# Fashion and the Art of Hand Planing.



## Cheshirechappie (16 Mar 2016)

Over the last few weeks, I've been going through some old paperwork, as you do when it finally overflows the space it should fit in. Part of that 'review' (using a slightly posher word than the activity really warrants!) has involved some old copies of F&C from the early 2000's. One article that caught the eye was a comparison of two infill smoothers with a 'modern' bedrock smoother. The writer (who might recall the incident!) slightly preferred the bedrock plane, though not by much. This brought forth a stinging rebuke by letter a couple of issues later, from and old craftsman who insisted that he and his mates were in total agreement that nothing could touch the traditional English infill planes for finishing cabinet woods.

It rather made me chuckle. Partly because the writer was a very accomplished cabinetmaker himself, and well acquainted with the finishing of cabinet woods. Partly because it reflected the changes in woodworking fashion.

Back in the day (first half of the 20th century, say) the infill plane seemed to hold sway as the 'ultimate' cabinetmaker's plane. There was a rather nasty period post WW2 when not much of quality was available, then in the latter part of the 20th century, the fine tool revival started, and the plane of choice became the bedrock with a thick iron. Sometime in the early 21st century, this morphed into the bevel-up period, when such planes were the answer to everything. Now, it seems that you can do anything to any wood with a bog-standard Ebay Bailey plane with about 20 minutes of basic fettling. Maybe Paul Sellers started this fashion, or maybe it's just that the internet experts have 'seen the light' as it were.

Forgive me a quiet chuckle, if you will; I can't help thinking that the bandwagon of fashion will move on in due course. I mean - what were those old-timers doing paying a fortnight's wages for an infill when a basic Stanley would have done it all? I can't help feeling a little sorry for the newcomer of a few years ago looking at his line-up of shiny bevel-up planes and thinking, "Why didn't those *@&*holes on the internet tell me I could do it all with a couple of rusty car-boot finds?"

Wonder what the next fashion will be? High-pitch single-iron woodies, perhaps?


----------



## No skills (16 Mar 2016)

I have a pair of folded steel draper planes that I might consider letting go for £250 before they become fashionable and the price shoots up, obviously as a favour for ukw members.


----------



## David C (16 Mar 2016)

If I am right about those articles, the first was by me.....

And it did make me very unpopular with some.

David Charlesworth


----------



## D_W (16 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":106nlpgo said:


> Over the last few weeks, I've been going through some old paperwork, as you do when it finally overflows the space it should fit in. Part of that 'review' (using a slightly posher word than the activity really warrants!) has involved some old copies of F&C from the early 2000's. One article that caught the eye was a comparison of two infill smoothers with a 'modern' bedrock smoother. The writer (who might recall the incident!) slightly preferred the bedrock plane, though not by much. This brought forth a stinging rebuke by letter a couple of issues later, from and old craftsman who insisted that he and his mates were in total agreement that nothing could touch the traditional English infill planes for finishing cabinet woods.
> 
> It rather made me chuckle. Partly because the writer was a very accomplished cabinetmaker himself, and well acquainted with the finishing of cabinet woods. Partly because it reflected the changes in woodworking fashion.
> 
> ...



Joel Moskowitz had written a while ago that there was social pressure in England to purchase infill planes back when they became widespread. You could speculate, but I'd bet if it's true, it would have something to do with supporting English and Scottish craftsmen rather than giving money to stanley. 

Sellers talks about the stanley 4 a lot, but his gimmick is to tell you that you don't have to spend that much money. He has said things several times that suggest that he doesn't use the cap iron to control tearout. I wouldn't put him in the same category as someone like George Wilson, that's for sure (but George used single iron planes because the museum in the states where he worked would not allow double iron planes due to contention about whether or not they were common enough during the era it portrays (late 18th century). As far as sellers goes, no doubt he's done his share of woodworking, but I can't help but think when watching him that he doesn't portray dimensioning rough wood that well. Not like he does at other things like mortising, etc. 

