It is actually. 
Plus ease of adjustment, speed of blade removal/replacement; all add up to ease of sharpening.


> And as for the wooden planemakers - well, they spent about three centuries getting it completely wrong, didn't they?


They did the best they could with the technology they had, but then were superseded by the improved steel plane. It's a very simple story.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Feb 2015)

Why not even thinner irons. then? They'd be even easier to sharpen.


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Feb 2015)

Jacob":1088xm31 said:


> Cheshirechappie":1088xm31 said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



You've been pedalling this myth for years, Jacob. The way most of us hone blades (just the end bit that does the cutting), honing a thick blade takes no longer than honing a thin one. But the way you hone (your dubious rounded under method) involves honing the whole of the bevel, so a thick blade will take longer.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Corneel (13 Feb 2015)

Some background information about these Japanes irons. It is not like a blacksmith makes each of these individually from a a lump of wrought iron and a bit of steel. In Japan you can get large sheets with a laminated steel edge. These are made in the steel factory and are used mostly for kitchen knifes. The blacksmith buys these and cuts the blade from the sheet. Then he hardens the edge. The base material is normal carbon steel, not expensive and rare wrought iron.

In a Stanley plane, a 2.2 mm iron is plenty thick enough for most work when you make sure that the frog is pulled back so the blade is fully supported on the sole of the plane too, and with the capiron relatively close to the edge. When tearout is a problem this can be controlled with the capiron too, placed very cclose to the edge.


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2015)

Cheshirechappie":17gasvdb said:


> Why not even thinner irons. then? They'd be even easier to sharpen.


Compromise. No doubt experiments were made.
A similar design is the Gillette safety razor where the blade is very thin, but disposable rather then resharpenable. 
The similarity is that they both have a thin blade clamped in a blade holding/clamping system, which emulates a thicker blade. They tried thicker blades too in early safety razors, and thinner disposable blades in planes.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Feb 2015)

Jacob":162f4hjx said:


> Cheshirechappie":162f4hjx said:
> 
> 
> > Why not even thinner irons. then? They'd be even easier to sharpen.
> ...



Compromise between what factors?

If razor blades work so well in razors, why don't they use them in planes?


----------



## sdjp (13 Feb 2015)

Cheshirechappie":34hz6k7u said:


> It may be worth a quick note to the effect that the stiffness of a plane iron, using classical beam theory, is proportional to the cube of the thickness. Thus, an iron 2.4mm thick is almost twice as stiff as a 2mm thick one. (A 3mm thick iron is more than three times stiffer than a 2mm one.)



Whilst true in principle, when you get a plane iron in actual use, it's a bit more complicated than that approximation. In a Baily style plane, the cap iron is normally clamped to the plane iron with uneven pressure distribution (i.e. the line just behind the edge is the bit you want to clamp hard). Whilst I baulk at trying to calculate the second moment of area of such a system, provided that the cap iron doesn't move in use, then even without factoring a preload force, surely it's the cap iron + iron system that should be considered, not the iron on it's own?

The primary effect of the preload would be to increase the net force before the tip of the iron separates from the cap iron - so provided that there's not a gap in use (i.e. no shavings manage to worm their way under the cap), then surely it's reasonable to consider the thickness to be cap iron + iron; as a closer approximation?

The net consequence of that suggests that the effects given above, as relative measures, will overstate the effect of considering a thicker iron. in isolation. Thicker is, of course, stiffer; but if we're taking even a 1.2mm cap iron into account, then to end up twice as stiff, you have to go from a 2mm iron to a 2.8 mm iron. (Obvious problem here is if the two materials are significantly different materials … that's going to complicate any analysis).

I'm sure that this model disagrees with reality in a number of aspects, of course - but I _do_ think that it gets closer than considering the plane iron in isolation (as that's not how they are actually deployed, in use).


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2015)

Cheshirechappie":6hhwunpf said:


> Jacob":6hhwunpf said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":6hhwunpf said:
> ...


I guess it's because a thin razor blade iron would not be stiff enough for woodwork, but OK for most beards.
Then again - the larger a disposable blade the more it costs so the more cost effective it becomes to sharpen them. And so on.


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2015)

sdjp":593dgqqh said:


> .......surely it's the cap iron + iron system that should be considered, not the iron on it's own?......considering the plane iron in isolation (as that's not how they are actually deployed, in use).


