# Bailey style planes, thin irons and cap-irons.



## Cheshirechappie (18 Oct 2015)

About twelve months ago, I bought a Faithfull number 3 smoother brand new for the princely sum of £17 including delivery. I didn't really expect to get too much for this price, and I wasn't disappointed. The plane was almost useless out of the box, even with the iron sharpened up and the cap-iron nose reshaped to fit. The biggest fault was the banana sole - 6 thou concave. There were several other faults, including a frog that didn't bed properly on the sole because the adjuster screw flange was too large and propped the back of the frog casting off the machined seating on the sole. The wooden handles were quite nice, though.

The plane took a bit of fettling up (obviously!) but did in the end make a reasonable tool. It isn't high class, but it 'does'. I have discovered that I quite like this small-sized, nimble plane, so the investment wasn't totally wasted!

One thing I checked when assessing the plane was the bedding of the iron on the frog face with the plane in working condition. I could get a 10 thou feeler gauge between the frog and blade, and move it up and down the frog quite a way. That obviously means the iron is only contacting the frog at a line close to the mouth, and somewhere at the top of the frog. The iron is 0.081" thick (near as dammit 2mm), though the cap-iron is clearly not the world's finest.

This isn't the only Bailey style plane on which I've noticed this; I've seen it on other, better quality planes too; I've also seen the point raised in the past by others with rather more knowledge of planes and planing than I have. 

I have my own thoughts about this, but I offer it up as a point of discussion. Is it a fault that might allow a plane to be more prone to chatter through having a poorly bedded iron/cap-iron assembly, or is it inconsequential?

Over to you, ladies and gentlemen!


----------



## Jacob (18 Oct 2015)

Gawd erewego!
I bought a Faithful 10. It was utterly p|ss poor and beyond fettling so I sent it back. It was good in parts though!

Chatter - loose workpiece, loosely held blade, blunt blade, poor technique, etc, could be all any of these.


----------



## undergroundhunter (18 Oct 2015)

Yet another can of worms.

but here is my 2p worth.

I have 8 bailey style planes all with "thin" irons and original cap irons, as you say most have gaps between the frog and the back of the iron (I've never been bothered to measure it) but its never once created me a problem. As Jacob has said chatter is normally a human error as apposed to a tool issue. I did get sucked into the hype regarding thick irons and upgraded cap irons so I bought a Quangsheng iron and cap iron from Matthew @ workshop heaven, in my opinion all it did was create me more work (irreversibly widening the mouth) with no noticeable benefit. I'm not a firm believer in if it aint broke, don't fix it.

Matt


----------



## Sheffield Tony (18 Oct 2015)

I think Vann had some words of wisdom on this recently in another thread :

ross-no-4-plane-t89988-30.html

Presumably if correctly shaped, the lever cap / cap iron spread the pressure on the cutting iron a bit like the framework of an old-style windscreen wiper blade.

Having tried my Record #6 with a Clifton cutting iron, the very thin Stanley iron it came with, the Clifton 2 piece cap iron, and the thin Stanley cap iron that was in the plane when I got it in various combinations, I concluded that the 2 piece stay-set cap iron made more difference than the thicker Clifton iron. With the stay-set cap iron, the thicker cutter made little difference.


----------



## lurker (18 Oct 2015)

I think I bought the same as CC, attraction was it was 17 quid delivered and I did not have a no.3
My expectations were very low but thought it would be OK for parts if nothing else.

It was great!! 
Nicely finished, worked out of box
Sole flat to 0.1 mm all over
Edges were a little sharp but I just wiped the corners with a bit of fine emery stuck to some Mdf. 
Gave the blade a tickle and it was cutting fine shavings

I think I own about 20 ish planes and this was only the second new one I have.

I admit I have not used it much and the blade may blunt quick but I did give it a work out on a bit of oak and it seemed to hold an edge ( which I was not expecting).

Only thing is, I have found I never needed a no.3 all along


----------



## G S Haydon (18 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":19wcalt6 said:


> One thing I checked when assessing the plane was the bedding of the iron on the frog face with the plane in working condition. I could get a 10 thou feeler gauge between the frog and blade, and move it up and down the frog quite a way. That obviously means the iron is only contacting the frog at a line close to the mouth, and somewhere at the top of the frog. The iron is 0.081" thick (near as dammit 2mm), though the cap-iron is clearly not the world's finest.



I'm a dreadfully sad person. I've though about these things too and moved away from what I initially thought about them. I think pretty much any double iron bench plane iron does this. On the woodies I have the bed is not perfectly flat but it seems set, as you mention, to create pressure at the top and bottom. If you tried to make all of these mating surfaces dead flat I think it'd be a fools errand (I've been that fool). 

My Dad's #4 shows a dramatic amount of wear at the very top of the frog. it looks bright because of regular use. But the rest of the frog is a dull "patina" rich colour. I think there is a balance of just enough spring. 

In regard cheap planes I picked up a silverline #4 a while back for about £12.00. I did have to spend a bit of time on it but nothing crazy. I even experimented with water stones with multiple steps. While the water stones worked they did not suit me so well as my oil stones.

While it's not "nice" I could easily use it as a smoother, the surface it left behind it was no better or worse than any other plane I've used


----------



## bridger (18 Oct 2015)

In his original patent application for the humpback chipbreaker Leonard Bailey described it as making contact at 3 points, much like the stayset does, and for the purpose of controlling bend. It takes careful fettling to make this work, and I believe that the pressure from the lever cap comes into play. However, if you do fettle to that point the blade will sit flat on the frog. I am not sure how much correlation there is between the blade sitting flat on the frog and chatter during the cut.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (18 Oct 2015)

CC wrote "The biggest fault was the banana sole - 6 thou concave"

Lurker wrote "It was great.........Sole flat to 1 mm all over"


1mm=40 thou

Some slightly differing views about what is a flat sole!

Paddy


----------



## D_W (18 Oct 2015)

Cheshire, what you described is desirable. Bedding at the mouth and at a point near the cam (or screw, whatever it may be) on the lever cap that applies pressure to the lever to the frog.

A little more than 5 years ago, I undertook the process of creating what I thought was an ideal plane. A 55 degree infill with a hugely thick single iron and a mouth of 4 thousandths. I troubled over how the iron should be bedded, biasing at the mouth (as in on metal) and at the top where the lever cap screw would contact (on wood). 

I brought it up to Rob lee wondering how they could get a thick iron with little flex to bed nicely on the pretty jeweled frog that's on the bevel up planes (I had one at the time), and he said that they bias theirs just as I did, to make sure the iron beds where it's supposed to. 

A point I brought up a while ago in a youtube video is that the idea that the older type stanley planes work better because the whole frog face is milled is hooey. The later belt sanded frogs work just as well, despite having few contact points because of what you're seeing - there is no such thing as a stanley plane that has the iron bedding perfectly evenly from top to bottom on the frog - attempting to make a plane where that happens could lead to a very poor performing plane. As makers of planes, we bias things in our favor. If the iron is flat, we bias the bed. If the iron is biased (as old wooden irons are), then we can make the beds of the planes flat.


----------



## G S Haydon (18 Oct 2015)

I have come to the same conclusion. I had thought that the older style was better, might have even said so. However it makes no difference.


----------



## David C (18 Oct 2015)

What is generally ignored, is that the C/B /capiron bends the blade. (The only exception may be the Record Stay Set version, although the example I am playing with at the moment is so unflat that it bends the blade as well!.....)

If the frog is reasonably flat the blade contacts it at the heel of the bevel and the top of the frog.