I don't see much internet history other than Warren Mickley talking about the virtues of planing everything with double iron planes at common pitch, and even less in anyone instructing someone else to do it other than Warren. And that was in the states, mostly during the time bevel up planes were becoming popular with beginners. Warren doesn't post on here, but he works in a shop with no electrical tools, and has been doing so for a living for something close to 40 years. In his terms, people bring him jobs that are cheaper for him to do than could be done in a larger industrial shop. 

At any rate, the bevel up era probably coincides with tool needs being catered to beginners, who would have no clue. There's been an explosion in the various promise-it-all steels to market to them, too, as well as scads of promise-it-all sharpening guides and abrasives. Same is done with chisels with the notion that old english chisels are too soft and don't hold an edge long enough. 

I'm sure there will be more put out in terms of "innovation" that helps beginners, but maybe the internet woodworking community won't go for all of it hook, line and sinker any longer. 

There's not gobs of people who do everything by hand, but there are more people now than I can remember (brian holcombe's blog is a good example, i'm sure there are others where the blogger isn't selling "lifestyle woodworking" or trying to sell a book with every project they make, but rather just describing the satisfaction of planing and sawing the wood from rough. Those are the types of people who get a much better concept of tool design and why things were the way they are, and just how good the tools that were used by professionals are. The folks who consider a hand plane to be a tool used between a machine planer and obligatory progression of sandpaper...well, we can't really expect that they'll know much about tools. 

I don't think the stanley planes or the old wooden double iron planes are going to go out of style again any time soon.


----------



## Corneel (17 Mar 2016)

The infill certainly was a typical English fashion for a relatively short period, end 19th, first half 20th century. On the continent the wooden plane was still king and in America the Stanleys took over the market, not so much the bedrocks, but the bog standard Bailey.


----------



## CStanford (17 Mar 2016)

There was not an insignificant slice of time when all the boards in the US were smitten with Clark and Williams single-iron high pitched smoothers. All sorts of species were being planed tear out free for the first time in the user's experience. Direction of planing didn't matter. These were flat out a revelation. The 'old guys' were right. But we hear this story about every type of plane from Holtey, the aforementioned historical single-iron reproductions, the lowly Stanley, etc. etc. Meet the new, old guys, same as the old, old guys. It's not hard finding an old guy you think had it right. It's because they were all right.

Seems time to trot this 'ole boy's antique shop out again. Avert your eyes if you think a Shaker chest of drawers represents technical accomplishment.

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/desks

Somehow it got done and by firms building breathtakingly difficult furniture in commercially feasible timeframes with not an electron used not even for lights. I suspect that at no time were the better firms ever flummoxed by the planing of wood regardless of what sort of planes they used. If they were, the work certainly doesn't show it.


----------



## D_W (17 Mar 2016)

Charlie, the difference is in time spent. The double iron is faster, and thus I'd guess became preferred due to economic need. 

Single irons are easier for beginners, and they certainly do fine at jacking and fine smoothing. Just more physical effort per volume of wood.


----------



## CStanford (17 Mar 2016)

An improvement David, but realistically at the margin. Not a sea-change. That would come later with the complete mechanization of the processing lumber to dimensions required for a project.

One only has to contemplate the 17th to early 18th century piece smothered in flawless marquetry or parquetry of the most difficult species to plane and finish to understand, again, it got done and to extraordinarily high standards. 

I find this encouraging though I'll never be able to execute the kind of work I'm talking about.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 Mar 2016)

D_W":14kl58nm said:


> The folks who consider a hand plane to be a tool used between a machine planer and obligatory progression of sandpaper...well, we can't really expect that they'll know much about tools.



Isn't that how most people - including some very accomplished and experienced professionals - go about their woodworking, though? Using machines for the grunt work, and hand planes only for fine fitting and finishing? Isn't it maybe a little arrogant to suggest that they don't know much about tools?