Exactly. The Bailey plane has a composite blade "unit" consisting of frog, blade, cap iron, lever cap; which together emulate (and out perform) a thicker blade.

The "composite" tool is not exactly a new idea: a stick or a stone may each be a tool - put them together and you have an axe or club, with some parts disposable, some sharpenable etc. etc.
A tiny flint arrowhead on it's own would be ineffective. Formed into an arrow and shot from a bow it would be more effective than even a very large stone on its own.
Come to think - there's something very stone-agey about the obsession with thick blades!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Feb 2015)

sdjp":tfh84krf said:


> Cheshirechappie":tfh84krf said:
> 
> 
> > It may be worth a quick note to the effect that the stiffness of a plane iron, using classical beam theory, is proportional to the cube of the thickness. Thus, an iron 2.4mm thick is almost twice as stiff as a 2mm thick one. (A 3mm thick iron is more than three times stiffer than a 2mm one.)
> ...



I agree entirely, and that's why I did say that the iron's stiffness is bolstered by being firmly fixed to the cap-iron. However, increasing the stiffness of one element of an assembly must increase the overall stiffness of the whole assembly, as also stated.

There must be some point at which reducing the stiffness of the assembly (by reducing the stiffness of one or more elements of that assembly) begins to produce a performance that is less than acceptable under most circumstances. I'm not sure that I've ever seen any tests that might show where that limit is concerning the thickness of plane blades, but as nobody has reported finding blades thinner tha 1.8mm, I suspect that's somewhere close to it. Unless anybody can demonstrate otherwise?

Edit to add - There is also the subjective point of what is regarded as acceptable performance. Anecdotal eveidence would suggest that some poeple are happy with blades of 1.8 to 2mm in their planes, whilst others feel that their plane's performance is not quite as good as it could be with such an iron, being prone to chatter when faced with harder timbers, knots or endgrain; but that performance is enhanced (problems reduced)with a slightly thicker iron.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Feb 2015)

"I guess it's because a thin razor blade iron would not be stiff enough for woodwork, but OK for most beards."

Indeed. But what thickness of iron IS stiff enough for woodwork, and how do you determine what's acceptable performance?


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Feb 2015)

Cheshirechappie":23n7ev6t said:


> But what thickness of iron IS stiff enough for woodwork?



It all depends of how demanding the wood is; how demanding your standards are; and the sort of work you are doing.

Just get a plane with a Bedrock frog, a thick iron and a Stay-Set cap iron and you don't have to worry about all this stuff any more  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2015)

You said it yourself above; 1.8 mm ish or a bit more? It'll vary with the use demanded of it. And a lot of other variables of course.


----------



## bugbear (13 Feb 2015)

Jacob":ojs9948o said:


> And a lot of other variables of course.



Wise words.

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Feb 2015)

Jacob":35sbxhtw said:


> You said it yourself above; 1.8 mm ish or a bit more? It'll vary with the use demanded of it. And a lot of other variables of course.



It'll vary with the use demanded of it....

Well, quite. Isn't that the point of the discussion? Some say a thin iron is all they needed, some say a slightly thicker one will work better in some circumstances. Seems you agree.

Not just down to ease of sharpening, then....


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2015)

Cheshirechappie":1j2o4esh said:


> Jacob":1j2o4esh said:
> 
> 
> > You said it yourself above; 1.8 mm ish or a bit more? It'll vary with the use demanded of it. And a lot of other variables of course.
> ...


The point of having a blade _as thin as possible for the job in hand_ is that it makes it easier to sharpen. The steel plane and Bailey design makes it possible to use thinner blades for the same jobs - the primary advantage of which is easier sharpening.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Feb 2015)

Jacob":1zqzdl67 said:


> Cheshirechappie":1zqzdl67 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1zqzdl67 said:
> ...



Well, as Paul Chapman pointed out earlier, most people sharpen by just attacking the bit that does the work, not the whole bevel (which is only trimmed up on a grinder now and again). Thus, blade thickness is pretty much immaterial when honing.

I think we have established that a blade as thin as possible for the job in hand means that thinner blades struggle with some jobs. Thus, a plane with a slightly thicker blade, all other things being equal, will give better performance in more demanding circumstances.