This works fine and the gaps will not be closed up by the lever cap. Check with a cigarette paper or feeler gauge.
Frog to body fit is important and flatness of width of bottom of frog.

Best wishes,

David Charlesworth


----------



## G S Haydon (18 Oct 2015)

Nicely communicated David!

I'd agree on the Stay Set. I've only used a couple of them but the planes had the same wear pattern on the frog.


----------



## D_W (18 Oct 2015)

G S Haydon":367ldivr said:


> I have come to the same conclusion. I had thought that the older style was better, might have even said so. However it makes no difference.



I'm sure I've said the same thing at some time in the past. The best cure against things thought to make a difference vs. not is to make a whole bunch of planes of each type. Bit hard to do that of the stanley type, though.

Trying a bunch of different ones objectively is 99% as good.


----------



## David C (18 Oct 2015)

Graham,

Thank you.

The other place to look for contact polish is on the bevel side of the blade.

Polish is usually found just behind the bevel and at a point representing top of frog.

David


----------



## lurker (19 Oct 2015)

Paddy Roxburgh":16ozrj0j said:


> CC wrote "The biggest fault was the banana sole - 6 thou concave"
> 
> Lurker wrote "It was great.........Sole flat to 1 mm all over"
> 
> ...



I did actually mean 0.1 (corrected my original post) so maybe CC and I were not that far apart.

BUT is does raise an interesting point
This is wood we are talking about, are "engineering tolerances" valid?
I mean for actual end result on the wood, not the hobby of collecting shiny tools.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Oct 2015)

Thanks all - especially to Sheffield Tony for posting the link to Vann's thoughts and pictures, which I think are very pertinent.

I think the gap I referred to does matter, and it's a fault. I also think that thin irons can be made to serve well, but getting the best from them depends a lot on cap-iron design and fit. I'll try to explain why I think this.

Consider the Bailey-type plane assembly of sole, frog, blade, cap-iron and lever cap. (This also applies to planes with Bedrock frogs.)

First - the lever cap. This applies pressure to the top of the cap-iron at two points; the top of the frog, where it traps cap-iron and blade tight against the top of the frog casting, and across the top of the 'hump' at the lower end of the cap-iron, thus holding the lower end of the cap-iron and blade in place. Lever caps are usually pretty solid and inflexible compared to cap-iron and blade; the effect of lever type and screw type is pretty much the same, except that some adjustment of pressure is possible with the screw type without resetting the 'frog screw'.

Second - the frog. This is in effect a fairly 'massive' casting, which can be considered pretty well inflexible compared to the other components mentioned. The frog casting may be set level with the sole casting, or slightly ahead of it if it is desired to close the plane's mouth. As David C pointed out, a good fit between frog and plane sole is desirable for rigidity of the whole plane assembly.

Third - the blade. This is trapped beween the cap-iron and frog. At it's lower end, the cap-iron bears on it very near the cutting edge, and the heel of the bevel bears on either the lower end of the frog casting or the sole casting - this bearing is effectively a pivot point. At the top of the frog casting, the blade is effectively fixed by being trapped under the cap-iron by the lever cap. When lever cap pressure is applied, load is transmitted through the lower end of the cap-iron to a line across the blade very close to the cutting edge. There is no support directly behind this point because a clearance bevel must exist, and thus this pressure tends to pivot the blade about the heel of the bevel. Since there is little length between cutting edge and heel, not much deflection takes place here, but if the blade is free to float between heel of bevel and top of frog, it can deflect here. Deflection is increased as a cut is taken, adding to the load applied by the cap-iron nose to the tip of the blade.

Finally, the cap-iron. There are three basic designs; bent thin steel, Stay-Set two-piece, and the newer Lie-Nielsen type thick, slab-like type.

Taking the Stay-Set first, the nose-piece is pressed against the blade at two points; a line across the blade right by the cutting edge, and at the joint of the two cap-iron pieces. Lever cap pressure therefore presses the blade into contact with the frog casting at the joint of the two cap-iron pieces, limiting the length of blade lifting from the frog casting, and thus stiffening it against any bending by the pivotting action mentioned earlier.

The Lie-Nielsen type has a very small thickening at the cutting edge, and thus a very small gap between cutting edge and top of frog. In theory, therefore, there is more length of blade between pivot point at heel of bevel and top of frog to deflect, and the blade is thus less stiffly held than with the Stay-Set cap-iron. Because the gap is so small, and the Lie-Nielsen cap-iron fairly thick and rigid, I suspect this deflection is almost self-limiting. (It is also worth noting that the L-N cap-iron is rarely used in combination with a thin iron).

Finally, the bent sheet-steel type. These vary somewhat in their fit to the blade, as Vann's pictures clearly demonstrate. In most cases, they contact the blade in a line across very near the cutting edge, and then have no contact until close to the lever-cap top-end where the blade and cap-iron are trapped against the frog. This means that there's quite a long length of blade between the heel of bevel pivot point and top of frog trapped floating with no support, and able to flex. The Bailey patent specification cap-iron fits across the blade near the cutting edge, but is bent to contact the blade in a similar position to that of the Stay-Set joint; A much shorter length of blade is thus free to flex between heel of bevel pivot point and what might be termed the 'intermediate' trap point. Pressure is applied by the lower end of the lever cap to the top of the cap-iron hump, and thus transmitted to blade at the two ends of the hump. Pressure is also applied by the lever-cap cam or screw at top of frog.

Now - chatter. When the plane hits the work, the cutting edge is driven back towards the heel of the plane, pivotting the blade at the heel of the bevel. If there is a fair length of blade unsupported between heel of bevel and top of frog, there's more flexibility in the system to allow the blade to deflect and act like a spring. If the blade is better trapped to the frog nearer the heel of the bevel, there's less unsupported length of blade, and thus less flexibility. There is therefore less liklihood of that fluttering effect that causes chatter-marks on the work.

Thus - Leonard Bailey got it dead right when he made his cap-irons contact the blade at both top and bottom of the cap-iron hump. Subsequent manufacturers and users forgetting this has resulted in more modern planes being more susceptible to chatter when used with thin blades, but this can be cured by fitting the cap-irons carefully. It could well be that with the blade and cap-iron out of the plane and on the bench, the fi looks bad, but with the blade and cap-iron in the plane and snugged down by lever-cap pressure, all is in order.

Sorry that's all a bit long-winded - trying to describe this without the pictures or sketches my computer illiteracy won't allow me to provide makes it a tad inevitable, I'm afraid!


----------



## D_W (19 Oct 2015)

I didn't see that original discussion on the stanley cap. Leonard expects the cap set properly to contact at the front and the back of the hump, and this discussion happened eons ago on the old tools list, with peter mcbride chiding anyone who hadn't properly set an old cap by bending it to fit so that it does contact front and back. I was in the "improved design" cap is better at that time. 

In reality, the only probably i've ever seen with a stanley type cap iron is when the lever cap doesn't contact the right part of the hump. Even when they are not optimally set up (as in when they are set like those in the pictures vann showed), they still work fine.

I did have one plane where the lever cap terminated on the back side of the hump - a millers falls 10. It worked most of the time, but when planing something really hard with the cap set really close, the chip could get under it.

So before bending the old style cap around too much, I'd say try using it in a plane first. If I went to look at mine, probably none of them would bed perfectly at the back, either, and they work ideally. Bending them to get the flat part of the iron to bed perfectly could lead to too much pressure on the back of the hump and not enough on the front.