----------



## D_W (17 Mar 2016)

CStanford":mpwlrn8a said:


> I find this encouraging though I'll never be able to execute the kind of work I'm talking about.



Neither can I. 

Certainly the double iron doesn't thickness like a thickness planing machine tied to a lineshaft. It probably would've cut 20% of dimensioning time off for an apprentice (depending on what's being planed), and as many like to point out, let the apprentice be less skilled in doing it. 

I don't see a real functional improvement with infills, but they are nice. I don't know if Joel's explanation of them being something purchased often under social pressure is correct, but it sounds good and fits. Maybe it wasn't popular for craftsmen to be buying american planes after using something made in England or Scotland before that - especially if you could literally see the planemaker who was now not making your planes. 

Who knows?

Almost none of this matters at all unless someone new is contemplating dimensioning by hand, and I'd bet the number of those people doesn't increase by a large amount ever. I'd also be willing to bet that most of Larry's planes were set up as long, medium and short smoothers - the same way metal planes are sold now.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 Mar 2016)

David C":bsb8qokd said:


> If I am right about those articles, the first was by me.....
> 
> And it did make me very unpopular with some.
> 
> David Charlesworth



You are quite right, David, the article was one of yours. 

Just for those without a copy of that issue of F&C, David compared two infill smoothers (one by Ray Iles, one a Shepherd kit) with two LN bedrock planes, a number 4 1/2 with a 50 degree frog, and a 5 1/2 with a common pitch frog. He couldn't separate them on performance (planing a piece of Ovangkol against the grain), but slightly preferred the bedrocks on grounds of ease and reliability of adjustment. He also mentioned the problem that some infill planes suffer, namely shrinkage of the wood infill, tending to alter the bedding of the iron as the steel near the mouth stays put and the wood above shrinks. Nothing very contentious, and expressed in a very moderate tone, but it clearly upset some.

One thing that did make me smile a touch wryly was David's description of how he set the planes up for the test. Each of the four irons was freshly sharpened using the same method and bevel angles, and the cap-iron was set very close. It seems that Mr Charlesworth was using the close-set cap-iron before it was 'rediscovered'! So much for 'not knowing how to set a plane up'!


----------



## D_W (17 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":3ug26z7s said:


> D_W":3ug26z7s said:
> 
> 
> > The folks who consider a hand plane to be a tool used between a machine planer and obligatory progression of sandpaper...well, we can't really expect that they'll know much about tools.
> ...



That's how the bulk of people do things. They won't get a complete understanding of plane design by doing that, though. 

That was my point in a previous thread. You can't really make various lengths of smoothing planes and then assert that you know everything well enough to dismiss designs made when planes were used for a lot more.

The reality is that dimensioning a few things (and learning to do it competently and briskly) will save time even if you forgo it. The same as learning to use things like a spokeshave and a drawknife will. I doubt many people use a drawknife, which (in combination with a hatchet) may be the reason that there wasn't a "scrub plane" 250 years ago when people think such a thing would've actually been useful. 

Scrub planes are also popular with people who sand furniture and use power planers, because conceptually they seem to make sense like they'd be useful. Dimension 150 board feet of decent quality lumber, though, and you come up empty with things where something else doesn't work better. 

(I don't sell planes, but even so, I've had just as many people send me PMs trying to get me to make them a scrub plane as anything else, and they're puzzled when I say that you don't really use any such thing when you work by hand. Add shoulder planes to that - I don't know when the last time was that I used a shoulder plane, but I've used a rabbet plane and chisels a lot).


----------



## D_W (17 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":6nfl9m3a said:


> One thing that did make me smile a touch wryly was David's description of how he set the planes up for the test. Each of the four irons was freshly sharpened using the same method and bevel angles, and the cap-iron was set very close. It seems that Mr Charlesworth was using the close-set cap-iron before it was 'rediscovered'! So much for 'not knowing how to set a plane up'!



