# Why Two?



## Saint Simon (22 Sep 2013)

Listening to the man from Lie Nielsen at Cressing Temple yesterday talking about bevel up planes made me wonder why I have a standard and a low angle block plane. 
Deneb Puchalski was really good to listen to and answered our questions with authority. He was making a great argument for bevel up planes and their versatility. His description of how easy the lead angle can be changed for different woods and grains was one I had heard before but I hadn't applied it to block planes. Why do I have two planes rather than just a low angle one with two blades? With one honed to 37 degrees and one to 25 don't I have most situations covered? 
Have I got that right? If so, anyone want to buy a standard angle block plane! 
Simon


----------



## woodbrains (22 Sep 2013)

Hello,

If you only have one, it obviously should be the LA version and 2 blades with different honing angles. If you have 2 planes already, the blades can be honed both the same, to the optimum angle for the steel and ease of slicing through the wood. This is usually the 25 - 30 degrees, but not necessarily. The lower the angle the blade can be honed to, whilst still holding an edge, is the best scenario. And it saves changing blades, it is a bit easier to swap plane. If you hone secondary bevels, the lower angle hone will allow many more honings between grinding. Two is usually better then one!

Mike.


----------



## Gunfleet (22 Sep 2013)

Yes, Deneb has such a soft patient voice and is so clearly spoken you could use him to put babies to sleep. But he knows his stuff. I spent about fifteen minutes watching and listening and I would have liked to spend more, as I felt I was learning all the time.


----------



## J_SAMa (22 Sep 2013)

I shoot PINE endgrain with my Record No. 05, mouth set super tight (only the thinnest shavings can pass trhough) and cap iron set within 0.5 mm. Push the plane over the wood and out comes thin silvers of shavings (not dust). No problems at all, leaves a nice, dark finish (as long as the blade is sharp).
Maybe I shouldn't be saying this as I've never touched a BU at all. But if a bench plane can handle pine endgrain why would one need LA planes?


----------



## yetloh (22 Sep 2013)

Saint Simon":2iyjv9wv said:


> . Why do I have two planes rather than just a low angle one with two blades?
> Simon



It's obvious really, it's impossible to have too many block planes. Most times in doesn't really matter whether you use low or standard angle and if one goes dull you can just pick up the other without affecting your work rythm. When that goes dull you pick up the third! I have three, plus spare blades but wouldn't be averse to a fourth but perhaps I am just on the slope.

Jim


----------



## Carl P (23 Sep 2013)

'Just' on the slope? - I have two for the same reason, but maybe I need a third?... and to be on the safe side....

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## Jacob (23 Sep 2013)

Gunfleet":316eayac said:


> ... Deneb has such a soft patient voice and is so clearly spoken you could use him to put babies to sleep. .....


or to persuade gullible woodworkers to part with their cash for things they don't need! :lol:


----------



## woodbrains (23 Sep 2013)

Jacob":2bdhuwci said:


> Gunfleet":2bdhuwci said:
> 
> 
> > ... Deneb has such a soft patient voice and is so clearly spoken you could use him to put babies to sleep. .....
> ...



Hello,

Possibly sales schmooze, but I bet you have a LA block plane, Jacob. Logically, if you only have one plane, you will save some money with just a second blade that effectively gives you 2 planes. 

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (23 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":1sz8s9bm said:


> Jacob":1sz8s9bm said:
> 
> 
> > Gunfleet":1sz8s9bm said:
> ...


I have. It's a Stanley 220. Very useful too.


----------



## woodbrains (23 Sep 2013)

Hello,

Ahh, a 220 is a standard angle, so you won't have to put up with terrible tear out on long grain like you might get with a LA. Two blades would not be useful for a 220 unless you wanted to plane something so ornery a very high angle blade would be a help. Scrapers are dirt simple here, though.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (23 Sep 2013)

I suppose its cutting angle is 45º ish. I use it when one handed use is called for, or little jobs such as shaping tool handles or dowels. It's had a lot of use and is into its second blade.


----------



## Peter Sefton (23 Sep 2013)

I always recommend a low angle Block plane, you can always have two or three blades as come with our Quangsheng. This gives you all the effective cutting angles you may require. One advantage a high angle blade in a Block plane has over a cabinet scraper is it should keep your timber flatter over a larger area rather than just removing torn grain and replacing it with a low area in your work piece only seen as a hollow pond when polished.


----------



## Jacob (24 Sep 2013)

I still think the modern use of a block plane is a bit odd i.e. pressing into use as a general smoother. 
As far as I am concerned it's really useful for one handed work (scribing edges, arrisses, trimming tenon ends etc) and secondly for end grain thanks to the low angle of BU blade assembly* which makes for a good firm compact one-handed grip.
Plenty of other planes for smoothing, which do it better, and are also not bad for endgrain.

*the 220 has this low angle even though the cutting angle is about 45.

PS the OP's point about having two blades/planes: a low angle frog at say 13º plus a blade honed even at 25º gives a cutting angle 38º which is so close to a standard 45º as to be not worth the bother. Add to that the difficulty of honing to 25º and keeping an edge, and the cap iron advantages of a normal plane - the low angle in general seems even more pointless - except for the compact shape. Large low angle planes don't even have this advantage!


----------



## Vann (24 Sep 2013)

Jacob":2p8o4iqw said:


> *the 220 has this low angle even though the cutting angle is about 45.


The 220 is not a "low angle" block plane. The bed is set at 20º and so, when fitted with an iron honed at 25º, has a pitch of 45º (_common pitch_, as found on most bevel down planes). Or, if the iron is honed at a more normal 30º, has a pitch of 50º. 

Veritas and Lie-Nielsen "low angle" block planes have the bed machined at 12º.



Jacob":2p8o4iqw said:


> ...gives a cutting angle 38º which is so close to a standard 45º as to be not worth the bother.


Steps of 5º are generally accepted as worthwhile, hence: 
45º - common pitch;
50º - York pitch;
55º - cabinet or middle pitch;
60º - half pitch.

And Norris considered 2.5º was enough to "bother" about - they used 47.5º

HTH

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Jacob (24 Sep 2013)

Vann":21kb2xs7 said:


> Jacob":21kb2xs7 said:
> 
> 
> > *the 220 has this low angle even though the cutting angle is about 45.
> ...


Yes, but it is a low angle plane in that the frog angle is low, making for the compact shape, which is what makes it worthwhile, and is the point I'm making (of block planes in general)


> ....Steps of 5º are generally accepted as worthwhile, hence:
> 45º - common pitch;
> 50º - York pitch;
> 55º - cabinet or middle pitch;
> ...


That's 5 options! Who says "Steps of 5º are generally accepted as worthwhile"? It's generally accepted that most people manage with just 45º. If you really need them in reality these are easily obtainable by a quick bevel on the face. Except for the angles below 45º - but are these really necessary? I don't think so. It's just the usual voodoo with numbers (and helps to sell more tools!)


----------



## Vann (24 Sep 2013)

Jacob":2smgjfy3 said:


> Vann":2smgjfy3 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":2smgjfy3 said:
> ...


I think you'll find that 20º is the normal angle for block planes. If you don't want to use standard terminology you're just going to confuse people. If you start calling a 20º a low angle block plane what are you going to call a low angle block plane - "super-dooper extra low angle", "Grimsdale pitch"? Better to stick with what the rest of the world calls them. 



Jacob":2smgjfy3 said:


> That's 5 options!


Yes, five. 


Jacob":2smgjfy3 said:


> Who says "Steps of 5º are generally accepted as worthwhile"? It's generally accepted that most people manage with just 45º.


So who says most people manage with just 45º?


Jacob":2smgjfy3 said:


> If you really need them in reality these are easily obtainable by a quick bevel on the face.


You'd better tell the Aussies that. They often use angles as steep as 60º to tame tearout in their gnarly timbers. Maybe you should write to HT Gordon and tell him to stop making planes with 60º pitch planes because you believe that 45º is the only pitch needed, and that 5 recognised pitches are too many for you to get you head around. 

But then, even if you knew you were wrong you wouldn't admit it (as proved in another thread). 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Jacob (24 Sep 2013)

Vann":1a5du6pf said:


> Jacob":1a5du6pf said:
> 
> 
> > Vann":1a5du6pf said:
> ...


The bog standard block plane like the 220 is a bevel-up low _frog_ angle plane (actually 22º hence the name?). The point is, it's compact. That (and the small size) is the whole point of the block plane.



> But then, even if you knew you were wrong you wouldn't admit it (as proved in another thread).


Which thread was that then? I deny it!


----------



## woodbrains (24 Sep 2013)

Hello,

Jacob, if you had a low angle block like a Stanley 60 1/2, you would find that the angle does make a fair bit of difference. Your 220 with a 30 deg bevel on the iron, approximates to something like a York pitch frog, so will actually do rather well on tricky grain. A true low angle block is something less than a common pitch, so the difference between the to is quite significant. That aside, the difference in cut is quite noticeable _in use_. So this is not just conjecture. If only a LA is available, 2 blades might be useful for overcoming tear out, though I would still have 2 planes as they are cheap enough.