(or should I say, first just get the plane and clean up the front of the cap iron and use it as is - it'll probably be fine regardless of all of the rest of the specific details). 

I agree with charlie, I'd believe any of the planes shown couldn't do good work after I'd used them. We've all been there when we think something is the tool, but it's us. Me,too, plenty of times.


----------



## Jacob (19 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":1gejxx6s said:


> .......
> Finally, the cap-iron. There are three basic designs; bent thin steel, Stay-Set two-piece, and the newer Lie-Nielsen type thick, slab-like type.


I'd take issue here - the LN isn't a "newer" type it's a reversion to older types, strictly a stylistic exercise in "retro" design - especially if includes the useless norris-style adjuster. Steam Punk?*


> .......
> Now - chatter. When the plane hits the work, the cutting edge is driven back towards the heel of the plane, pivotting the blade at the heel of the bevel. If there is a fair length of blade unsupported between heel of bevel and top of frog, there's more flexibility in the system to allow the blade to deflect and act like a spring. If the blade is better trapped to the frog nearer the heel of the bevel, there's less unsupported length of blade, and thus less flexibility. There is therefore less liklihood of that fluttering effect that causes chatter-marks on the work.


Dunno there's chatter and chatter. Working a woody rebate plane hard it literally buzzes along leaving a close pattern of chatter lines, which don't usually matter as they are in a rebate and you could tidy up with a gentler pass or two if you wanted to. But I've never see chatter marks like that with a wide plane. Instead they are more like longer jumps and due to something being loose - the workpiece, the plane blade, the operators grip on the plane. Sometimes eliminated by just changing the position of the workpiece in the vice, basically down to technique and adjustment


> Thus - Leonard Bailey got it dead right ...... It could well be that with the blade and cap-iron out of the plane and on the bench, the fit looks bad, but with the blade and cap-iron in the plane and snugged down by lever-cap pressure, all is in order.


Yep. If he'd got it wrong there wouldn't be these endless discussions, we'd all know for sure by now!

* Here's a lie Neilsen style motorbike for those who don't know what steam punk is.


----------



## D_W (19 Oct 2015)

In non-finish work, the zipper effect of the chatter (feels like someone's opening a zipper while you use it) isn't always detrimental. It just makes for a loud plane when it happens in a bench plane. 

The long span cap iron was designed to work with wedge fingers that terminate prior to the hump. It makes less sense over the bailey design when the contact point is the end of a lever cap. Make it heavy enough, and it works fine, but it's not an improvement as it claims to be.

They all work fine as long as they stay set tightly against the iron.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Oct 2015)

If people are happy using planes that leave chatter marks and give that teeth-jarring high-pitched squeak, that is, of course, entirely their right. However, planes can be set up to minimise the possibility. Some people may wish to do so.


----------



## D_W (19 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":pe72a54z said:


> If people are happy using planes that leave chatter marks and give that teeth-jarring high-pitched squeak, that is, of course, entirely their right. However, planes can be set up to minimise the possibility. Some people may wish to do so.



that's taking it a bit far. 

Each time I build a wooden plane, if there's a spot that's not bedded well at the bottom (could be left or right), I can get some of that chatter. Of course, I don't leave the plane that way - it'd be pretty rotten for me to give a loud plane to someone when I can seal it up like a vault with another 15 minutes of work. For single iron planes like a rabbet plane in a heavy cut, it may be unavoidable because the support down at the very edge just isn't there.

Point with the stanley planes though is that it doesn't require a perfect patent fit to get the plane to work without chatter, and if the plane doesn't chatter when set up initially, there's no reason to trouble with the patent details. 

If it does chatter with the cap iron properly set (in reference to the fit at the front, not necessarily at the back), the problem is 999 times out of 1000 going to be that the iron isn't bedded tightly against the frog, or the frog is not tight.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Oct 2015)

D_W":1wtyxibu said:


> If it does chatter with the cap iron properly set (in reference to the fit at the front, not necessarily at the back), the problem is 999 times out of 1000 going to be that the iron isn't bedded tightly against the frog.



I agree with that. Quite a few people (including Sheffield Tony earlier in the thread) over the years have reported a noticable improvement in plane performance just by replacing the factory cap-iron with one of Stay-Set design. I've noticed the same myself years ago on a Record 07, but at that time didn't really understand why. A bent metal cap-iron that applies pressure to the iron in the same way that a Stay-Set does will have the same effect.


----------



## Jacob (19 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":2lqsevtz said:


> If people are happy using planes that leave chatter marks and give that teeth-jarring high-pitched squeak, that is, of course, entirely their right. However, planes can be set up to minimise the possibility. Some people may wish to do so.


It's normal with rebate planes if you are working hard. First time I found the chatter marks in old window glazing rebates I couldn't work out what it was - looked more like machine roller marks than anything. It was only when I used a wooden rebate plane that I twigged.


----------



## David C (19 Oct 2015)

Jacob,

I agree. Can't think that I have seen chatter from a well set up Bailey in living memory.

Mind you memory gets a little more unreliable with age!

David


----------



## Jacob (19 Oct 2015)

David C":286dl490 said:


> Jacob,
> 
> I agree. Can't think that I have seen chatter from a well set up Bailey in living memory.
> 
> ...


There you go then we've finally cornered the beast! Chatter is a normal buzz with a woody rebate, an occasional squeak with a bench woody, but doesn't feature at all with a Bailey unless you are doing it wrongly or have adjusted it wrongly.
Doing it wrongly; frinstance - planing end grain with the workpiece sticking too far above the vice and it vibrates or twitches, remedied by dropping it a bit lower


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (19 Oct 2015)

lurker":36d6ibdd said:


> Paddy Roxburgh":36d6ibdd said:
> 
> 
> > CC wrote "The biggest fault was the banana sole - 6 thou concave"
> ...




Fair play Lurker. I did wonder if it was a typo


----------



## D_W (19 Oct 2015)

lurker":x82xa2f0 said:


> BUT is does raise an interesting point
> This is wood we are talking about, are "engineering tolerances" valid?
> I mean for actual end result on the wood, not the hobby of collecting shiny tools.



Something like that in flatness poses no problem to an experienced user unless the toe and rear of the plane are below the mouth. If it's the other way around, it actually works quite well. Biased in favor of the user, I'd say. 

The toe and heel of a plane don't have to be much below the mouth to cause problems, only a few thousandths, but they can be way off the other way.


----------



## David C (19 Oct 2015)

Tolerances do matter. It is just that many woodworkers do not care to take them seriously.

Let us suppose you are joining two boards, one inch thick and five inches wide.

Your edge planing is 0.1 mm or 0.004" out of square on each edge. Unfortunately due to sod's law the errors do not cancel each other out.

By my reckoning the glued component will need to have 0.020" or 0.5 mm planed of parts of each surface to become flat across the width.

A two thou shaving is quite thick enough in a timber like oak, so this means 10 sets of shavings off each side.

best wishes,
David


----------



## D_W (19 Oct 2015)

I can't see how a sole of a plane with the mouth below the toe and the heel would cause any of those problems - the user might, but not the plane.

When I began, I believed that the flatness of the premium planes was important. I wanted that to have a lot to do with getting the work in shape and ready for a no-pressure glue up. 

I do my jointing now with a beech jointer, I have no clue what the sole is like on it. I do know that I can match plane two boards much faster than I could with a metal plane and literally true up any end issues with a smoother if the edge is a match planed board, or even if it's not. (Which is the only issues there are - an experienced user never has issues with squareness on a joint. It's square to the square on a reference face and that's it). 