I wouldn't automatically equate that to using a cap iron like has been discussed in the last several years, or David never would've made a video advocating back beveling an iron to 70 degrees effective - nor closing the mouth tightly on bench planes. Let me show you one of David's quotes on another forum from December of 2012:

"This chipbreaker information is quite the most exciting thing I have learned in a forty year career. I am quite clear that it was not common knowledge in England and I don't recall seeing it in the whole of Fine Woodworking.

My advice and practice was to set the C/B close for gnarly timbers but not that close!

Learning new stuff is very invigorating."

Call me suspicious, but it doesn't sound like he was setting the cap iron close and controlling tearout with it in your magazine article. Also, recent questions about setting a plane up with an 80 degree front bevel show a lack of on-the-ground experience with different setups. One comparing an 80 degree cap iron bevel to 50 will soon learn that 80 is undesirable in comparison. This stuff is important only because the entirety about how capable a stanley plane feels (presuming the rest is undamaged and not defective) is based 100% on the ability to use the cap iron effectively.

I've found the same thing true about infill planes, though (as David's article says). I set mine aside when I found that a stanley bailey with a cap iron at common pitch has a bit more ability to control tearout than a 55 degree infill with a thick single iron and mouth between 3 and 4 thousandths (a mouth at a hundredth is useless in preventing tearout to a finish surface level when compared to a cap iron, something also learned in practice). Of course, I made both of the planes I'm talking about (the infills - one from scratch and one from a kit), and the cost of the materials for the two was about 10 times what a stanley 4 and stanley 6 cost me. 

A rank beginner would probably do better with my infill smoother than they would with a stanley for quite a while, though. 

With regard to the wood (infills), they definitely move some. The key in using them is to be smart enough to select very old wood (not 4 years old, but more like 50) and make them of a design where the fitting needs to be good but not perfect. Just like guitars, it's a mistake to assume that the wood will not move over the decades. 

I could do that article one further and show that a lie nielsen plane does nothing in experienced hands that a stanley can't do - though the lie nielsen doesn't lend itself to being sharpened with a washita quite so well, which a stanley does fine (and a washita sharpened iron will still take a shaving down to half a thousandth and cleanly plane end grain on hardwoods). It wouldn't be very popular, either. Most people would not like to settle with there actually being a reason that stanley's early 1900s irons were in a specific hardness range, despite silicon carbide and aluminum oxide bench stones being readily available for the same price as washita stones. The aluminum oxide finish bench stones that were out (which looked like large barber hones, and were quite cheap) were a lot closer to the current "Ceramic" stones than most of the stuff that was sold as a "new thing" in the 1980s and 1990s, but nobody seemed to want them. You could reintroduce them now and sell them to gobs of beginners if you could get a blogger to talk about how much of an improvement they are.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Mar 2016)

> .............. Forgive me a quiet chuckle, if you will; I can't help thinking that the bandwagon of fashion will move on in due course. I mean - what were those old-timers doing paying a fortnight's wages for an infill when a basic Stanley would have done it all? I can't help feeling a little sorry for the newcomer of a few years ago looking at his line-up of shiny bevel-up planes and thinking, "Why didn't those *@&*holes on the internet tell me I could do it all with a couple of rusty car-boot finds?"
> 
> Wonder what the next fashion will be? High-pitch single-iron woodies, perhaps?




There will always be fashion among adolescent woodworkers who seek to emulate those whom they raise on pedestals. I have visited many woodworking forums, and most "handtool" discussions are about which tool to buy next, and not about technique or furniture design and construction. 

David W will tell you that he once lived and breathed infills. Now he lives and breathes chipbreakers. Others aspired to woodies by Old Street. There are Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley fanboys, and then there are the intense "discussions" about sharpening that break out every week or so. There too, are the preferences of those who are simply echoing the words they read on forums.