I wholly agree that there are much better planes to use for ordinary planing tasks, though. I have said similar in another thread. I love a LA block for flushing dovetail pins, but seldom use a block at the bench for much else. There is always a smoother or a jack better suited to the job and close to hand. Even the odd chamfer is often done with a small smoother, since the work is in a vice and two hands can be used on the tool. On site this is not always the case, so a block is a boon.

Mike.


----------



## David C (24 Sep 2013)

Confusion over pitch angles can be avoided by referring to Effective Pitch. E P is the angle of the slope up which the shaving climbs in my jargon.

Jacob is misleading us again. His block plane can only have an E P of 45 degrees if he sharpens his blade at 25 degrees which he has stated to be difficult.

60 degree E P is an excellent angle for difficult home grown timbers. I frequently go to 70 degree E P for really intransigent, dense, interlocked exotics, like the wood from hell. Indian Laurel.

People do not get by with 45 degree E P when they venture into the fascinating world of Dense Exotic Timbers, they get massive and depressing tearout.

The low angle block planes lend a slight advantage when dealing with end grain, the standard angle goes better on long grain. In all cases excellent sharpening is one of the most important factors. At the weekend show I was persuading people to produce tissue like end grain shavings with both the low and standard angle block planes.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (25 Sep 2013)

David C":2j76j1mx said:


> Confusion over pitch angles can be avoided by referring to Effective Pitch. E P is the angle of the slope up which the shaving climbs in my jargon.


Yes except that the emphasis on bevels distracts attention from the essential feature of block planes, which is nothing to do with cutting angles but is about the shape of the plane itself i.e. designed for one handed use.
Bevelomania also seems to blind people to the fact that the EP angle of "low angle" planes is not much lower than the standard 45º, which means they should really be called "low_ish_ angle" planes, and are a bit pointless. This is why they were never that popular, until recently dragged from the back catalogue by modern makers. OK so they are good for end grain - but end grain is no problem anyway, given any sharp plane EP 45º.
So what else are they good for? Not smoothing obviously (higher the EP the more difficult the timber).


----------



## bugbear (25 Sep 2013)

Jacob":1zso7nuo said:


> OK so they are good for end grain - but end grain is no problem anyway, given any sharp plane EP 45º.



Leonard Lee begs to differ - with evidence, not assertions.

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (26 Sep 2013)

Hello,

Of course it is quite possible to plane end grain with high EP planes. I had (stupidly gave away to my regret) a HNT Gordon shoulder plane with an EP of 60 deg. It's main purpose was end grain, which it handled well enough. It had the advantage of being a good rebate plane too and it's high EP give it an advantage of being fairly tolerant to grain direction changes, which is not easily dealt with in a rebate.

However, there is a definite advantage of a Low EP for end grain. It could be noticed that the effort to push the plane and the surface finish was improved as the EP was lowered. Provided the blade is super sharp, the high EP worked, and you might not need to worry about anything else. I find a low EP is great for super hard exotics and perversely really soft open grained softwood. It is the middle ground where the differences are less noticeable.

Mike.


----------



## yetloh (26 Sep 2013)

I don't bother too much about EP and certainly not when it comes to block planes. The exception is for difficult grain and if I am facing that I just reach for a little 60 deg EP plane without even considering a block plane. It works for me and that is all that matters.

Jim


----------



## woodbrains (26 Sep 2013)

yetloh":2c2bn6yo said:


> I don't bother too much about EP and certainly not when it comes to block planes. The exception is for difficult grain and if I am facing that I just reach for a little 60 deg EP plane without even considering a block plane. It works for me and that is all that matters.
> 
> Jim



Hello,

And if someone doesn't have a 60deg EP plane, they can effectively get one with a higher bevel on a LA block or a back bevel on their BD planes!

What is your 60 EP plane. A custom job or a HNT Aussie thing or what?

Mike.


----------



## David C (26 Sep 2013)

Well a 15 degree back bevel in a bench plane is one easy way.

David


----------



## yetloh (26 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":1gc34l7u said:


> yetloh":1gc34l7u said:
> 
> 
> > I don't bother too much about EP and certainly not when it comes to block planes. The exception is for difficult grain and if I am facing that I just reach for a little 60 deg EP plane without even considering a block plane. It works for me and that is all that matters.
> ...



Mike,

Its the lowliest of Holteys - an 11S with boxwood infill and no adjuster, a lovely little thing. The blade can be reversed, turning it into a scraper plane if the going gets really tough but I don't often find it necessary. I do also have an HNT Gordon high angle smoother which is somewhat bigger but I rarely use it these days - I find I generally prefer to work on a small area at a time for which the 11S is ideal. However. I do realise I'm in a pretty fortunate position and I am sure that your suggested solution would work well, as would David's.

Jim


----------



## woodbrains (26 Sep 2013)

David C":193lwvwa said:


> Well a 15 degree back bevel in a bench plane is one easy way.
> 
> David



Hello,

Of course, David, I think I said a much!



yetloh":193lwvwa said:


> Mike,
> 
> Its the lowliest of Holteys - an 11S with boxwood infill and no adjuster, a lovely little thing. The blade can be reversed, turning it into a scraper plane if the going gets really tough but I don't often find it necessary.
> 
> Jim



NICE! :mrgreen: 

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (26 Sep 2013)

bugbear":2fs8zena said:


> Jacob":2fs8zena said:
> 
> 
> > OK so they are good for end grain - but end grain is no problem anyway, given any sharp plane EP 45º.
> ...


I just wondered - this Len Lee geezer, he's not a tool salesman by any chance is he? Keen on us buying a lot of planes, and multiple blades to go with them? (5 bevels thats 5 blades per plane at £30 ish say 3 planes that's, er, £450 not counting the planes themselves another £600 ish) say £1000 on block planes alone? :shock: :shock: :lol:


----------



## woodbrains (26 Sep 2013)

Hello,

Leonard Lee owns the company that makes good planes (amongst other things) because Stanley have made lousy ones for years. I suppose he can hardly be blamed for wanting to sell a few. No one makes anyone buy lots of blades for them, though. They work supremely well as they are. The concept that adding a blade effectively gives you two planes, thus saving money, seems to be elusive to some.

Mike.


----------



## David C (27 Sep 2013)

Leonard Lee's book on sharpening is one of the best ever written and Jacob would learn a thing or two if he bothered to read it.

I don't know what we are supposed to learn from Jacob's ludicrous fantasy post?

David


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

It's supposed to be a comment on the modern trend whereby information on woodworking is so often to be linked to _buying something expensive_ and the denigration of older (and cheaper) methods/tools. That's all! 
I'm thinking of putting it on a DVD :lol:

PS And I am particularly interested in traditional ways, where so much is done with so little.


----------



## Corneel (27 Sep 2013)

I'm sure you're gona be extremely rich from that video. :lol: 

In all the talk about high angle planes, and exotic timbers, some people seem to forget that is the absolute exception in these parts of the world. For European woods, and for a lot of tropical species too, you'll be fine with a cheap 45 degree plane. In a bench plane you'll always have the chipbreaker to help with reversing grain situations, and a scraper plus a piece of fine sandpaper for the last few bits of tearout..

For a block plane I almost only use a low angle one. And I only use it for small onehanded stuff. Everything else and I prefer a bench plane by far. Especially endgrain is easier with a bench plane. When I get a bit of tearout with the block plane, I'll turn the plane around. And I won't find me in a situation very often where I "need" two or three sharpened blades at the ready. Planing with a block plane is usually for small stuff, a little here or there. Not enough the dull the blade quick enough to warant all the spare blades.


----------



## woodbrains (27 Sep 2013)

Hello,

Simplicity is good and the fewer tools to do a job also good. If a well set up plane obviates a power sander, how is that more complicated? Most modern plane variants are just copies or versions of planes that were once common in the Stanley catalogue or had a wooden predecessor. have you looked at how many woodies were needed by a craftsman 150 years ago. 12 is just a half set of hollows and rounds with thier accompanying snipe bills. I reckon a tool chest would have upwards of 50 woodies in a craftsmans kit.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":1hcumxu5 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Simplicity is good and the fewer tools to do a job also good. If a well set up plane obviates a power sander, how is that more complicated? Most modern plane variants are just copies or versions of planes that were once common in the Stanley catalogue or had a wooden predecessor. have you looked at how many woodies were needed by a craftsman 150 years ago. 12 is just a half set of hollows and rounds with thier accompanying snipe bills. I reckon a tool chest would have upwards of 50 woodies in a craftsmans kit.
> 
> Mike.


Only if specialising in mouldings. There isn't a generic "craftsman's kit" there are lots of different trades. Most woodworking has no complicated mouldings. I've just been reading "From Tree to Sea". 
BTW what does Len Lee say abt ordinary chisel/plane sharpening? Is he into freehand etc or a committed training wheeler?
I'm not going to buy the book to find out.


----------



## iNewbie (27 Sep 2013)

Why does it matter -to some- how many tools someone else owns. I don't worry about the amount of toilets in Buckingham Palace... Do what you do with what _you,_ have.


----------



## Corneel (27 Sep 2013)

That's not quite the point Newbie. Everyone should do whatever they fancy. It's about what kind of advice you give on a woodworking forum. If the advice always is to buy something expensive for each and every new problem, it'll add up quickly.