I can see why I thought that sole flatness was important when I was a beginner. I like it to be relatively close now - a mouth a hundredth low wouldn't impede (though my beech jointer isn't that far off, I only made it recently). If the mouth is up from the toe and heel, then it's a real problem because you can't make a long flat joint, and on two boards to be put together, you need a second plane to remove the middle.

Also, if we are working two boards in a panel that have been planed before gluing, we match plane them. 

If we are working entirely with hand tools, we match plane them first, then we glue them and then thickness them. If needed, we can take some off of a surface for joint aesthetics.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Oct 2015)

In my original post, I stated that my plane was 6 thou concave out of the box. That's toe and heel 6 thou lower than the mouth. It would take shavings - thick ones - but it would not adjust to take a fine finishing shaving for love nor money. It will now - but that's after some attention to the sole with files and wet-and-dry.

If lurker's plane was 4 thou CONVEX, that's fine and dandy!


----------



## D_W (19 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":2xwi7nuq said:


> In my original post, I stated that my plane was 6 thou concave out of the box. That's toe and heel 6 thou lower than the mouth. It would take shavings - thick ones - but it would not adjust to take a fine finishing shaving for love nor money. It will now - but that's after some attention to the sole with files and wet-and-dry.
> 
> If lurker's plane was 4 thou CONVEX, that's fine and dandy!



100% identify with your situation. I has a lie nielsen plane that was just at the edge of its spec, and they are definitely rigid. It made it difficult to take a fine through shaving on a long board and have ends meet (perhaps I could've leaned on it to solve the problem). I sold it rather than working the toe and heel (which would've easily fixed it, but people like LN planes to be untouched). I'll bet LN would've fixed it for free, because that's how they operate, but I didn't ask them to because the plane was in spec (they've done right by me in other situations, above and beyond where they'd have needed). If I were making the spec, well, I guess a surface grinder dictates it. In an ideal world, I'd shoot for a plane two thousandth proud on heel and toe. 

(I had a bedrock 607 that was much worse off than the LN, and I did remedy that on a lap). When you're a beginner, it's very difficult to diagnose a plane that's got the toe and heel below the mouth.


----------



## swagman (20 Oct 2015)

https://paulsellers.com/2015/10/plane-q ... -337925241


----------



## bridger (20 Oct 2015)

D_W":1jp00y4y said:


> (I had a bedrock 607 that was much worse off than the LN, and I did remedy that on a lap). When you're a beginner, it's very difficult to diagnose a plane that's got the toe and heel below the mouth.




Not just for a beginner. As a green woodworker of 17 years or so of age I was given a handful of planes. One of them was a sargent made craftsman branded #4 size smoother that I could not get to work. Time and again I tried different things, but it always defeated me and ended up back in the to do pile. Maybe 5 years ago (I'm now 50) I pulled it out again and took yet another shot at it. This time, and apparently I had never checked this, I laid a straightedge to the sole and discovered that it was somewhere in the vicinity of 50 thou hollow. I fixed that and it has been a decent user since.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Oct 2015)

Chatter can happen to the best of us - Paul Sellers encounters it at 28mins 30 secs here planing the end-grain of a chunk of oak for a mallet head;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u31Ixu6mSHY

The high-pitched squeal is very characteristic; he overcomes it here by skewing the plane to take a more slicing cut.

It happens when the flexibility of the thin blade allows the cutting tip to be driven backwards and slightly down into the wood, until the energy built up in the blade (which, being less than ideally clamped, acts like a flat spring) becomes enough to break the wood and spring the blade back to it's 'rest' position. The tip then digs in again, and the sme thing happens. The closeness of the resulting marks, and the pitch of the squeak, suggest that it happens quite a few times a second - something in the order of 50 to 100 times a second (or 50 - 100 Hertz, if you prefer).

You can demonstrate the blade flexibility to yourself with a six inch steel rule on the bench. Clear a patch of bench, and lay the rule flat on it, at right angles to the edge, hanging hole towards the middle of the bench, with about 10mm (3/8") overhanging the bench edge, which models the contact of the bevel heel with the frog. Put a thumb firmly onthe hanging-hole end, modelling the clamping of the lever-cap cam or screw. Now press down gently on the overhanging end, modelling the contact pressure of the cap-iron tip. You'll notice that the end deflects down a little, and the middle of the rule at about the 60mm (2 1/2") mark pops up off the bench. Pressing down harder (applying a cut) increases both deflections. Now, without removing your thumb, place a finger on the rule at about the 40mm (1 1/2") mark, and apply a little pressure to model the load applied by the lever-cap to the joint-line of a Stay-Set type or Bailey Patent type cap-iron. Now press down on the overhanging end again, and you'll notice that the same pressure causes much less downward deflection.

This is best done with a thin, flexible rule. If you try it with a thicker rule, you'll need a lot more force to get noticable deflections. That's exactly what happens with thicker plane irons - stiffness is proportional to the cube of blade thickness, so you don't need a great increase in thickness to improve stiffness a lot. Conversely, you don't need a great decrease in thickness to magnify problems significantly. That's why those using irons a bit thicker than factory standard experience chatter much less.

Those with thin irons can stop them acting like flat springs storing up energy by ensuring they're clamped better part way up the frog. That's why Stay-Sets and Bailey Patent cap-irons are good ways to cut down the possibility of chatter and generally improve plane performance by stiffening things up where it really matters - the bit that contacts and cuts the wood.


----------



## swagman (20 Oct 2015)

Hi Chappie; if you review the video again, Sellers explains that high pitch noise in a different context. 

regards Stewie;


----------



## D_W (20 Oct 2015)

The screech he's getting may be due to the bench, but who knows? Any time I've had such a sound coming out of a bench plane, it's been either from being a bit quick or having the workpiece too high in my vise. 

I agree with his sentiment on the bailey 4 - practice use eliminates most of the need for block planes or any other specialty to work endgrain.


----------



## D_W (20 Oct 2015)

swagman":207yurvm said:


> Hi Chappie; if you review the video again, Sellers explains that high pitch noise in a different context.
> 
> regards Stewie;



Good point, I missed that on the first go around flipping around through the video. 

I work the ends of planes similar to that (most of them at least) and don't have any chatter unless the piece is too high in the vise. But I wax the sole before planing them because of the grip the end grain can have.


----------



## D_W (20 Oct 2015)

bridger":2cbjckzl said:


> D_W":2cbjckzl said:
> 
> 
> > (I had a bedrock 607 that was much worse off than the LN, and I did remedy that on a lap). When you're a beginner, it's very difficult to diagnose a plane that's got the toe and heel below the mouth.
> ...



50 thou!! that's a bummer!

that and the secret loose handle are probably the two things that vexed me the most as a beginner. The latter being a plane that had a handle that looked tight with the front screw of the handle tightened down, but there was just a bit of looseness in the back post. You could hardly separate it by hand, but in use, it oscillated. For an hour or so, I thought that plane was cursed.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Oct 2015)

swagman":3fo71ljx said:


> Hi Chappie; if you review the video again, Sellers explains that high pitch noise in a different context.
> 
> regards Stewie;




Stewie - despite what Sellers says, that's chatter. It's a very distinctive noise.

I fully accept that some people think it doesn't exist. Fine - they're perfectly entitled to their opinion. However, I have experienced it, and suspect that others may also have done without necessarily knowing what the cause was; I'll state my case and allow others to make their own minds up.


----------



## Jacob (20 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":j9yfmmfb said:


> ... I'll state my case and allow others to make their own minds up.