I used BU planes for a long time. They were not planes for "beginners", as David W stated, but high angle planes that _worked_ on the hard and interlocked woods I build with. I also used high angle BD planes, such as HNT Gordon. And I continue to use these planes - just because I mainly use Bailey pattern planes now, does not invalidate planes that work. Why did I switch to Bailey pattern (Stanley, LN and LV)? Simply because they can be made to work better when the chipbreaker is involved. I learned to use this in 2012. 

There will always be those that seek to furnish a workshop, and those who use their planes/tools to further their creativity. There will always be new tools that will end up being used by both groups. One man's meat is another man's fashion.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (17 Mar 2016)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> One man's meat is another man's fashion.
> Derek


Surely it's a "Yes Minister" irregular verb?

I choose my tools according to the best information
You have recently bought a new tool
He blindly follows fashion in tools

:lol: 

BugBear


----------



## D_W (17 Mar 2016)

Certainly someone who is not a beginner can use any plane that they like. I use the term planes for beginners to mean that someone who is not so inclined will be a lot closer to terminal performance in a very short period of time. 

what's not true is what was "common wisdom" on the forums that:

* stanley planes are a good cheap place to start, but that if you get difficult wood, you need to....
* purchase a bevel down plane or an infill to do difficult wood. Or a #112 scraper or something similar. 

Stanley planes have a bit more of a learning curve to get the most out of them, but it's certainly something that could be shown to a beginner if they were lucky enough to get hands on instruction.

The virtue of the stanley, of course, is that one setup covers everything. it can be left under the bench and used for everything as needed instead of three of its type being left under the bench. No spare irons stored, etc, that kind of stuff. And the setup that's effective on difficult wood doesn't rely on the iron being freshly sharpened, so it works all the way through the sharpening cycle leaving a good surface.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 Mar 2016)

bugbear":2q8imkb8 said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > One man's meat is another man's fashion.
> ...



That pretty much sums it all up. Except for the newbie looking for some honest guidance, and trying to separate knowledge and experience from opinion, fashion and .... well, just noise.

But that, I suppose, is just life....


----------



## D_W (17 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":h1ah8v0m said:


> bugbear":h1ah8v0m said:
> 
> 
> > Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> ...



And you separate knowledge and experience from opinion how?

Be curious to know who you think is "just noise" without knowledge and experience.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (18 Mar 2016)

Derek, you've said it very well!

T.


----------



## CStanford (18 Mar 2016)

Probably well to remember that molding planes never featured cap irons. And running moldings represented a pretty critical bit of planing. Certainly a higher pitch and a tight mouth were the order of the day but if it worked, it worked.

The reality of the rest of planing, basically removing wood to a set of marked lines, is simple work and in the heyday of hand tool woodworking in a decent sized firm was relegated to the lower rungs of the ladder. We're debating the work a thirteen year old boy would have been expected to perform, and did perform, practically flawlessly.

Well, maybe they didn't turn the adolescents loose on this piece from the 1750s:

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/T ... oryid=1363

How does one reconcile this 250+ year old tour-de-force (do scroll down) to all the Chicken Littles running around today talking about tear-out and such?

And here:

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/G ... oryid=1363

The description of this piece is a must-read.


----------



## Jacob (18 Mar 2016)

D_W":39gdpwnd said:


> ... I doubt many people use a drawknife, which (in combination with a hatchet) may be the reason that there wasn't a "scrub plane" 250 years ago when people think such a thing would've actually been useful.


Adze would be the tool of choice. But no doubt people would have "scrubbed" with an old plane past it's best, if they happened to have one.


> Scrub planes are also popular with people who sand furniture and use power planers, because conceptually they seem to make sense like they'd be useful. Dimension 150 board feet of decent quality lumber, though, and you come up empty with things where something else doesn't work better. .....