----------



## Corneel (27 Sep 2013)

JacobBTW what does Len Lee say abt ordinary chisel/plane sharpening? Is he into freehand etc or a committed training wheeler?
I'm not going to buy the book to find out.[/quote said:


> When you look at the front page, it seems like training wheels have an important place in the book.


----------



## Racers (27 Sep 2013)

Why call them "training wheels" if its not about recommending expensive options why be nasty about honing jigs?

Can't people just use what ever then need to sharpen? why should then be pressurised into free hand sharpening?

Pete


----------



## Corneel (27 Sep 2013)

We allready went through this a couple of weeks before. Freehand sharpening is a neccessary skill for every woodworker who wants to sharpen anything more then normal chisles and plane blades. Because it is a neccessary skill, it makes the jig a training device.


----------



## Racers (27 Sep 2013)

That's rubbish. 

Pete


----------



## Corneel (27 Sep 2013)

Oh yes? How do you sharpen a gouge?


----------



## Racers (27 Sep 2013)

Doesn't mean you HAVE to freehand sharpen, there are lots of jigs for turners to sharpen there gouges.

Pete


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

ere it wasn't me what brought up the subject it was Dave!
I must say the cover of the book does not bode well, I'm glad I gave it a miss!


----------



## Corneel (27 Sep 2013)

Sure. I suppose you can get a jig for each and every bit of steel that needs to be sharpened. I saw a draw knife sharpening jig a short while ago! Don't remember the price. You will quickly run out of money and storage space. I'd say, just say no to the jig. A certain amount of hand skills is neccessary for handtool woodworking anyway.

On second though, I agree about not calling the jig "training wheels". It doesn't fit, because the jig doesn't train anything. It is a crutch, not a training tool.


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

I'm getting outa here fast!


----------



## Racers (27 Sep 2013)

My god Jacob I thought you would get stuck in. 

The point I am making is let people use what they want, don't badger them into any particular method.

Pete


----------



## Corneel (27 Sep 2013)

Ok. I'll only give advice. Buy whatever you want.

Advice: sharpening jigs are a dead end street.


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

Corneel":3igpgjvy said:


> Ok. I'll only give advice. Buy whatever you want.
> 
> Advice: sharpening jigs are a dead end street.


I'd second that.
It's not "badgering" it's "exchange of opinion". The badgering comes from the industry - we are endlessly badgered to buy loads of kit - a bit of counter badgering is surely a good thing.


----------



## MIGNAL (27 Sep 2013)

Jacob":36exu1tp said:


> I'm getting outa here fast!



Look. You wouldn't expect a 10 year old to suck on a dummy, still be in nappies, training wheels on his/her bike or sharpen a blade using a guide!
At a certain age (6?) you just have to remove the guides!! Let them free!!


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 Sep 2013)

Jacob":bjiksrcv said:


> The badgering comes from the industry



No, Jacob, most of the badgering comes from you. It never ends. People are sick of it. Can't you take a hint?

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## iNewbie (27 Sep 2013)

Corneel":3fzwfnus said:


> That's not quite the point Newbie. Everyone should do whatever they fancy. It's about what kind of advice you give on a woodworking forum. If the advice always is to buy something expensive for each and every new problem, it'll add up quickly.



The advice on this forum isn't relentlessly swaying people about buying what others deem as Prestige tools. It appears more so about relentless digs at supposed Guru's, not buying prestige tools and how you ain't a man because you choose to use a guide. And its one-mans mission here to make all that Groundhogg Day.


----------



## Corneel (27 Sep 2013)

Good. Finally some reason on a woodworking forum. 8)


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Sep 2013)

After you've been around for a while, you realise within reason who is worth paying attention to, and who is best ignored. Do as I do - read everything, remember the useful bits and forget the dross. No one's making anybody do anything .


----------



## woodbrains (27 Sep 2013)

Hello,

Aside from myriad moulding planes (both joinery and cabinet trades used them, so I'm not sure how some couldn't be included in a generic tool chest) tool chests of yesteryear would have contained, ploughs which had multiple blades, dado planes, one for each size encountered and having two blades each,dovetail planes, filisters, chamfer planes, side rebate planes which came in pairs.... Add the usual smoother, jack, try, fore, block, scrub just for preparing, dimensioning and smoothing flat stock. I don't think modern craftsmen can be acused of having too many planes, or too many blades for them. And please don't dare with a ' yebbut', because there are literally millions of old examples which prove without doubt that old craftsmen had dozens if not hundreds of planes in their kits. And they invented York pitch, middle pitch, half pitch and higher.

There are those who use exotic wood and need planes with different EP's than the common pitch in 'regular planes' so what if they need two or three irons to get the wood smooth? You can't do it with the usual tools and no amount of whining to the contrary will make it so. Stating that it wasn't done like that in the old days is tripe also, as the previous paragraph proves. But there are those who stick to local hardwoods. I have encountered twisty English elm that could not be planed with anything but a half pitch plane and likewise figured walnut. I have even had some really ornery English cherry which is usually fairly tame, but managed not to be planed with a common pitch smoother. ( before anyone dares, my planes are effing sharp and I was setting my cap irons super close 20+ years ago, because I found this out for myself) . So if we know how to use our tools and we have an armoury of good ones we can work any timber we ever encounter.

Finally, are books being judged by their covers lately?

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (27 Sep 2013)

Yup, completely agree. The old guys used to have loads of planes. Not sure about a scrub plus a jack plus a fore, but that's nit picking.

And my little shed is a bit overcrowded too. (I don't really need 5 smoothers of course, but they are just so cute, and they were so cheap).

I am not quite sure about the higher pitched planes, after the double iron took over the market. You almost never find them. The Germans have their 50 degree reformhobel, and most infills are about 47,5. But do you ever see a higher pitched bench plane? They're not mentioned in any of the catalogues either. It seems half pitch was only used in moulding planes. You can plane a lot of awfull wood with a sharp blade and a rediculous close set chipbreaker. I've done pretty wild versions of wallnut and maple without too much trouble. The little bits of tearout left are dealed with with a card scraper. 

So that's something I wonder about.


----------



## woodbrains (27 Sep 2013)

Hello,

Well a jack and a scrub are totally different and have distinct jobs. I think they work as a team, if rough timber is worked by hand. I'm not saying every craftsman had all the planes on the list, but neither is the list comprehensive. What would substitute a fore? A panel plane, or would we leave a hole in the arsenal? The whole point is, complaining that having a couple of extra irons for a plane is extravagant or has never been done before modern times is just plain daft. 

We also have to factor in that in real terms good tools were more expensive back in the day, than premium tools cost now. I don't see any extravagance if it is pleasurable and gets the job done.

High pitched planes may have been rarer, but they existed and had names for the pitches. I don't think setting the cap iron close is a modern discovery, either. Whatever works and when is not over egging the pudding and those who encounter the tools that work and can reason why should not be ridiculed.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

The fact that there are thousands of different old tools in existence does not mean that they were all used by all craftsmen. There were also thousands ( well hundreds perhaps) of different wood trades, all with different needs.
Tool collections "tool chests" can also be misleading too, many of them seem to be just that - "collections" and not necessarily used, then as now.

PS I've taken woodbrain's advice and bought a Stanley 60 1/2 (ebay) - just to prove that I do listen.

PPS _Finally, are books being judged by their covers lately?_ Well that one is! Really off-putting IMHO. Not for me.


----------



## lanemaux (27 Sep 2013)

Hi Jacob. Actually I own a copy of the Lee book on sharpening and would like to state that I found it a good read. It is a well illustrated and informative treatise on sharpening for the non-sharpener to learn methods from. Since I was always into sharp knives , that section was not of great use to me , as I had my own methods. However when I got the book I didn't know a frog was part of a tool. My chisel was for removing bits of cement. For me it was a learning experience because it showed what surfaces of a tool to sharpen without ruining them through ignorance. The book covers a lot of ground as well. Drills ,scissors ,saws ,lawn and garden tools just a whack of information. Pick a copy up , it may surprise you.


----------



## Corneel (27 Sep 2013)

Those high pitched bench planes are a bit of mystery for me. Before the chipbreaker gained widespread acceptance (around 1800) you can see some references about them. But later? I know about the names york pitch, half pitch etc. But were they also used for bench planes? Molding planes at high angles are quite common. Even I have some half pitch hollow and rounds. But you never seem to find high pitched single iron planes from the 19th century.

PS, the inventors of the chipbreaker (double iron, capiron...) knew very well how to use it, very close to the edge. So that's certainly not new knowledge. They used it for difficult grain and raved about it. Nicholson also describes how he _feels_ the effect of the double iron (harder to push) and sees the result in difficult grain, so he must have known how to use it.


----------



## richarnold (27 Sep 2013)

19th century wooden smoothing planes with a higher pitch are something I have found on numerous occasions in the past. I have a matching pair in the workshop now They are by the same maker (Buck I think) and are identical. same owners stamp, and from one tool chest. I can only presume the owner had a lot of difficult wood to plane to require two matching planes!. I have to say that although I have come across high angled coffin smoothers in the past I can't remember seeing a try plane with a higher pitch, but I will be at the David Stanley auction tomorrow so I can start looking!