Thank you so much Cheshirechappie that's very good of you. 
I'm not very used to making up my own mind so it might take some time to get up to speed!


----------



## D_W (20 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":ndoz2mya said:


> swagman":ndoz2mya said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Chappie; if you review the video again, Sellers explains that high pitch noise in a different context.
> ...



What's your thought on why lubrication of the sole relieved it?

I've, of course, experienced some chatter with stanley planes in the case where the cut wasn't started securely, and I've experienced the type sellers shows on really wide end grain (with any plane, actually, when the workpiece is too far from the vise itself). 

I think the straws of the wood gripping the bottom of the plane have a lot to do with it. I used to have the same chatter-type when trying to get too quick with a bevel up jack, eliminating it with wax and being deliberate to start the cut interrupted. I can be quick now without chatter, and probably the fastest plane I have to work endgrain to a mark on a panel is a chinese-made continental smoother (which doesn't chatter the same way and doesn't give the ends of the wood straws a grip). I still rarely reach for it over a stanley, because the stanley is at hand. But it's fast, and it convinced me to sell my bevel up plane which I had assumed was the standard for end grain due to all of the internet hullabaloo about such things.


----------



## bugbear (20 Oct 2015)

D_W":30gne1jr said:


> Cheshirechappie":30gne1jr said:
> 
> 
> > Stewie - despite what Sellers says, that's chatter. It's a very distinctive noise.
> ...



If chatter is a resonance, it's reasonable to assume it's affected by speed of stroke, and it's reasonable to assume
that lubrication affects speed of stroke.

BugBear (feeling reasonable)


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Oct 2015)

I'm not sure that lubricating the sole had anything to do with stopping the chatter, though obviously less friction between wood and plane sole is almost always a good thing in itself, since it means less effort to push the plane (I do note BB's point about speed of stroke, though - interesting thought). In this instance, I think skewing the plane was sufficient to alleviate the problem. I've done the same myself with similar effect.

It's true that springy bits of wood can give rise to much the same effect, and that gripping them more securely (to take the spring out of them) usually stops the problem. In the video instance above, though, the workpiece was a pretty substantial chunk held low down in the vice, so the springing was not down to the wood, but the blade.


----------



## D_W (20 Oct 2015)

that's why I made the comment about the bench. It could be the bench that's causing the resonance and not the plane. Without using that bench, though, it's hard to tell. 

And perhaps sometimes it's a combination of things. I get fewer "big" skips with a small plane on endgrain (like a smoother) than something like a LV BU jack plane (which is what I had previously used). 

Thinking the problem was weight on large panels, I had, for a while, waxed often and used a LN 7 (now also long gone), but that made the friction problem worse. Less problem with wooden planes, short planes and planes that don't have a dead flat bottom.

This kind of stuff is a blog testers dream, because if you wax a plane and take one short stroke, you can make the heavier planes seem better. In a work rhythm where you're actually trying to get something done with some briskness, though, one stroke tests and real work context reality don't match.


----------



## Jacob (20 Oct 2015)

Sellers screech is due to a combination of things - friction, workpiece sticking out too far from vice, not very rigid bench (you can see it moving with each stroke). As it happens reducing friction alone was enough to fix it, but the other issues could also have been remedied if necessary. As we have said - you don't really get chatter with a bench plane except for these sorts of external reasons (technique, set up, bench etc).
My bench is a good deal heavier than Sellers' and hence much less chatter prone.
Surprised at his wax pot thing - I just scribble with a bit of candle; quick, clean, invisible, one candle lasts for years


----------



## swagman (20 Oct 2015)

Hi Chappie. I wasnt trying to question your diagnoses. I was only highlighting what Sellers thoughts were. 

If I could just add to the dicussion on chatter. That being that wooden beds are known to be less succeptable to chatter than their steel cousins, Wood has an inherant quility of being able aborb most of the vibrations that lead to chatter. As for lubricating the soles; be it wooden or steel, I tend to favor paste waste as its readily available. Historically Mutton Fat was the preferred lubricant by early craftsman for wooden soled planes. The Mutton Fat was commonly stored, ready to use in traditional grease pots. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=grea ... gFBA&dpr=2 

Stewie;


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Oct 2015)

Don't think the bench can be blamed. The Sellers design is simple, but quite solid and rigid - indeed Jacob (of this parish) has been praising it to the high heavens and recommending it to all and sundry ever since Sellers released his bench-building videos a couple of years ago.

Woodie bench planes don't seem to chatter much at all, provided the irons bed nicely. That's most likely because the old-fashioned irons for wooden bench planes are pretty solid and substantial chunks, especially down by the bevel, and therefore don't flex at all under the sort of loads even a beefy woodworker can impose on them. Thinner-ironed moulding and side-escapement planes are a slightly different matter, especially if they're not bedded and wedged just right, even though their irons tend to be thicker at the business end than a factory Bailey plane iron.


----------



## Jacob (20 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":2zgeb755 said:


> Don't think the bench can be blamed. The Sellers design is simple, but quite solid and rigid........


You can see it shaking in the video. Keep your eye on the edge of the frame. Unless it's the camera man with the shakes of course.
Sellers is showing the situation which is most likely to cause chatter (end grain etc) and showing how to stop it happening. A stiffer heavier bench would have helped. Or lowering the workpiece in the vice. Or finer cut, sharper blade, and so on


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Oct 2015)

Jacob":28eb9hx6 said:


> Cheshirechappie":28eb9hx6 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't think the bench can be blamed. The Sellers design is simple, but quite solid and rigid........
> ...



.......or a slightly thicker blade in the plane, or the existing thin blade with a better-fitted cap-iron. :lol: 

By the way, I thought you liked the Sellers bench design?


----------



## D_W (20 Oct 2015)

It would seem that sellers already eliminated the chatter issue in the video without "improving" the plane.


----------



## Jacob (20 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":11mepawb said:


> ...
> 
> .......or a slightly thicker blade in the plane, or the existing thin blade with a better-fitted cap-iron. :lol:
> 
> By the way, I thought you liked the Sellers bench design?


No need to swap (expensive) components if you can do it the easy way.
Bench is good, but nothing is perfect!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Oct 2015)

D_W":1errm94v said:


> It would seem that sellers already eliminated the chatter issue in the video without "improving" the plane.



If his plane had been set up as per Leonard Bailey's patent (cap-iron pinching blade at three points along the iron) he might not have had the problem in the first place!

True, he skewed the plane and got over the problem, but you can't always skew the plane.


----------



## D_W (20 Oct 2015)

I just went back and watched the video. The plane may be less skewed after he added lubricant to the sole than it was before. 

When you're doing what he's doing, you should be skewing the plane, anyway, else you can end up with significant breakout on the back side. I don't need to tell you why I know that. 

I can't imagine ever making a planing stroke like he's making here (as jacob said, a full width endgrain cut on a hardwood, likely the most demanding cut there is in practice) in an area where you're restricted. I suppose it could happen, but you could just lubricate the sole like paul did. I've always had to lubricate the sole on every plane I've ever used working the ends of a beech billet or cutting the end of a wide panel.