It's also worth noting that a thicker, stiffer cap-iron used with a given blade will improve performance as well; a point noticed by a number of experienced workers, and recommended as a method of improving the performance of Bailey-type plane.

There is a practical limit to the thickness of iron, cap-iron or both that can be used, and several possible problems that can arise if thicker components are fitted. The plane's mouth might be too narrow to accept the new assembly (curable by filing the mouth wider), the yoke may not engage properly with the cap-iron slot (curable by fitting a longer-nosed yoke available from several specialist suppliers), the adjuster stud in the back of the frog may be a little short (curable by fitting a longer stud available from several specialist suppliers), the cap-iron screw may be a bit short - they're short enough anyway! (curable by fitting a longer cap-iron screw available from several specialist suppliers), and the lever-cap screw in the top face of the frog may have insufficient thread engagement in it's hole once adjusted for the thicker assembly (curable by fitting a slightly longer screw available from etc. etc.). It might be worth investigating whether those problems could affect your plane before shelling out for thicker iron and/or cap-iron, and deciding whether you wish to replace the other components or not.

Another alternative (again mentioned by Paul Chapman earlier) is to buy a premium plane, which will be fitted with thick irons and cap-irons as standard.....


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2015)

Cheshirechappie":hqlip0mm said:


> .........
> Well, as Paul Chapman pointed out earlier, most people sharpen by just attacking the bit that does the work, not the whole bevel (which is only trimmed up on a grinder now and again). Thus, blade thickness is pretty much immaterial when honing...........


If you don't count grinding the bevel as sharpening then you are right. 
But it *is* an inescapable part of sharpening, so you are wrong! Even wronger if you do it all by hand.
Anyway grinding is quicker with a thinner blade too.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Feb 2015)

Ah - the Jacob default position! Can't beat 'em on blade thickness, so let's have a sharpening debate instead!

If you want to "do it all by hand" that's your right. Good luck to you. However, most of us do the heavy metal removal on a grinder, and use the stones just to produce a polished bit right at the cutting edge. Thus, plane blade thickness is pretty well immaterial when sharpening. It isn't when planing, though....


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Feb 2015)

Just done a small calculation. Reducing the thickness of a plane blade 200mm x 50mm from 2.4mm to 2mm saves about 3 tons of toolsteel per 100,000 blades. A worthwhile saving if you're mass producing planes - or operating under wartime constraints. Given that toolsteel is among the more expensive steels, you'd regard a saving like that as worthwhile, provided you didn't get too many complaints about quality; and especially if you could add it to the profit margin and not pass the saving on to the customer.

200 x 50 x 0.4mm x 100,000 units = 0.2 x 0.05 x 0.0004m x 100,000 units = 0.4 cu. m.

Density of steel is about 7800kg/cu m, so 7800 x 0.4 = 3120kg = about 3 tons.

(A question was raised a while ago asking if anybody knew how many Bailey planes had been made. None of us had an answer except 'a lot', so I don't know whether 100,000 units amounts to a month's production, a year's production or a decade's production. 

Speculating - if the reduction happened during the war years, it could be that it was one of those many token gestures made at the time 'to save resources', and return to former specification didn't happen when normality slowly returned after the war.)


----------



## iNewbie (13 Feb 2015)

Jacob":3dxl1rbt said:


> If you don't count grinding the bevel as sharpening then you are right.
> But it *is* an inescapable part of sharpening, so you are wrong! Even wronger if you do it all by hand.
> Anyway grinding is quicker with a thinner blade too.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ3uCMEmzgM


----------



## mathias (13 Feb 2015)

Jacob":t12nmtpc said:


> mathias":t12nmtpc said:
> 
> 
> > Hello,
> ...



I will use the precent blade. I thought that I've made that clear. I want an extra blade shaped for example for scrub work with my No4 as I don't have/want a dedicated scrub plane. Please don't tell me to get a second hand scrub plane for whatever reason since I don't want a separate one (and please don't ask).


----------



## mathias (13 Feb 2015)

Cheshirechappie":13r4k2t0 said:


> ......... It might be worth investigating whether those problems could affect your plane before shelling out for thicker iron and/or cap-iron, and deciding whether you wish to replace the other components or not.
> 
> Another alternative (again mentioned by Paul Chapman earlier) is to buy a premium plane, which will be fitted with thick irons and cap-irons as standard.....