----------



## yetloh (27 Sep 2013)

Thank goodness this thread has been rescued from a standard of debate reminiscent of the playground. As someone said earlier, if you stick around here for a while you soon discover who you want to take seriously and that will differ from person to person because these differences of approach are to a large extent a matter of temperament and not a question of absolute rights and wrongs as some like to present them. Lots of highly skilled cabinet makers use honing guides and lots don't. Some use lots of different planes, others don't. Who cares? What matters is what is right for you and, in addition to temperament that will depend on where your intersts lie, the depth of your pocket, and the sort of work you do. It's all valid and should all be celebrated as part of keeping the craft alive. If some people make a decent living out of catering to the needs, desires and even vanity of those who derive livings or just pleasure from woodworking, good luck to them, it is economic activity which keeps others in jobs and provides plenty of choice for those who want it.

Jim


----------



## Corneel (28 Sep 2013)

richarnold":24zywvku said:


> 19th century wooden smoothing planes with a higher pitch are something I have found on numerous occasions in the past. I have a matching pair in the workshop now They are by the same maker (Buck I think) and are identical. same owners stamp, and from one tool chest. I can only presume the owner had a lot of difficult wood to plane to require two matching planes!. I have to say that although I have come across high angled coffin smoothers in the past I can't remember seeing a try plane with a higher pitch, but I will be at the David Stanley auction tomorrow so I can start looking!



Thanks a lot for the info Richarnold! I´ve been looking quite a bit for similar planes, but I definintely live on the wrong side of the Northsea. You guys live on a goldmine overthere. Do you happen to have some pictures and meassurements from your Buck planes? What pitch do they have? Are they singe or double iron? I want to build some planes this winter and am looking for inspiration.

This comes from Holtzapffel's turning manual, volume 2, page 482. Probably well known. I was always amazed about this list, because I couldn't find 55 degree smoothing planes anywhere, not in real life, not even on a picture. It seems half pitch was indeed ment for moulding planes only. And Holtzapffel doesn't mention try planes with a high pitch (which doesn't mean they don't exist).





Maybe we should start a new thread for his....


----------



## Corneel (28 Sep 2013)

50 degree planes weren't so rare. Before the chipbreaker all planes in Holland were 50 degrees. In Germany you can still find 49 degree planes. In Roubo is a nice picture of a tryplane with a 50 degree angle (plate 13, nr 2.).


----------



## Corneel (28 Sep 2013)

I vaguely remembered a steep pitched single iron plane on the site Logan cabinet shop. It took a bit of digging, but here it is. Kind of proving myself wrong (hammer) . Pitched between 50 and 55 degrees according to Bob.

http://logancabinetshoppe.com/blog/2010/10/le-petit-rabot/


----------



## woodbrains (28 Sep 2013)

Hello,

The funny thing about history is, that from our point of view it all happened simultaneously. We can take want we want from it and use it as suits. There is no need to say that high pitched planes were not popular after the inteoduction of cap irons so we should not have a high pitch and a cap iron combo now. We do not have to historically correct. In any event, LA bevel up planes don't have cap irons! And if we hone a back bevel on a common pitched plane, the pitcnh angle is a virtual one, the frog doesnt suddenly steepen. So we are not exactly doing the same thing as was done historically and we are stuck with a cap iron anyway. It is all fun to experiment and learn. The thing about history is, we should learn and expand on it, not follow some sort of dogmatic religious rite over it. I think we are lucky to have the tools available to us, the superb modern ones and the best old ones. I work with both old and new, premium and lowly, fettled, modified and self built. It is all fun!

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (28 Sep 2013)

Wait a second, no dogmatic religious thing overhere! I don't deny the usefullness of high pitched planes at all! They are very effective, and that's a good thing too, because chipbreakers are a bit cumbersome in a moulding plane.

The chipbreaker is a great invention of course, and I haven't find the limit of it's usability yet. When I combine the use of a chipbreaker with one of my German 49 degree smoothing planes, it's a very stong combo. While using the 49 degree pitch without he chipbreaker close to the edge, gets me lukewarm at best. The double iron plane kind of took over the marker in the 19th century. So that makes me wonder what happened to the high pitched, single iron planes. And because I have this idea to make some planes, I wonder if I should give a 55 degree plane a try, again. Again, because I have made a failed attempt allready a few years ago. That attempt only produced lots of chatter in hard wood.

BTW, I'm not very interested in new tools. They just don't turn me on. But that's a personal thing of course.


----------



## J_SAMa (28 Sep 2013)

Right... I hone all my plane blades at a little higher than 30 deg (lets just say 32 deg here) as I find the edge retention of 25 deg edges just aren't long enough. Now if I did that with an LA plane, then the EP would be 44, about the same as a regular bench plane. Defeats the point of LA doesn't it?


----------



## Jacob (28 Sep 2013)

Yes. Except that a "low angle" block plane is going to have a lower EP than an ordinary (220 etc) blockplane - in the vicinity of 38 to 45º ish - about the same as a regular bench plane as you say!


----------



## J_SAMa (28 Sep 2013)

I never actually used a block plane, but is it OK to put a back bevel on block plane blades? That would increase the edge's angle without increasing the EP wouldn't it?


----------



## David C (28 Sep 2013)

Yes, but I think this is more useful on the 20 degree standard block plane.

A 10 degree back bevel with a 20 degree honing gives an EP of 40 degrees on the standard angle plane ~;-)#

Clearance angle is reduced from 20 to 10 degrees. This is OK. (Leonard Lee's book describes these things very well).

Back bevel on 12 degree plane probably not a good idea as clearance angle is reduced too much.

David Charlesworth


----------



## mark w (29 Sep 2013)

Jacob and Mignal, reminds me of that film title Dumb & Dumber.


----------



## woodbrains (29 Sep 2013)

J_SAMa":7tj57676 said:


> Right... I hone all my plane blades at a little higher than 30 deg (lets just say 32 deg here) as I find the edge retention of 25 deg edges just aren't long enough. Now if I did that with an LA plane, then the EP would be 44, about the same as a regular bench plane. Defeats the point of LA doesn't it?



Hello,

But would you not similarly hone a higher angle on a standard block plane and end up with an EP of 52 and the difference reappears?

Corneel, I wasn't acusing anyone of dogma, it was a general comment that we should not have to stick to historical propriety. But you have to admit, you were tending towards the decision that the cap iron negated the need for high pitched planes. Now at least you are warming to the fact that a high EP and a cap iron might give an advantage in certain situations. You even have had practical experience of favourable results in your 49 degree smoother. You kept that quiet , you sly old dog!

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (29 Sep 2013)

Yes, I see, didn't read you carefully enough. Forums do have the effect of become a bit too dogmatic. 

The 49 degree smoother WITH chipbreaker is great, almost invincible I'd say. With the chipbreaker moved up, it is nothing special, not much different from a 45 degree plane. Even a humble species like Ash can be troublesome without using the chipbreaker. A few years ago I was using a backbevel for these situations, but I didn't like the maintenance issues of the backbevel. Now I do almost all smoothing with my Stanley #4 with the chipbreaker set close to the edge, or a 45 degree woodie, used similar. The German reformhobel (at 49 degrees) is a bit in disrepair at the moment, the movable insert has broken. I really need to repair that thing. Then I have a nameless infill, around 49 degrees too. I don't really like to use that one too much because it is very heavy.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with high pitched planes. I'd like to try a 55 degree one. The standard planes are available much cheaper though and can do remarkable work, when you know how to use them.


----------



## J_SAMa (29 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":lajou75r said:


> J_SAMa":lajou75r said:
> 
> 
> > Right... I hone all my plane blades at a little higher than 30 deg (lets just say 32 deg here) as I find the edge retention of 25 deg edges just aren't long enough. Now if I did that with an LA plane, then the EP would be 44, about the same as a regular bench plane. Defeats the point of LA doesn't it?
> ...



Yes, but I was comparing it to bench planes...
The LA configuration are indeed useful for block planes as they are compact, but I don't see the point of planes such as the No. 62. It's a bench plane so it's not compact and the LA configuration doesn't really offer any angles that the No. 5 doesn't. Also you lose the cap iron, which I think is a major factor in preventing tearout.

Sam


----------



## David C (29 Sep 2013)

What I wonder are the maintenance issues of a back bevel?

David


----------



## Corneel (29 Sep 2013)

While I was still using a jig it ment an extra jigging operation. And later when I learned freehand sharpening it was just cumbersome to hit that 10 degree backbevel each time. It also hinders when you feel for the burr. Overall it irritated me a lot.

Another issue with a backbevel, it's allways there, also when you don't need it. Pushing is harder, and I thought it causes fastere wear of the edge. So you need two smoothing planes or two irons. Well, I have enough planes, so that wouldn't be such an issue, but it irritated me nonetheless.


----------



## Jacob (29 Sep 2013)

David C":1o8osqq5 said:


> What I wonder are the maintenance issues of a back bevel?
> 
> David


Simple. You either repeat it every time, or repeat it diminishingly until it disappears, or grind it off.
If you forget it's there you are reminded when no amount of face flattening will remove the burr. You then have to lift it touch.