----------



## iNewbie (20 Oct 2015)

Jacob":2higqfvx said:


> Sellers screech is due to a combination of things - friction, workpiece sticking out too far from vice, not very rigid bench (you can see it moving with each stroke). As it happens reducing friction alone was enough to fix it, but the other issues could also have been remedied if necessary. As we have said - you don't really get chatter with a bench plane except for these sorts of external reasons (technique, set up, bench etc).
> My bench is a good deal heavier than Sellers' and hence much less chatter prone.
> *Surprised at his wax pot thing* - I just scribble with a bit of candle; quick, clean, invisible, one candle lasts for years



Thats his 4oz tomato can...

https://paulsellers.com/2012/10/more-co ... s-chatter/


----------



## lurker (23 Oct 2015)

I mentioned my no. 3 earlier
Had some time today so got out my glass sheet some 600 silicon cArbide paper and baby oil
A few strokes made the toe, heel and extreme edges all shine up.

Less than 5 mins and the whole sole was a nice Matt shine, so I guess my original measurements were about right.

Important point for anyone whe has never flattened a sole.
You must have the plane fully built as if you were going to use it and just retract the blade


----------



## custard (23 Oct 2015)

lurker":3vjhq6bj said:


> BUT is does raise an interesting point
> This is wood we are talking about, are "engineering tolerances" valid?
> I mean for actual end result on the wood, not the hobby of collecting shiny tools.




Yes, "engineering tolerances" are valid in woodworking.

Take the fit of a tenon in a mortice, you want a snug push fit that doesn't require hammering in but also won't drop out. The difference between these two positions is little more than a tenth of a mill, maybe two tenths at the very most, just five or six strokes with a shoulder plane will take you from too tight to fit without a mallet, to drops out under gravity alone. 

Or what about the joint between a stile and rail on say a cupboard door. You want a joint that's completely flush, and a good craftsman will achieve that or very, very close to it, straight from the tools. But your fingers can detect a 0.001" proud edge, and a 0.1mm proud edge is screamingly obvious.

So just because no one expects the height of a wardrobe to be accurate to the nearest thou, the reality is that quality furniture making will often require working to very exacting tolerances.


----------



## lurker (23 Oct 2015)

I meant our tools not our product

I have a plane that was surface ground and is flat to a micro gnat but it does not really do anything to improve the wood I plane in comparison to the others that a nearly flat.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Oct 2015)

I've copied this comment over from the 'How to store handplanes' thread, because I suspect it may have ended up there in error;

"How odd.

Why do we never see cap irons which conform to Baileys patent?

Every one I have seen in the last 40 years touches the blade at tip, screw and maybe top. Never the the top end of the curve.

These were mostly new but a fair number of second hand ones too.

David Charlesworth"

It's a good question, and I suspect we'll never know the real answer. A couple of things that might be contributing factors; firstly, craftsmen don't usually read patent documents, so whilst they'd be well acquainted with the setting of cap-irons against tear-out, they wouldn't know about the subtleties of cap-iron shape for blade stiffening. Second, British manufacturers probably didn't read the patent documents in detail either; they just knew the patent was expired, and copied the planes that were around without perhaps understanding the subtleties of cap-iron shaping. It's easy to forget how quickly international documents can be accessed in the interweb age - not quite so easy in the 1930s. Thirdly, the big American manufacturers may also have forgotten. The planes work in 95% of circumstances without the three-point pinch, so over a period of time they looked for ways to make manufacture easier, the people who knew why that shaping was there having retired or moved on. That cap-iron shape may have been not quite to the patent spec. for about a century - but the planes would work that bit better when the going got tough if they were.

It's actually not obvious that the lever cap deflects the cap-iron quite a bit once it's in the plane, so just looking at a Bailey-patent fit cap-iron and blade screwed together out of the plane on the bench, it may appear that the cap-iron is loose near the cutting edge. With the lever-cap pressure on, it is probably seated quite adequately, provided it's properly shaped and fitted.


----------



## D_W (23 Oct 2015)

By feel there is a little bit more movement on the old style cap iron than there is on the new pancake style that is double thick, but that's judgement from the lever cap cam feel as well as the adjustment. 

I'd suspect that the difference in actual movement is very tiny. 

I think craftsmen probably didn't care about the patent information because their planes were already working fine.


----------



## swagman (24 Oct 2015)

http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... _72443.htm

When thick plane-irons are used, their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap sufficiently to pre- vent 'buckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thin steel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where .it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I effectually prevent "buckling" and "chattering," _whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons. _


----------



## bridger (24 Oct 2015)

I suspect that the economy of thin irons had at least as much to do with the economy of effort of sharpening a thin iron as it had to do with the economy of reduced metal used in manufacturing.


----------



## Jacob (24 Oct 2015)

bridger":3cggnq7z said:


> I suspect that the economy of thin irons had at least as much to do with the economy of effort of sharpening a thin iron as it had to do with the economy of reduced metal used in manufacturing.


The blade is the very last thing you'd attempt to save steel on. That would be insane, the whole thing is steel and the proportion saved would be tiny. 
The whole point of the Bailey design is to make a blade easy to sharpen (thin) easy to take out and put back, easy to adjust, which would work as well as a thick one . 

I think that phrase was just thrown in and the real economy of a thin blade is in the saved downtime.

You could compare the invention of the safety razor of about the same time. Slightly different - they started out with a thick blade section similar to a cutthroat but safer and easier to sharpen. But the blade holding system worked with a thinner blade which soon became the norm mainly because it was cheaper to make and to sharpen in the factory - so much so that it became disposable.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Oct 2015)

swagman":17s2p9wi said:


> http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/planes/72443/bailey_72443.htm
> 
> When thick plane-irons are used, their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap sufficiently to pre- vent 'buckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thin steel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where .it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I effectually prevent "buckling" and "chattering," _whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons. _



Thank you, Stewie.

To expand a little on Stewie's post , a little googling brought forth the following - US Patent 72,443 Improvements in Carpenters Planes, awarded to Leonard Bailey on 24th December 1867.

https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US7244 ... cUCh01MgcM

As can be seen by reading it, Bailey specifically states that his invention is the careful shaping of the cap-iron (as discussed earlier in the thread) for the purpose of stiffening a thin iron to eliminate it's propensity to chatter. Sharpening is not mentioned. If thin irons are easier to sharpen, it's an incidental advantage, and not the patent intent, which is clearly stated as economy of cutting-iron material achieved by revised cap-iron design.

It's worth mentioning that patents are always very carefully worded, because they often have to be defended against infringement in a court of law. Precision and clarity of language are therefore vital; they don't contain throw-away comments.


----------



## Jacob (24 Oct 2015)

"Economy of cutting-iron material" is obviously insane as the resultant plane had _much more steel in it and was a lot more expensive_ than the woody alternatives. As an economy measure a complete and utter failure!

Nobody would buy a Bailey plane because the blades were cheaper. They bought them for the various obvious advantages - speed/ease of sharpening being top, adjustment and precision next.

But would the blades have been much cheaper anyway? I imagine not a lot, if anything.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (24 Oct 2015)

Jacob said:


> "Economy of cutting-iron material" is obviously insane .....
> 
> 
> ....Nobody would buy a Bailey plane because the blades were cheaper. - No but they might buy the Bailey plane because the plane was cheaper (and every cost saving counts) than an alternative - patents are for the benefit of the manufacturer, not necessarily the purchaser.


----------



## Jacob (24 Oct 2015)

phil.p":2humk9cx said:


> Jacob":2humk9cx said:
> 
> 
> > "Economy of cutting-iron material" is obviously insane .....
> ...


What were these expensive alternatives? Norris hadn't started back then. As far as I know the alternative was a woody. These were cheaper then and always were, even when ar worra lad - the Stanley plane was kept in a cupboard and we were only allowed to use it on special occasions (at school this is).