Don't worry, my budget is very limited and as I said in the beginning, standard size iron and if possible as good as original Record square type of iron. A Faithfull iron I think is less then 6£ and as there have been some good comments (concidering the price) on some of their products (the No4 plane and the blue handled chisels) I was hoping for some comments/experience in this area.

Jacob, if you are still reading. When an iron is worn out, what would you buy?


----------



## mathias (13 Feb 2015)

Oh, grinding/honing is done by hand,dont have a grinder nor a workshop. Wood work is done in the dining room ;-)
For a while I used our future childs room but the future is here since almost four years....


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2015)

mathias":1bg7h7rx said:


> ....
> 
> Jacob, if you are still reading. When an iron is worn out, what would you buy?


I've done a lot of woodwork over the years but have never yet worn out a blade except a block plane which I replaced with the standard identical Stanley offering.
You have to do a hell of a lot of hand work to wear them out, or be a crazy sharpener with a grinding wheel.
In any case a 2nd hand plane is going to be cheaper than a replacement blade. I've got a few, which defers even further the likelihood of ever wearing one out.


----------



## mathias (13 Feb 2015)

Thanks Jacob. I live in France and not many 2nd hand here and shipping from UK is expensive so it is a bit more complicated for me.

A new Faithfull iron is less than 6£ but I'd rather by beer for that if the iron is no good at all.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Feb 2015)

I have a Faithfull number 3 plane, which I bought out of curiosity, and to fettle up into something better. Straight from the maker, it just about works, but in all honesty it's not very good.

The iron is a bit soft compared to most I have. It sharpens very easily to a good edge, but doesn't hold it as long as as most irons. If you are prepared to pay a bit more for a Stanley replacement iron (about £12 in the UK, but you may be able to buy one locally and save international postage), I think you'd find it will give a better performance than the Faithfull iron.


----------



## mathias (13 Feb 2015)

I found a Uk shop that have several of the things I have on my list and they have Stanley 2" at 8.21£. Not a big difference so why not if it is better. Is this a personale experience, Stanley better then Faithfull I mean?


----------



## Billy Flitch (14 Feb 2015)

Yesterday while looking for something I came across this tid bit of information.It may add something to the conversation on plane irons,then again maybe not?
The interesting points are the approx date of the iron 1750 its size 2 m/m at the cutting edge trailing to 1 m/m at its head and its very early use of a backing iron.
If you don't wish to read it all scroll down to the part headed The irons, 
http://www.taths.org.uk/tools-and-trade ... -of-london


----------



## worn thumbs (14 Feb 2015)

I have worn out three smoothing plane irons,two block plane irons and two spokeshave irons.I replaced them all with Stanley offerings as thats what they had originally and they worked perfectly well.I know that the alternatives exist and they seem to be marketed on the basis that they are cheaper or better than the original type.I suppose they have to be or there would be no business to be done.
I have never seen the point of extra thick or extra hard replacements as they tend to be more brittle and when you do need to sharpen them it takes a lot more work.I suppose it impresses the hobbyist to see a long list of features describing them.I once had such a specimen tell me he had just bought a cryogenically hardened iron-sounds good doesn't it?So I asked him what the advantage was and got no sensible answer.


----------



## David C (14 Feb 2015)

For the final set of fine shavings, off my 8' by 16" beech bench top, I used to use three sharp Stanley blades.

Today, I get this job done with one Hock A2 blade.

It is possible that 1970's Stanley blades were not a high point.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (14 Feb 2015)

David C":35c6ltrg said:


> For the final set of fine shavings, off my 8' by 16" beech bench top, I used to use three sharp Stanley blades.
> 
> Today, I get this job done with one Hock A2 blade.
> 
> ...


They were cheap, easy to sharpen and got the job done.


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Feb 2015)

Jacob":32bw4tja said:


> David C":32bw4tja said:
> 
> 
> > For the final set of fine shavings, off my 8' by 16" beech bench top, I used to use three sharp Stanley blades.
> ...



Blimey, Jacob, you seem able to justify any old tat that Stanley produced. Are you on a retainer or something :-k 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (14 Feb 2015)

Paul Chapman":12yakaag said:


> Jacob":12yakaag said:
> 
> 
> > David C":12yakaag said:
> ...