----------



## yetloh (29 Sep 2013)

Corneel":20wyh8a3 said:


> Yes, I see, didn't read you carefully enough. Forums do have the effect of become a bit too dogmatic.
> 
> The 49 degree smoother WITH chipbreaker is great, almost invincible I'd say. With the chipbreaker moved up, it is nothing special, not much different from a 45 degree plane.



I'm not convinced of the real value of so-called chipbreakers except as blade stiffeners. I believe a plane designed to do without one and with a suitably thick blade will work just as well and avoids the faff of fettling setting the damn thing every time the blade is sharpened. Top quality blade steel is expensive - how much easier and cheaper to substitute half the necessary thickness for something cheap and call it a chipbreaker.

Jim


----------



## Jacob (29 Sep 2013)

J_SAMa":ocn7saiz said:


> .......
> The LA configuration are indeed useful for block planes as they are compact, but I don't see the point of planes such as the No. 62. It's a bench plane so it's not compact and the LA configuration doesn't really offer any angles that the No. 5 doesn't. Also you lose the cap iron, which I think is a major factor in preventing tearout.
> 
> Sam


A lot of people thought the same - the 62 wasn't popular and was discontinued. Low angle for a _compact_ block plane quite different and was /is a winner.


----------



## Corneel (29 Sep 2013)

Hi Jim,

I suggest you have a look at this little video I made. Planing with a very cheap old wooden plane, against the grain of some maple. The point isn't that you can't make usefull planes without a chipbreaker, the point is that almost all planes allready have a chipbreaker, so why wouldn't you learn to use it? The second video is some kind of an instructional one about how to use the chipbreaker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3Nq1sbOhMM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSjpzta0FuY

Chipbreakers work impressively well against the problem of tearout.


----------



## David C (30 Sep 2013)

Corneel,

I was amused by your maintainance post, thought you freehand sharpeners had developed inbuilt protractors.

From the evolutionary backwaters of Eclipse honing guide use, I can assure you that a backbevelled blade is a wonderous thing, taming the most ornery of dense, interlocked, exotic hardwoods. It is also no trouble to maintain, and the wire edges are easy to feel if you go about it in the right way. 

There is a problem with the Veritas and Quangsheng approach. We have absolutely no need to have a blade ground at say 38 degrees, and another at 48 degrees. Blades can all be ground at 25 degrees. Only the very small honed bevel angle needs to be changed.

If one thinks of the thickness of a fine shaving, 1 to 2 thou", the width of honing required for a back bevel (or a bevel up blade) can be kept very small indeed. I use something of the order of 0.2 to 0.3 mm. Thus the blade could be returned to standard use with a minimum of grinding.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (30 Sep 2013)

David C":3apvi9w8 said:


> Corneel,
> 
> I was amused by your maintainance post, thought you freehand sharpeners had developed inbuilt protractors.


We all have them Dave - it's called a brain. Some astonishingly precise performances can be done which makes hitting a 30º bevel look dead easy (which it is). Think of hitting the bulls eye on a dart board. Think of just hitting the board - thats a degree of precision good enough for sharpening. Some people can't even hit the board but that is relatively uncommon.


----------



## David C (30 Sep 2013)

Well Jacko,

10 degrees he found irritating.

I think you have missed the point.

David


----------



## Corneel (30 Sep 2013)

David C":y028rb18 said:


> Corneel,
> 
> I was amused by your maintainance post, thought you freehand sharpeners had developed inbuilt protractors.



No, the funny thing is, you don't need a protractor. I start with the grind angle from the grinder. And then just a little more of much more if neccessary, no need for any more precision then that. I don't know at what angle my tools are sharpened. 

But the backbevel irritated me like I wrote. Could be a personal problem of course. Luckily I am not into ornery dense tropics. The more humble stuff like Jatoba or Padouk, even quartersawn crossgrained stuff is no problem when you set the chipbreaker very close to the edge.


----------



## David C (30 Sep 2013)

I was just poking fun at the dogmatic approach of the freehand sharpeners............

Honing guides are of course, quicker more efficient, more accurate and more versatile for straight or cambered edge tools, chisels, plane blades and spokeshave blades, scraper plane blades, shoulder and rebate plane blades, but sadly not for gouges, or moulding plane blades.

Oi, veh!

David


----------



## Corneel (30 Sep 2013)

Have fun with your jig David. And I'll enjoy the freedom, the speed and the efficiency of freehand honing. All the while honing my skills, so when I need a sharp gouge, it's easy.


----------



## Jacob (30 Sep 2013)

David C":i3w4wb2q said:


> Well Jacko,
> 
> 10 degrees he found irritating.
> 
> ...


10º is exactly one third of 30º and quite easy to judge, if you need to be that precise. Have a go Dave - get a real protractor out and draw out a few measured angles - train the inner protractor!
Shalom!

PS to get started draw out equilateral triangles. The corners should be 60º. Half of that is 30º - and so on. 90 and 45 are easy. 45 is half 90, 15 is third of 45. The 360º circle is very anthropo(something), rather like imperial measure.


----------



## woodbrains (1 Oct 2013)

J_SAMa":365olv4h said:


> Yes, but I was comparing it to bench planes...
> The LA configuration are indeed useful for block planes as they are compact, but I don't see the point of planes such as the No. 62. It's a bench plane so it's not compact and the LA configuration doesn't really offer any angles that the No. 5 doesn't. Also you lose the cap iron, which I think is a major factor in preventing tearout.
> 
> Sam



Hello,

I don't disagree about the no 62 and its cousins. I did start a thread about the logic in making a LA plane and then honing the irons with really steep pitches to tame ornery grain, but it got bogged down in sharpening again, and I didn't get many meaningful answers. The LA jacks etc. seem to try to be everything to all men, and I think it comes about as close to the aim as anything, but I don't like the idea of pushing a blade through wood that is not as fine a wedge as possible. It does work, though and the higher the pitch, the less need for a cap iron effect, so it does function, although not as efficiently as a dedicated high pitch plane, such as Corneel's 55 degree one he wants to build would be. Even a regular pitched plane with a back bevel thickens the wedge at the business end some, though not as much as a LA with a 50 degree angle, as I believe is advised by some.

However, I decided to dedicate a Record 04 1/2 smoother as a back bevel plane. If I grind and hone a 20 degree bevel and then add a 15 degree back bevel, I am only increasing the included angle to 35 degrees, not much and possibly an advantage for edge retention, but gain a plane with an EP of 55 degrees. I keep the cap iron too, if the back bevel is long enough for the leading edge of the cap iron to mate with the blade in the bevel itself. Now I think this is the best way to achieve high EP without a lot of expense, in just a standard plane. If I had only one plane, I would consider two irons, but my Record cost me a tenner, so 2 planes are not out of the question! Honing guide might be an advantage here, just saying.

Mike.


----------



## bugbear (1 Oct 2013)

Jacob":vk1lalpq said:


> the 62 wasn't popular and was discontinued.
> .



The material used, ordinary cast iron, couldn't tolerate the forces at the mouth, and always (near enough) cracked. Never a popular feature,

The modern interpretations fix this fault.

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (1 Oct 2013)

Hello,

I have a US made 60 1/2 bLock plane, which is cracking at either side of the mouth. It seems the American made LA planes are machined rather too thin in this area. Perhaps the 62 also suffered from this. I handled a few some time ago and they seemed a bit on the light side. The Veritas LA jack is massive in this area, as well as being a ductile iron.

Aside from longevity faults with the 62 I don't think there was much ( if any ) experimentation with high EP in those days so perhaps any perceived advantage on the 62 was not understood. Plus, the Stanley catalogue at the time was immense, so end grain work such as in shooting and mitres was covered with lots of other alternatives.

Mike.


----------



## bugbear (2 Oct 2013)

woodbrains":14be815b said:


> Aside from longevity faults with the 62 I don't think there was much ( if any ) experimentation with high EP in those days so perhaps any perceived advantage on the 62 was not understood.



HIgh EP was well known in those days - many wooden and infill smoothers were high EP courtesy of their bedding angle. Do you mean high EP on BU planes?

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (2 Oct 2013)

woodbrains":3p6mf7qu said:


> Aside from longevity faults with the 62 I don't think there was much ( if any ) experimentation with high EP in those days so perhaps any perceived advantage on the 62 was not understood.


More likely they were simply not perceived.

I bought a Stanley 60 1/2 and woodbrains was right it does cut end grain better than a 220. In fact just as well as any other sharp plane with a normal EP angle, but with the advantage of the compact profile for small or one handed work.


----------



## woodbrains (2 Oct 2013)

bugbear":3q9wherb said:


> woodbrains":3q9wherb said:
> 
> 
> > Aside from longevity faults with the 62 I don't think there was much ( if any ) experimentation with high EP in those days so perhaps any perceived advantage on the 62 was not understood.
> ...



Hello,

Yes, I mean in LA planes, sorry if that wasn't clear. I had been talking about high pitch angles earlier, so I thought it was more obvious that I perhaps was.

Mike.


----------



## woodbrains (2 Oct 2013)

Jacob":2xe49ama said:


> More likely they were simply not perceived.
> 
> I bought a Stanley 60 1/2 and woodbrains was right it does cut end grain better than a 220. In fact just as well as any other sharp plane with a normal EP angle, but with the advantage of the compact profile for small or one handed work.