----------



## swagman (24 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":fh48bpap said:


> swagman":fh48bpap said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/planes/72443/bailey_72443.htm
> ...



As Chappie rightly points out,Bailey was quite specific within his patent wording as to why he chose to use a thinner blade. whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons.  No other reason was given. 

To think otherwise is pure speculation. 

Stewie;


----------



## Jacob (24 Oct 2015)

No other reason was given, but there are other very good reasons for buying the plane (and for it's phenomenal success) and having a cheaper blade was never one of them.
If Bailey really thought a cheaper blade was a seller he was obviously wrong. I think he just threw it in as an idea easy to grasp.
Nothing unusual about that - patents and inventions were always a gamble and succeeded or failed for all sorts of unforeseen reasons.


----------



## D_W (24 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":z7801xtr said:


> swagman":z7801xtr said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/planes/72443/bailey_72443.htm
> ...



Set yourself up with a white and a sandstone and a pile of rough lumber and then let us know whether or not you might prefer an iron that takes half as long to sharpen.


----------



## Jacob (24 Oct 2015)

It's even possible that Bailey wanted to conceal the big sharpening advantage from his competitors in case he didn't get the patent or something. They would quite correctly be doubtful about the economics of it and be thrown off the scent - as many are confused, even to this day!

The proof is in the eating - have a go with the plane and ask yourself which is it's most rewarding feature - the relative cost of the blade or any/all of the other advantages?

PS or to look at it another way - what would be the point of making such an expensive and well engineered plane if it was just to save a few pennies on the blade?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Oct 2015)

Amazing how this has turned into a sharpening debate! The guy was looking for a way to make thin cutting irons less chatter prone - and found it. Nothing to do with sharpening.


----------



## Jacob (24 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":25sneq2m said:


> ..... The guy was looking for a way to make thin cutting irons less chatter prone - and found it.


Yes - but why and what for? Could have just made them thicker.


> Nothing to do with sharpening.


If not about sharpening (and quick sharpening turn-around and adjustment) then completely pointless.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (24 Oct 2015)

Jacob":x75572cj said:


> Cheshirechappie":x75572cj said:
> 
> 
> > ..... The guy was looking for a way to make thin cutting irons less chatter prone - and found it.
> ...



If you don't sharpen it's bound to be pointless. 
I'll get my coat.


----------



## D_W (24 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":3s9f1o57 said:


> Amazing how this has turned into a sharpening debate! The guy was looking for a way to make thin cutting irons less chatter prone - and found it. Nothing to do with sharpening.



I think when we limit ourselves to what people have printed in a specific place, we really aren't very interested in finding why stanley pretty much wiped all of the other makers off the map. 

Even if stanley didn't intend the thin irons to be a sharpening advantage (which I doubt was missed when they tested subject planes), I'm sure the users of the planes figured it out pretty quickly. Anyone at a job site probably would've ground their planes with a sandstone or a washita stone, and they would not have missed that point. 

It may not be in a patent, but it's a point that "just is".


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Oct 2015)

Bailey held (or had a close interest in) 30 patents, according to this link - http://www.datamp.org/patents/search/xr ... 0&id=11766

I've had a quick perusal through the most likely ones, and can find no mention of ease of sharpening plane irons. It may be that a more thorough investigation may produce such a reference. However, there is no doubt whatever that the particular patent under discussion (US72443) does not - link further up page.


----------



## Jacob (24 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":2kh07kz0 said:


> Bailey held (or had a close interest in) 30 patents, according to this link - http://www.datamp.org/patents/search/xr ... 0&id=11766
> 
> I've had a quick perusal through the most likely ones, and can find no mention of ease of sharpening plane irons. It may be that a more thorough investigation may produce such a reference. However, there is no doubt whatever that the particular patent under discussion (US72443) does not - link further up page.


Er so what? 
Ease of sharpening is one of the great advantages of the Bailey design as everybody knows. 
I'd guess Bailey knew this very well - but felt no particular need to put it in the patent and kept it simple instead. A smart commercial move perhaps?


----------



## D_W (24 Oct 2015)

You're missing the point. Regardless of what the patents say, the ability to sharpen the irons more easily, especially for anyone who is traveling to a work site, is a big deal.


----------



## bridger (24 Oct 2015)

Language evolves. Today we think of the word economy as singly referring to financial matters. It wasnt always so.


----------



## iNewbie (24 Oct 2015)

This is turning into a touch of contrafibularity....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08


----------



## swagman (25 Oct 2015)

_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-irontends 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. _ https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US7244 ... cUCh01MgcM

Bailey's motivation for using thinner plane irons is clearly stated within the wording of his patent;  whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons. 
http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... _72443.htm


----------



## swagman (25 Oct 2015)

_I am sure the following with create much further discussion._ 

Within Baileys 1867 patent on using a thinner plane iron, he clearly describes the role of the cap iron as a means to eliminate chatter. I have heard it said that prior too 1867, Bailey was well aware of the benefits of the cap iron to _control tear out_. The evidence best explained by the popularity of double iron planes during that time period. 

_Is it likely that the benefits of controlling tear through the use of a closely set cap iron was not even established by 1867. _

Stewie;


----------



## Jacob (25 Oct 2015)

We know Bailey's _stated_ motivation for using thinner plane irons, but mere "economy" isn't an advantage of his design and it's success - quite the opposite; it was an expensive plane. 
He wanted to patent a device for making thin blades viable - we can speculate and infer that he didn't spell out _all_ the advantages in his patent application, perhaps just to keep it simple and also put the competition off the scent.


----------



## D_W (25 Oct 2015)

swagman":1qm5ttjh said:


> _I am sure the following with create much further discussion._
> 
> Within Baileys 1867 patent on using a thinner plane iron, he clearly describes the role of the cap iron as a means to eliminate chatter. I have heard it said that prior too 1867, Bailey was well aware of the benefits of the cap iron to _control tear out_. The evidence best explained by the popularity of double iron planes during that time period.
> 
> ...



Warren Mickley can provide plenty of strings of text published long before that say things like "it's well known that double irons work contrary grain" or something to that effect. 

I remember quoting a string of text to warren about an iron that was set up to be double beveled (back beveled) and even that quote (which was before 1867) described the effect of a double iron being to eliminate tearout. The advertisement was espousing the benefit of an extra thick iron with a back bevel. It never caught on (though it's popular now with amateurs). Probably because it was solving a problem that didn't exist with skilled users.


----------



## bridger (25 Oct 2015)

I can't quote sources, but my memory has the dominance of the double iron as pretty well set around 1700


----------



## Corneel (25 Oct 2015)

1800 Bridger! In 1700 the capiron probably wasn't invented yet. (hammer) 

To quote a vintage expert: Nicholson in Mechanics companion, 1842:

"To prevent the iron from tearing the wood to cross grained stuff, a cover is used with a reversed basil [...] The distance between the cutting edge of the iron and the edge of the cover, depends alltogether on the nature of the stuff. If the stuff is free, the edge of the cover may be set at a considerable distance, because the difficulty of pushing the plane forward becomes greater, as the edge of the cover is nearer the edge of the iron, and the contrary when more remote."

This short chapter proves a few points.

- In 1842 the function of the capiron to prevent tearout was well known.
- Various wood conditions dictate the position of the cap iron.
- They knew were to set the capiron, very close to the edge, to make it effective. They did feel the accompanying increase of pushing resistance.

Another writer with a similar text from the same period is Holzappfl.

So, with this effect being well known and being published allready, it was impossible to be patented. So you won't find it mentioned in any of these patents.