I'd never heard of a scrub plane until relatively recently - they came back into fashion when rediscovered by LN (or LV). I bought an ECE woody and one thing it is useful for is cleaning off rough surfaces from reclaimed wood - hence the name I suppose. I've only ever seen one in the wild (i.e. not one of the new breed) which was home made - in an old cabinet makers collection, Bismarck pattern with a horn shaped handle like the ECE.

Infill planes were surely just an intermediary - an early design of (part) metal plane soon superceded by the one piece casting.


----------



## CStanford (18 Mar 2016)

The scrub plane, a Bismarck, is mentioned prominently in Wells and Hooper's Modern Cabinet Work as the first plane to use, then the jack, etc. etc. There is a precedence in British woodworking for these, though they obviously went out-of-house so to speak for the tool itself.


----------



## worn thumbs (18 Mar 2016)

Its interesting that there are references to infill planes in this thread.In the context of fashion,they could be said to have achieved their sales as a result of being in vogue.A screw adjustment would have been more convenient for the user and the metal sole would have been much more durable than the beech alternative.Obviously the Stanley/Bailey pattern offered most of the advantage of an infill at a fraction of the cost.Now the infill seems to be having a bit of a revival in the amateur woodworking world because a professional wouldn't spend great chunks of time hand planing now-the wood would go from the thicknesser to the sander and come out clean.

The vogue for very hard irons may pass too.They ought to hold an edge for longer,but surely the extra hardness means that it takes longer to return them to sharpness.Similarly the fashion for replica Bedrock pattern tools depends on the work being undertaken,a heavy plane may be a great aid to shooting edges prior to gluing up a panel.Its not what you would be looking for if you were a boatbuilder kneeling under a hull and planing off a couple of new planks.You would want a light and sharp plane.Maybe thats the crux of the matter-determine what your needs really are and ignore the fashionable movements of the day.


----------



## Racers (18 Mar 2016)

worn thumbs":1ytlqg73 said:


> The vogue for very hard irons may pass too.They ought to hold an edge for longer,but surely the extra hardness means that it takes longer to return them to sharpness.



I doubt it, a blade that stays sharper for longer is something people have strived for years, the down time is not significant compared to the time its being used.
More wear resistant grits are the way to go with harder steel e.g. diamond stones/water stones etc.

Taken to the extreme a lead blade would be very quick to sharpen :wink:  

Pete


----------



## D_W (18 Mar 2016)

CStanford":17wh8vb6 said:


> Probably well to remember that molding planes never featured cap irons. And running moldings represented a pretty critical bit of planing. Certainly a higher pitch and a tight mouth were the order of the day but if it worked, it worked.
> 
> The reality of the rest of planing, basically removing wood to a set of marked lines, is simple work and in the heyday of hand tool woodworking in a decent sized firm was relegated to the lower rungs of the ladder. We're debating the work a thirteen year old boy would have been expected to perform, and did perform, practically flawlessly.
> 
> ...



There's no economic benefit to mouding planes having cap irons. The technical setup and making would be harder than bench planes, they're usually working the straightest wood and something else is doing the heavy work. Not a good comparison to bench planes. I'd say the same thing about rabbet planes, but you can find those in double iron, and you only have to go to the effort with one or two planes rather than 14 or 18.

The marginization of the fact that the double iron plane eliminated the single iron plane in the hands of the apprentices ignores the fact that the double iron planes are faster. If they weren't, they wouldn't have been put in the hands of the apprentices. They work better for the full range of work, speed notwithstanding (they stay in the cut for a longer cycle of an iron, etc).


----------



## D_W (18 Mar 2016)

Racers":z888frvt said:


> worn thumbs":z888frvt said:
> 
> 
> > The vogue for very hard irons may pass too.They ought to hold an edge for longer,but surely the extra hardness means that it takes longer to return them to sharpness.
> ...



I think it's the ultimate promise to a beginner, an iron that stays sharp for a very long period of time. But the equation holds only if the user can't learn how to sharpen the irons the way they would've been 150 years ago (in one or two steps rather than a whole bunch). 