Hello,

The 60 1/2 is a handy size. I quite like the slightly narrower body on the Stanley too. Somewhere I have a Hock A2 cryo blade to fit one (I dropped mine off a ladder, so. The blade is now spare!) if you would like it, I will send it to you. I think the Hock A2 is better than most and holds a great edge whilst keeping a 30 deg hone. If yo would like it, PM me and I'll post it to you.

Mike.


----------



## David C (2 Oct 2013)

Hock A2, very good indeed.

David


----------



## yetloh (2 Oct 2013)

Corneel":8ybm7z55 said:


> The point isn't that you can't make usefull planes without a chipbreaker.




Hi Corneel,

I'm sure Karl Holtey would have something to say about this statement, although I doubt that it would have influenced the design of his No 982, which I can testify works superbly without the benefit of a chipbreaker. I also recall a Japanese academic paper based on research which appeared to demonstrate that they are of very limited usefulness. Unfortunately I seem to have lost the link to this and cannot now find it. Hovever, given the thickness of Japanese plane blades, the conclusions do not surprise me. 

Jim


----------



## Corneel (3 Oct 2013)

When i reread my own sentense, i can see why you don't understand it. Too many nots in one sentence. But i mean to say, yes you can make usefull planes without a chipbraker. But there are so many double ironplanes around allready that it only makes sence to learn how to use them. 

Did you watch the video's? I hope you get curius enough to give it a try. Most anyone who for the first time really uses the chipbreaker are blown away by its usefullness. About that Japanese article, not every Japanese thinks like that. Professor Kato and Kawai did extensive research to the chipbreaker effect and were positive about it.

PS, if you can find the link to that article I would be pleased to read it.


----------



## Corneel (3 Oct 2013)

BTW. I don't see how a THICK iron helps against tearout. The Stanley planes are a good example that you can get away with remarkably thin ones.


----------



## yetloh (3 Oct 2013)

But the reason you can get away with a thin blade is because the back iron stiffens it. Yes I did watch your video but I do not think the effect you found was to do with having a back iron per se. I believe it is more to do with a properly adjusted back iron endowing the blade with the necessary stiffness.

Jim


----------



## Corneel (3 Oct 2013)

Did you see how I first got considerable tearout with the chipbreaker set at 1mm, and then I got a smooth surface with the chipbreaker set very close to the edge (something like 0.2mm)?


----------



## Corneel (3 Oct 2013)

I think I am starting to understand what you mean. You mean, I would have got the same effect if I had used a thicker blade? 

To be honest, I think that's nonsence. The blade is 4.5mm thick and very well bedded if I may say so. i checked the bedding with some candle sooth on the back of the blade.

And I can make the same demonstration with a Stanley with the standard blade and standard chipbreaker, which both together are less thick then this woodie blade.

I'm afraid you'll have to accept the fact that the chipbreaker helps stabilising the shaving, so it gets cut instead of torn out.


----------



## Corneel (3 Oct 2013)

I just watched the Kato/Kawai video again for a bit. They used a 10mm blade! How thick do you want it to be? What's more, in the video when looking at the sequence where they are producing tearout with no chipbreaker at 0.1mm thickness of cut, you can see absolutely no deflection of the edge. You can easilly see this when you hold the cursor over the tip of the edge. The view of the camera moves a bit left to right, but not up or down.

http://vimeo.com/41372857

There is no evidence for your theory, as far as i can see.


----------



## Jacob (3 Oct 2013)

Corneel":6x4py1y7 said:


> .... The Stanley planes are a good example that you can get away with remarkably thin ones.


Thin blade is one of the main advantages of the Bailey design, made possible by the cap iron and lever cap design holding it tight down against the frog, close to the cutting edge and as effective as a thick blade. Thin bade is quicker to sharpen, as well as the ease of removal and replacement.
The cap iron "chip breaker" effect is an additional bonus which otherwise would make the cap iron redundant on a thick blade.
So it has two functions on a thin blade, but just the one on a thick one.


----------



## Corneel (3 Oct 2013)

Because wooden planes with chipbreakers and massive blades were avaialable long before the Stanley planes, I would turn it around. Chipbreaker effect comes first. Stabilising the edge is the bonus and very well employed in the Stanley design.

But your quite right of course. I'm just nit picking.


----------



## Paul Chapman (3 Oct 2013)

Jacob":304ff6dp said:


> Corneel":304ff6dp said:
> 
> 
> > .... The Stanley planes are a good example that you can get away with remarkably thin ones.
> ...



In my experience, the Stanley-style thin blade and bent metal cap iron are such a bad design that I can only imagine they were introduced in order to keep down costs. The modern incarnations of the Bailey-style planes with Bedrock frogs, very thick blades and improved cap irons (of which the two piece, Stay-set style is the best, IMHO) perform so much better. Fortunately it is easy to add thicker blades and better cap irons to Bailey-style planes.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Corneel (3 Oct 2013)

In my jointer (Stanley #7 from the 1920's) and my jackplane (Record 05, prewar) I use the standard blades and capirons and I see absolutely no point in replacing them. They work as advertised. My smoother (Stanley #4, postwar UK) has a thicker O1 blade from Ray Iles which does help a bit against chatter. Standard capiron though.

The standard capirons are usually poorly finished, but that is something easilly remidied. Their shape is considerably better then the newer replacement ones, which are shaped as if the makers have no idea about the chipbreaker effect. But that can be remidied too. 

The older blades are very good and don't need (expensive) replacements. The later ones are not as good in my opinion. Or it is the poorer bedding surface of the later planes, I don't know.

Overall I would advice everyone to test the plane first to see if it doesn't accidentally works fine allready, before plunging a lot of money on parts you don't need.


----------



## Racers (3 Oct 2013)

Some bold claims can't say I agree with them all, but you are entitled to your opinions.

The trouble with not trying out all the options is you don't find the limiting factors.

Pete


----------



## Corneel (3 Oct 2013)

Which claims are bold? And which claims don't you agree with?


----------



## Racers (3 Oct 2013)

Not telling  

Pete


----------



## Corneel (3 Oct 2013)

No fear. I won't bite you. 

Is it about the shape of the new chipbreakers? I don't know all of them but the couple I know have a leading edge of 30 degrees which is too low for a good chipbreaking effect. I don't really thinkthat is a bold statement though.


----------



## Racers (3 Oct 2013)

Corneel":164ikesi said:


> The older blades are very good and don't need (expensive) replacements.




My experience differs from yours.

Hock blade and cap irons are a big step up in performance.

Pete


----------



## Corneel (3 Oct 2013)

On that's what you mean. 

That's not a bold statement. Try beforeyou buy I say. Don'tbuy a Hock blade because someone on the internet told you so. 

I always wonder how they got along before mr. Hock. Must have been terrible times.


----------



## bugbear (3 Oct 2013)

Corneel":2tm4zcxe said:


> I always wonder how they got along before mr. Hock. Must have been terrible times.



Indeed.

Hock blades were adopted with great enthusiasm by people disappointed by the quality of existing blades.

He used to be a knife maker, but people kept asking for plane blades.

He was the first (AFAIK) of the "after market" blade makers.

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (3 Oct 2013)

Hello,

There are lots of interesting findings about cap irons about on the net, but I have not found any to be complete, so it is better to take the info and experiment for yourselves. The Kato tests _seem_ to be experimentally correct, but I don't think they tell the whole story. There is lots of good info, for sure, but there are a few significant omissions IMO. Firstly, there is no mouth to the plane. This was perhaps done to isolate the cap iron effect from other factors, but this makes the test flawed, since almost every plane we use will have a mouth opening. We do not know from the test that - A. Making a fine mouth will reduce the need for quite as much cap iron effect and at what point this is.- B. if the reduction in tear out from a severe cap iron effect gives a better/comparable/poorer surface finish than other ways to prevent tear out, eg. A very fine mouth or a high pitched iron. Nor does it consider that a regular plane iron and even a thick replacement iron is no where near as thick as the test blade and therefore may react differently under a severe cap iron effect than a massively thick one. I'm suggesting severe cap iron effect induced chatter in thin blades. Chatter being one of the causes of tear out.

My experience tells me that if I can tame tear out with a fine mouthed plane and a little less cap iron effect the plane is easier to push and the surface finish is finer. However, the cap iron effect produces a better surface than a torn one, so in very ornery stuff, I would favour a close set cap iron over it not being so. I still think a high pitched plane and a little less cap iron effect is best, and in fact, I do believe after a certain Height of pitch, the cap iron effect will be ineffectual an may even hinder planing.

Mike.


----------



## woodbrains (3 Oct 2013)

bugbear":lwq57p2d said:


> Corneel":lwq57p2d said:
> 
> 
> > I always wonder how they got along before mr. Hock. Must have been terrible times.
> ...



Hello,

Hock blades are head and shoulders above the stock standard ones that come in Bailey tripe planes, of this there can be no dispute. However, when I got the few I own, the price was not as prohibitive as they seem to have become. If I hade a plane with a useless blade, I would not consider a stock replacement and a Hock would be high on the list for a suitable choice.

Mike.