Patent writing is a peculiar science. And there are plenty patents with all kinds of nonsence.


----------



## swagman (25 Oct 2015)

Corneel":7lhwit9t said:


> 1800 Bridger! In 1700 the capiron probably wasn't invented yet. (hammer)
> 
> To quote a vintage expert: Nicholson in Mechanics companion, 1842:
> 
> ...



Thanks Kees. Thats the evidence I was after. 

regards Stewie;


----------



## AndyT (26 Oct 2015)

Just to save a little time, and maybe swerve this long rambling thread away from going down another rabbit hole, new readers might like to look back at this thread https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/goldenberg-smoother-t82202.html which looked at 
- alternative designs of double irons, 
- a rare English survivor from the eighteenth century, 
- continuing use of an uncoupled pair of irons in France, and 
- the earliest reference to double irons in print, in the Pennsylvania Chronicle in 1767.


----------



## swagman (26 Oct 2015)

Hi Andy. _re - the earliest reference to double irons in print, in the Pennsylvania Chronicle in 1767._

http://swingleydev.com/archive/get.php? ... t_thread=1

regards Stewie;


----------



## Jacob (26 Oct 2015)

What about the lever cap is that Bailey's own or was that earlier?
It seems to me that a viable thin blade and lever cap are his principle innovations.


----------



## swagman (26 Oct 2015)

Jacob":3dslerwy said:


> What about the lever cap is that Bailey's own or was that earlier?
> It seems to me that a viable thin blade and lever cap are his principle innovations.



Hi Jacob. 

The following is Baileys patent for the lever cap. 
http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... _21311.htm (1858)

The following patent looks to be an improvement on Baileys original lever cap design. (1933)
http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... 918750.htm

Stewie;


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Oct 2015)

Not sure Bailey can claim the viable thin blade; I can't find the reference now, but I recall Richard Arnold posting about a plane of smoothing dimensions found in an archaeological dig in London, and dated to the mid 17th century. That had an iron of about comparable thickness to a modern Bailey. For some reason, the name 'Copley' comes to mind, but a search on 'Copley plane' brought nothing up on the forum search engine.

We really need Richard Arnold to chip in here, but I think there's evidence that 17th and early 18th century plane irons were thin compared to the later (mostly laminated) examples we're familiar with from such sources as Benjamin Seaton's tools.


----------



## Jacob (26 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":9y3qungi said:


> Not sure Bailey can claim the viable thin blade,,,,,.


He didn't actually patent it (I don't suppose he could) but the main points of his design are to make a thin blade viable (thin blades saving on sharpening time) and to make it quick and easy to remove/replace/adjust (save on sharpening time again, plus easy adjustment). This is whether he said so or not! Basically it's dead obvious to anyone who has used a variety of planes: non of them come anywhere near the Bailey design for sheer practical convenience and efficacy.
Thick blades and clumsy Norris adjusters are just pointless retro fashions.


----------



## AndyT (26 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":2sbjan9p said:


> I can't find the reference now, but I recall Richard Arnold posting about a plane of smoothing dimensions found in an archaeological dig in London, and dated to the mid 17th century. That had an iron of about comparable thickness to a modern Bailey. For some reason, the name 'Copley' comes to mind, but a search on 'Copley plane' brought nothing up on the forum search engine.



<ahem> From the previous page... <ahem>



AndyT":2sbjan9p said:


> Just to save a little time, and maybe swerve this long rambling thread away from going down another rabbit hole, new readers might like to look back at this thread goldenberg-smoother-t82202.html which looked at
> - alternative designs of double irons,
> *- a rare English survivor from the eighteenth century,*
> - continuing use of an uncoupled pair of irons in France, and
> - the earliest reference to double irons in print, in the Pennsylvania Chronicle in 1767.



From that thread:

"The article describes a rare C18th smoothing plane, found in excavations at *Cutler Street* in London and now on display in the Museum of London. It has a double iron, probably made by Hildick, with no screw to join the two parts."

NB mid C18th not C17th - that would be a rare find indeed!

Richard did say that he disagrees with the author's suggestion that the Jennion trade card showed double irons.

The article in question is now available online, here:

http://www.taths.org.uk/tools-and-t...ker-s-smoothing-plane-from-the-city-of-london

HTH!!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Oct 2015)

Thanks Andy - and I read that thread too! (though not all the links). Cutler Street, not Copley....

(  )


----------



## swagman (26 Oct 2015)

AndyT":2425p6ny said:


> Cheshirechappie":2425p6ny said:
> 
> 
> > I can't find the reference now, but I recall Richard Arnold posting about a plane of smoothing dimensions found in an archaeological dig in London, and dated to the mid 17th century. That had an iron of about comparable thickness to a modern Bailey. For some reason, the name 'Copley' comes to mind, but a search on 'Copley plane' brought nothing up on the forum search engine.
> ...



Hi Andy. Is it likely that Asian countries such as Japan and China were already well versed in the use of double irons, well before their introduction within European countries.

Stewie;


----------



## D_W (27 Oct 2015)

swagman":1gp5sc5j said:


> AndyT":1gp5sc5j said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":1gp5sc5j said:
> ...



I'd be kind of surprised if it wasn't known off and on for thousands of years. It's something that a scholarly person could think through, the lifting of the chip, or an observant user could chance into.


----------



## Corneel (27 Oct 2015)

As long as there is no evidence that'll remain a guess.

If I remember correctly then most Roman planes found had a pretty high bedding angle. The first professional planemakers in the modern western world, the Dutch, were also using higher bedding angles, about 50 degrees and never used a double iron.


----------



## Jacob (27 Oct 2015)

swagman":35dcupyo said:


> Jacob":35dcupyo said:
> 
> 
> > What about the lever cap is that Bailey's own or was that earlier?
> ...


Interesting. Difficult to read - bits missing and bits of code dropped in.

This is Bailey's single most significant development; lever cap for rapid removal/replacement of blade unit. 
Followed eventually by the realisation that, together with an all steel frog (and then plane) plus the cap-iron double bend, this would make viable a thin blade, with the enormous advantage of reduced sharpening time.


----------



## AndyT (27 Oct 2015)

Re far eastern use of double irons, as Corneel suggests, let's stick to evidence gathering rather than guesswork as much as we can.

My only reference source which covers Asian tools is Whelan's book, The Wooden Plane.

He notes Japanese use of an unattached, sharpened cap iron 'toward the end of the nineteenth century' (p37).

He also writes that the double iron 'was documented' in England in about 1730, before being advertised in Philadelphia in 1767. We all know the source of the American ad, but does anyone know the earlier documentary evidence he had in mind? Frustratingly, his excellent book has no footnotes!


----------



## swagman (27 Oct 2015)

AndyT":17ag53p3 said:


> Re far eastern use of double irons, as Corneel suggests, let's stick to evidence gathering rather than guesswork as much as we can.
> 
> My only reference source which covers Asian tools is Whelan's book, The Wooden Plane.
> 
> ...



Hi Andy. Good advise. It dissapointing John M. Whelan didnt provide a source for his claim. As such it cannot be substantiated. 

regards Stewie;


----------



## Corneel (27 Oct 2015)

Never found that documentation either. Did he mean the Jennings businesscard of the three plaines? The dating from the Cutler street plane is also a bit suspect. Only thing for sure is that it was burried between 1777 and 1790 (the oldest date of the tankard also in the same pith and the time when the side was being build over). The plane is very worn, but there is really no way of telling how much time that would have taken.


----------