Takes about 1 minute to sharpen a vintage iron with a washita stone and leather strop, and probably somewhere around another minute to take a plane apart and put it back together. I can't remember what it used to take me with guides and a progression of stones, etc, but probably double that when you factor in needing to flatten stones and screw around with them.

though it's not a perfect comparison, the wonder steels made a trip through the straight razor community in the early 1900s, especially steels with additional tungsten. They eventually fell on their face and the standard razoring went back to "best silver steel" or some other relatively generic carbon steel. Japanese razors makers later than that got fascinated with making razors harder, but they don't work right on the strop then and in the end they're a little less convenient than a razor of traditional hardness used with a traditional linen and strop.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (18 Mar 2016)

> I think it's the ultimate promise to a beginner, an iron that stays sharp for a very long period of time. But the equation holds only if the user can't learn how to sharpen the irons the way they would've been 150 years ago (in one or two steps rather than a whole bunch).



David, there are two assumptions in this paragraph. The first is that a long lasting iron is aimed at "a beginner". Again, there are those that collect ultimate tools and those that use the bloody things. I work with very abrasive woods. These are not the sole domain of Australia. O1 steel does not hold an edge for long. I have demonstrated this with chisels. It is pathetic compared with PM-V11 or White Steel. I have Clifton (the old version) blades for my LN planes. These are used alongside the LN A2 blades. The Clifton blades are sweet .. for 1 minute, and then they are dull. 

Now I do not know how they sharpened irons 150 years ago. Do you? In any event, the system I use for sharpening is extremely efficient. The measure of this is that re-sharpening is not something that I consider to be an effort.



> Takes about 1 minute to sharpen a vintage iron with a washita stone and leather strop, and probably somewhere around another minute to take a plane apart and put it back together. I can't remember what it used to take me with guides and a progression of stones, etc, but probably double that when you factor in needing to flatten stones and screw around with them.



I hone A2, PM-V11, White Steel and CPM-3V in under 1 minute as well. These are freehanded on hollow grinds. I use Spyderco stones and Veritas green compound. No need to flatten any stones. Very sharp. 



> though it's not a perfect comparison, the wonder steels made a trip through the straight razor community in the early 1900s, especially steels with additional tungsten. They eventually fell on their face and the standard razoring went back to "best silver steel" or some other relatively generic carbon steel. Japanese razors makers later than that got fascinated with making razors harder, but they don't work right on the strop then and in the end they're a little less convenient than a razor of traditional hardness used with a traditional linen and strop.



I am not surprised that these alloys were hard to hone in 1900 ... on oil stones! I doubt that they would be much of a challenge on modern gear. In any event, examples from knife makers are not always applicable to woodworkers. 

I am not knocking the merits of vintage steels that have been hammered and laminated. It is just that they are not freely available and there are modern replacements that are superior. The bottom line is that the goal posts have shifted, although the mind set of some has not. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (18 Mar 2016)

Derek: what grinding wheel do you use for hollow grinding? Your CBN?

Thanks,

T.Z.


----------



## D_W (18 Mar 2016)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > I think it's the ultimate promise to a beginner, an iron that stays sharp for a very long period of time. But the equation holds only if the user can't learn how to sharpen the irons the way they would've been 150 years ago (in one or two steps rather than a whole bunch).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Couple of things, Derek. I used everything I could find in the last 10 years (reasonably, at least). I haven't found O1 to be lacking in edge holding except when using single iron planes or not taking a thick enough shaving for penultimate or earlier work. It doesn't have to be hand hammered or modern, either, just vintage production steel is fine. 