Yes. I'm trying to retain my cash and not spend it on things I don't need.


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Feb 2015)




----------



## Corneel (14 Feb 2015)

Billy Flitch":3tuyqeeq said:


> Yesterday while looking for something I came across this tid bit of information.It may add something to the conversation on plane irons,then again maybe not?
> The interesting points are the approx date of the iron 1750 its size 2 m/m at the cutting edge trailing to 1 m/m at its head and its very early use of a backing iron.
> If you don't wish to read it all scroll down to the part headed The irons,
> http://www.taths.org.uk/tools-and-trade ... -of-london



Thanks a lot Billy! I have heard about that plane before, but never seen this article. 
I don't know if I agree with his assumption "that the sign of the three plains" shows us double iron planes. It could also be a more ornamental wedge, like they made in The Netherlands at that time.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Feb 2015)

Billy Flitch":2wv0lhx5 said:


> Yesterday while looking for something I came across this tid bit of information.It may add something to the conversation on plane irons,then again maybe not?
> The interesting points are the approx date of the iron 1750 its size 2 m/m at the cutting edge trailing to 1 m/m at its head and its very early use of a backing iron.
> If you don't wish to read it all scroll down to the part headed The irons,
> http://www.taths.org.uk/tools-and-trade ... -of-london




Thanks, Billy. That's interesting, because the bench plane irons in Benjamin Seaton's chest (dating from 1797) are all about 3mm thick at the bevel tapering to about 1 - 1.5mm at the head, both the single and double irons (and the double irons had the key-hole slot to fix the back-iron by the now familiar screw). Later 19th and 20th century irons tend to be a bit thicker again; about 4 to 5 mm thick at the bevel tapering to 1.5 - 2mm at the head. So it seems that irons were made progressively thicker as time passed. Either that, or dealers offered a variety of irons with different thicknesses, but craftsmen increasingly preferred to buy thicker irons.


----------



## worn thumbs (14 Feb 2015)

Cheshirechappie":3hpcb67y said:


> Billy Flitch":3hpcb67y said:
> 
> 
> > Yesterday while looking for something I came across this tid bit of information.It may add something to the conversation on plane irons,then again maybe not?
> ...



I have several wooden planes with tapered irons.It would seem to be a factor of allowing the wedge to enter the plane body a bit further as the iron wears.Were it not so,it would be pretty difficult to reach the end of the iron with a hammer when adjustment is needed.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Feb 2015)

worn thumbs":1uqof1s2 said:


> I have worn out three smoothing plane irons,two block plane irons and two spokeshave irons.I replaced them all with Stanley offerings as thats what they had originally and they worked perfectly well.I know that the alternatives exist and they seem to be marketed on the basis that they are cheaper or better than the original type.I suppose they have to be or there would be no business to be done.
> I have never seen the point of extra thick or extra hard replacements as they tend to be more brittle and when you do need to sharpen them it takes a lot more work.I suppose it impresses the hobbyist to see a long list of features describing them.I once had such a specimen tell me he had just bought a cryogenically hardened iron-sounds good doesn't it?So I asked him what the advantage was and got no sensible answer.



From experience, a slightly thicker iron does improve a Bailey-type plane's ability to cope with knots, harder woods and end-grain planing. As mentioned earlier, there's a bit of a trade-off between additional thickness and modifications needed to the plane to accommodate it.

I think for some people, irons of harder grades of steel can be a genuine benefit. Australian woodworkers have some fearsomely hard native timbers, for example. A professional using planes every day on exotic hardwoods may see a benefit, especially if the additional first cost of the iron over a standard one is not too great. However, for those of us working predominantly softwoods or relatively mild temperate hardwoods, the benefits are sometimes harder to justify.

At the amateur end of the market, there is always the 'alloy wheels' factor. Alloy wheels won't make your car faster, more economical, or make the chore of the daily commute any easier, but for some people they're nice to have. Much the same applies to tools.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with a £60 PMV11 replacement iron. I won't live long enough to wear one out. However, it's nice to know that the choice is there for those that do want one, even if they don't really need one. It's their money they're spending, not mine; as long as they don't tell me how to spend my money, I won't tell them how to spend theirs.


----------