Edit: I just noticed the spell corrector has made me say something I didn't intend, but I think I'll leave it, it might not be far wrong after all.


----------



## Paul Chapman (3 Oct 2013)

woodbrains":125cpeku said:


> I still think a high pitched plane and a little less cap iron effect is best, and in fact, I do believe after a certain Height of pitch, the cap iron effect will be ineffectual an may even hinder planing.



I agree. An ultra-close set cap iron is, in effect, producing the same effect as a high effective pitch. However, it's far less of a fiddle to use a plane with a high effective pitch (or a scraper plane) in the first place. Still, all roads lead to Rome, so choose whichever technique you prefer  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Vann (3 Oct 2013)

Paul Chapman":28apkz6g said:


> In my experience, the Stanley-style thin blade and bent metal cap iron are such a bad design that I can only imagine they were introduced in order to keep down costs. The modern incarnations of the Bailey-style planes with Bedrock frogs, very thick blades and improved cap irons (of which the two piece, Stay-set style is the best, IMHO) perform so much better.


I saw a picture of the patent for the Stanley cap-iron (someone posted it on the Aussie forum a while back). It showed the cap-iron flat on the cutting iron immediately behind the "hump". So the original design supported the cutting iron along most of it's length and held it flat - like a two-piece cap-iron does ('though not as thick).

However I don't think I've ever seen a properly made "Stanley" cap iron. Usually they are over-bent and don't come in contact with the cutting iron again until way up near the cap-iron screw. And the over-bent shape causes the bending forces that often prevent the irons from sitting flat on the frog. It's is possible, I suppose, to reduce the bend in the "Stanley" cap-iron, but it's fiddly to get it right - and it has to be exactly right to get it to stiffen the cutter as designed/patented.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Corneel (3 Oct 2013)

I agree Mike, this is a complicated subject. I don't think everyone would agree with you on the worse surface finish when using the chipbreaker. After all, you're still cutting at 45 degrees, while most of the compression takes place in the shaving. And high pitched planes don't leave such a crisp surface either when compared to lower angled planes. But it all depends on the wood species too. Not easy to say anything general about that. Everyone will have to experiment for themselves. For example, I am at the moment experimenting with lower angles for the leading edge of the chipbreaker, but didn't come to any conclusions yet.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Oct 2013)

:lol: :lol: :lol: "Bailey tripe planes" :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Corneel (3 Oct 2013)

How many Bailey type planes have been sold? No idea really, must be millions. In the early 20th century they were regarded as a class above the standard wooden planes, quite a bit more expensive too. They were used in every woodworking profession, from rough carpentry to fine cabinetmaking, on all continents on all kinds of wood. It has been a very succesfull design, despite the misgivings from some amateur woodworkers these days. 

Hock started in the eighties when the quality of Stanley planes had dropped. No wonder people loved his replacement blades. And indeed Hock stuff is good. But my vintage Stanley and Record blades aren't bad either. If your planeblade performs well, doesn't chatter, and the edge lives for a reasonable time, then there is no reason to replace it.


----------



## woodbrains (3 Oct 2013)

Corneel":3o2t7jdh said:


> I agree Mike, this is a complicated subject. I don't think everyone would agree with you on the worse surface finish when using the chipbreaker. After all, you're still cutting at 45 degrees, while most of the compression takes place in the shaving. And high pitched planes don't leave such a crisp surface either when compared to lower angled planes. But it all depends on the wood species too. Not easy to say anything general about that. Everyone will have to experiment for themselves. For example, I am at the moment experimenting with lower angles for the leading edge of the chipbreaker, but didn't come to any conclusions yet.



Hello,

Most of what I said were questions that have arisen and some things I have noticed. The experimentation will continue, and new conclusions reached as the variables are vast. A plane with an extreme cap iron effect is working much like a scraper, though, so can lead to less smoothness, though less tear out too. I'm not knocking it, there is a compromise with everything, which is why It is good to ave a whole array of techniques. If you think about it, a scraper will have an EP of less than a Bailey plane, but is in fact has a type 2 cutting action like a plane with a strong ca iron effect.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (3 Oct 2013)

Just finished some experimenting with a 35 degree bevel on the chipbreaker and 0.1 to 0.2 mm from the edge. It works, even rather thick shavings (2 to 3 thou). This in a wooden plane. This idea comes from Caspar Labarre in The Netherlands. He recons that the wear helps in supporting the shaving too.

Anyway, beautifull silky smooth surface in some maple. Planing against the grain with a big knot in the middle.

Here's a video from him with a similar setup planing some nasty elm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zs92-9FUrfI


----------



## David C (3 Oct 2013)

Don't understand how anyone could fail to appreciate Hock irons. Many others as well, as long as they are not thin 1970 to 2000 Stanley.

It is very important to understand that no chipbreakers come with a properly finished edge.

The new improved type used by L-N, Veritas, IBC are all superb, completely avoiding lever cap missmatch, and benefiting from good thickness. Generally they require much less work than the horrid thin Stanley and Record type.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Corneel (4 Oct 2013)

It's not about failing to apreciate the Hock irons. It is about failing to appreciate the original ones. Same as with the capirons. Yes they need quite a bit of work usually, but when fitted proparly they just work.


----------



## David C (4 Oct 2013)

Corneel,

Why on earth do you think original c/bs are better than the recent incarnation?

David


----------



## iNewbie (4 Oct 2013)

Corneel":lbju1zld said:


> It's not about failing to apreciate the Hock irons. It is about failing to appreciate the original ones. Same as with the capirons. Yes they need quite a bit of work usually, but when fitted proparly they just work.



Some people have a different experience with tools. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. Thats doesn't mean for someone else it doesn't work - or they can't make their item work for them. 

In the case of Hock it appears _more_ people are happier from their experience in using his Iron(s) - that doesn't mean someone else has felt there wasn't a benefit for_ them_ when buying one. 

Its all good.


----------



## bugbear (4 Oct 2013)

iNewbie":2fdjaymd said:


> Corneel":2fdjaymd said:
> 
> 
> > It's not about failing to apreciate the Hock irons. It is about failing to appreciate the original ones. Same as with the capirons. Yes they need quite a bit of work usually, but when fitted proparly they just work.
> ...



It might tell us more about the testers than the tested.

BugBear


----------



## David C (4 Oct 2013)

Hear, hear... (spelling??).

David


----------



## Corneel (4 Oct 2013)

David C":3qwhvipy said:


> Corneel,
> 
> Why on earth do you think original c/bs are better than the recent incarnation?
> 
> David



Did I write that? The new ones often have too sharp an edge about 25 to 30 degrees. But that is easilly remidied

My point is that the old ones are good enough in most cases. Try the plane first. Only when you have troubles with chatter or the edge folds up almost immediately or something like that, would I invest 60 euro in new parts. On a 20 euro plane that is a lot of money to spend nilly willy.


----------



## Racers (4 Oct 2013)

Well a plane is just a blade holder, so why wouldn't you spend money on a blade?

pete


----------



## Jacob (4 Oct 2013)

Corneel":24ceucou said:


> David C":24ceucou said:
> 
> 
> > Corneel,
> ...


Agree. People give up too easily. If it's cheap they blame the tools. If it's expensive they tend to blame themselves and persist a little longer. American novelty planes are too heavy and excessively over engineered which isn't wholly matched in improved performance.


----------



## iNewbie (4 Oct 2013)

Is it that time of the day/week/month again, Jacob. Seriously. it's f'in tedious.


----------



## Corneel (4 Oct 2013)

Ok, I give up. You guys are hopeless, so instead of fighting it, I'll go with the flow. The next time I buy an old Stanley plane, first thing I do is throwing away the blade and chipbreaker. The handles are probably a bit worn down too, so I throw them away too. The body casting can't be flat enough, so I throw it away. Now I don't have anything to attach the frog too anymore, so also that one can go into the skip. What's left, the levercap? Well, maybe I can use that on the next old Stanley I buy.


----------



## Racers (4 Oct 2013)

Throw them my way, please.

Pete


----------



## MIGNAL (4 Oct 2013)

Well, just to bring a bit of balance to the discussion :shock: 
I have an early '70's Stanley 5 1/2 complete with original blade and original chipbreaker. It works as well as my super fettled No. 4 that now sports a Ray Iles thicker replacement blade, new home made handles and a 2 piece Clifton chipbreaker!
I can't say that will _always _ be the case but it's got to be worth trying the original configuration first. Doesn't cost anything!


----------



## David C (4 Oct 2013)

Oh Dear,
This does not constitute balance, without knowing what you plane with your 5 1/2.

I started being interested in fettling when I realized that mine would not plane a square edge on 5/8"walnut. Some sole flattening fixed that.

With original blades final clean up of my 8 foot, beech bench top, took three sharp blades. (This is why A P had several sharp ones beside him. Edge holding was pathetic).

Yes you may get an old plane to work after a fashion but modern, thicker, harder blades are demonstrably better.

Hock A2 edge holding is at least 3 times longer than my 70's Stanley blades. And even Corneel admits to less chatter.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (4 Oct 2013)

David C":3gstiksr said:


> ......
> 
> Yes you may get an old plane to work after a fashion .....


Yes and anyway they never did any serious woodwork in the old days! :roll:

Is Hock A2 different from any other A2? I've got Stanley A2 which seems much the same. Keeps an edge, takes longer to sharpen, costs a lot more, take it or leave it IMHO.

PS Hock blades are made for him in France and the only Hock thing about them is the logo. I could get some from the same place with the Grimsdale logo, I expect.


----------



## David C (4 Oct 2013)

Jacob,

Most serious cabinetmakers went out of their way to get hold of planes by the likes of Spiers and Norris. They had thicker blades like so many of today's.

It may surprise you to learn that A2 comes in many recipes. Decent heat treating and grinding are another matter. All A2 is not equal.

It takes me no longer to sharpen than 01 or Stanley's hideous Tungsten, Vanadium .....................

I'm sure you could. Not prejudiced ?

David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (4 Oct 2013)

David C":3phfcqys said:


> Jacob,
> 
> Most serious cabinetmakers went out of their way to get hold of planes by the likes of Spiers and Norris. They had thicker blades like so many of today's.


All the old planes, good bad and indifferent, had thick blades. The thin blade and the Bailey design was a big step forwards and just about universally preferred, for very good reasons. It seems nobody felt any need to buy after market thick blades until the (very recent) modern revival.


----------



## Paul Chapman (4 Oct 2013)

Jacob":3iqifd47 said:


> It seems nobody felt any need to buy after market thick blades until the (very recent) modern revival.



Probably because they've only recently become available.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## iNewbie (4 Oct 2013)

Jacob":3cittk0h said:


> PS Hock blades are made for him in France and the only Hock thing about them is the logo. I could get some from the same place with the Grimsdale logo, I expect.



Not all of them. Hock FAQ

And why does it matter where they are made. I'm feeling some resistance, Renee...


----------



## yetloh (4 Oct 2013)

Corneel":2n9gxb32 said:


> Ok, I give up. You guys are hopeless, so instead of fighting it, I'll go with the flow. The next time I buy an old Stanley plane, first thing I do is throwing away the blade and chipbreaker. The handles are probably a bit worn down too, so I throw them away too. The body casting can't be flat enough, so I throw it away. Now I don't have anything to attach the frog too anymore, so also that one can go into the skip. What's left, the levercap? Well, maybe I can use that on the next old Stanley I buy.



No doubt you will say I misrepresent you, but your constant vehemence in insisting on the rightness of your approach comes over as very dogmatic and disrespectful of other people's approaches and views. I do not dispute the rightness of your approach for you and it may well be right for many others, so it is perfectly valid, but I and many others have found other approaches which work for us and which we prefer, often (as in my case) having done the sorts of things that you keep insisting upon. Can we not have a little more tolerance of the many and varied ways in which we woodworkers go about our craft.

Jim


----------



## Cheshirechappie (4 Oct 2013)

David C":1pbpoj07 said:


> Jacob,
> 
> Most serious cabinetmakers went out of their way to get hold of planes by the likes of Spiers and Norris. They had thicker blades like so many of today's.
> 
> ...




One very minor quibble, David - A2 is the 'shorthand' designation for toolsteel of a particular chemical composition, so all A2 conforms to the same 'recipe' - details in this link; http://www.westyorkssteel.com/tool-steel/a2/ . The specification for chemical composition is the same on both sides of the Atlantic.

I would however agree that not all finished woodworking tools and blades made from A2 toolsteel as supplied by their makers are equal - the heat treatment is more complex than for (say) O1 steel or the old straight carbon 'cast steel' - it seems that some manufacturers have achieved better control of the process than others. Also, the link above does not mention the optional step of cryogenic treatment, which many peoples' experiences suggest is one that further improves the performance of A2 steel for woodworking applications.

That apart, I agree with you entirely.


----------



## Corneel (4 Oct 2013)

Sorry Jim if I present myself too dogmatic. In fact it's just the heat of the discussion. But in regards to the discussion about the quality of the old Stanley planes, I am constantly trying to say "try the plane before you buy new parts", while others dismiss the quality of the original blades right away. I feel my message is less dogmatic in fact.

That last message you quoted was a joke of course. I'll try to be a little less repetitive in the future, maybe that helps.


----------



## David C (4 Oct 2013)

Well I have had A2, allegedly from China which seemed very different.

David


----------



## Jacob (5 Oct 2013)

iNewbie":ry9pm42b said:


> Jacob":ry9pm42b said:
> 
> 
> > PS Hock blades are made for him in France and the only Hock thing about them is the logo. I could get some from the same place with the Grimsdale logo, I expect.
> ...


It doesn't make any difference. It's just that there tends to be so much reverential name dropping around these discussions, as though a bit of magic might rub off!

Glad to read _still being made right here in the backyard_ 
Yee Haw!! (sounds of banjo music!)


----------



## iNewbie (5 Oct 2013)

Only when you mention it - and project it. Build a chair and we'll give 'em all a ducking... :roll:


----------



## Racers (5 Oct 2013)

Ron Hock out side his workshop in Fort Brag CA





Me and Ron in side his workshop in Fort Brag





He is a good chap, my dad has a second house in Fort Brag and Ron said if he ever need a hand give him a shout.

Pete


----------



## David C (5 Oct 2013)

Ron is a great man. 

Fancy those early Krenov planes being equipped with cut down Stanley blades..... and yes we did that in my workshop in the 70's......

David


----------



## J_SAMa (5 Oct 2013)

I'm sure (just speculating) that there were demands for thicker blades in Bailey planes back in the days when power tools weren't so common. Hard to believe that they were never made...
But personally I think cap irons make more significant differences. All a better blade does is bettering the edge retention.


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2013)

J_SAMa":2nlimz9c said:


> I'm sure (just speculating) that there were demands for thicker blades in Bailey planes back in the days when power tools weren't so common. Hard to believe that they were never made...
> But personally I think cap irons make more significant differences. All a better blade does is bettering the edge retention.


It seems nobody bothered with heavier irons - judging from the fact that they don't turn up in old (steel) planes and it is never mentioned in any of the texts. It's a very recent fashion and not everybody is convinced it is worth the bother even now.
If you look at the Bailey design blade as a blade _assembly_; blade, cap iron, lever cap, frog; then this is a heavy item as compared to the same thing in a wooden plane, and it is inserted into a heavy steel plane body. The weight is there - if that's what worries you! Add to this the convenience of sharpening a thin blade and it's a no brainer.


----------



## woodbrains (6 Oct 2013)

Hello,

A few thoughts: LN and LV planes work better than bog standard Records and Stanleys. If you haven't tried either, then you have to take mine and others words for that fact, but there it is. Now a sensible person with little money can buy a nice old Record for a few pounds and make it perform as well as the LN's etc, with a few fettling tricks and a new double iron. You still have a bargain plane, that might cost 1/5 or less of the premium ones but perform as well. Pretending they are just as good without the mods is just silly. If you cannot afford the blades, then fair enough, but the other fettling is free and will help a lot. There is no magic involved in better perforing planes, it is all quantifiable. A thicker blade is significantly stiffer. 3 mm is more than twice as stiff as 2 mm. A better cap iron adds more stiffness. You can improve the standard ones, but you cannot make them thicker, or stop them bending the blade. The standard blades will not hold their edges very long. You may not believe it, but a thicker blade will hold an edge longer, all being equal. But it is not equal, since a Hock iron etc, is better steel so double bubble.

Jacob, I have managed to find the Hock block blade, I'll send it to you Monday; I hope you will have an open mind about the A2 steel, after you have already come to a conclusion it doesn't make a difference! You might find it takes longer to get an edge on it, but I can't help the fact you doggedly stick to those messy oilstones.  ( it is sharp already so give it a go, as is till it needs sharpening BTW)

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (6 Oct 2013)

I have to keep on hammering on this, sorry... The old Stanleys are very good planes allready. Yes LN is better, but how much do you need? When planing outrageous woods, like the Australian stuff or so, I'm sure you will appreciate the increase in quality. But you can plane most kinds of wood perfectly well with the standard stuff. Prewar planes were definitely better then the newer ones, but even the UK made planes are not rubish. The edge holding isn't as good as the expensive new stuff, so be it , you just have to sharpen a bit more often.

If you decide that you want to buy a replacement blade , that's fine. That is something else then condemning usefull kit on a public forum all the time.


----------



## bugbear (7 Oct 2013)

Jacob":1dn7j767 said:


> J_SAMa":1dn7j767 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure (just speculating) that there were demands for thicker blades in Bailey planes back in the days when power tools weren't so common. Hard to believe that they were never made...
> ...



The obvious comparison for a heavy _assembly_ of blade, cap iron, lever cap and frog comes from a Norris or Spiers, planes known for their truly excellent performance. The blades are a full 3/16".

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2013)

David C":osjjnoum said:


> ...
> Jacob is misleading us again. His block plane can only have an E P of 45 degrees if he sharpens his blade at 25 degrees which he has stated to be difficult.
> 
> 60 degree E P is an excellent angle for difficult home grown timbers. I frequently go to 70 degree E P for really intransigent, dense, interlocked exotics, like the wood from hell. Indian Laurel.....


What is it you are making with this Indian Laurel Dave? Is it a regular repeat order or something? WIP photos?


----------