There was no shortage of stones to sharpen those razors. Carborundum company was making silicon carbide razor hones in the early 1900s, and they sold a lot of them, but they inevitably didn't get used much. Swaty and american hone and others were making hones with silicone carbide and aluminum oxide in them. The idea that those types of stones are new is not true. The professional barbers preferred coticules and stones from thuringia in germany because they are just better for a razor. They impart a better edge equality. For the same reason, they used genuine linen strops and shell from a horse (instead of cheaper cowhide). Certain things work better. Razoring is not planing, so not all comparisons can be made directly from one to another, just interesting that someone attempted to make tungsten steel (more or less in the direction of high speed steel), which applies to theory reasonably well because tungsten doesn't do too much to create large carbides. But in the end, it's not as nice to use because the quality of the edge is very important, and being able to maintain it easily is, too. 

Oilstones weren't commonly sold or used for razors, with the possible exception of cretans and charnleys (something you won't get much of in the US or Australia). 

I have two V11 irons. I don't have a situation where I take a whole bunch of smoother shavings in a row (I used to do all of my dimensioning work with machines), so I don't know how much longer V11 lasts than carbon steel in that application, but for someone increasing the shaving size a fair amount for most of the work, and taking fine shavings only for the final pass (which is essentially taking smoother shavings after a try plane - easier yet than even following a machine planer which can steel leave some bow in work), the smoothing is by in a blink of an eye. 

I can say for sure (because I used V11 to dimension a plane billet vs. a butcher iron) that the advantage pretty much evaporates when the work is done with a thicker shaving. I'd like to know why that is, but I don't know the answer to that. The V11 is nice steel, for sure. I would choose it over A2, but I wouldn't choose it over a butcher iron. At this point not over a vintage stanley iron, either. My opinion might be different if all I did was smooth. 

I haven't tried 3v, it should make a good plane iron. 

Chisels and planes don't make good comparisons for steel. That is, what makes a chisel last well doesn't necessarily translate to a plane iron directly, especially if you factor in things like sharpenability and context. Carbon steel is not bettered in chisels at this point. If someone wants to take 1000 feet of thin shavings, you can find modern steels that will do that for longer. 

I would like to see a video of your sharpening cycle. After seeing my messy shop online and the fact that I don't dress up when I make videos, nobody can claim that they need more production capability to make a video!! I have (or did until two weeks ago), the same spyderco setup and a loaded strop, but it's lacking compared to a washita and a bare leather strop. George is such a good friend that, of course, I gave that an honest try.

(I do like the CBN, though - of course!)


----------



## D_W (18 Mar 2016)

By the way, I'd encourage you to ask Brian Holcombe about what he thinks of the irons in his try and jack planes. When I make those planes, I'm using irons purchased mostly from old sheffield stock, of course, and you never know what you're going to get until you use it. 

The iron I gave him was one of the softer irons I've found, not because I chose it on purpose, but because it turned out to be and I wanted him to have a new iron (I have known harder ones that were used). Knowing that he was going to dimension with it, I suggested that he not form too many opinions about it on the stones (because it sharpens like nothing - and your immediate fear is that it won't hold up in hardwoods), but give it a few wear cycles in the plane first and see how it works out. 

I'd ask him about it, in the context of work, and how often he has to sharpen it. 

I wouldn't put an iron like that in the hands of a beginner. One of the reasons I have no interest in making planes for money, I can put them in the hands of experienced users and know they will be very pleased with them, but I've got no interest in telling a beginner that it's them at this point and not the tool that "doesn't match the advertisement specs in catalogs or popular woodworking reviews". 

Safe to say, the wear characteristics of those irons is not the same vs. other harder and more highly alloyed in the try plane as it would be in a smoother. The old iron is superior to a new one for the try plane work. 

Brian also surprised me the other day by telling me that he has not taken the jack plane that I made him apart yet (you know he's a prolific user) because it doesn't yet need sharpening. He's probably a more skilled user than me, i never have that kind of patience to wait on the jack plane and sharpen it probably every half dozen or dozen panels or so (or every several large planes if I'm making planes).

You may have noted that after learning this stuff, and working with some japanese carbon steel, too, Brian mentioned that he's looking for something to replace the A2 iron in his lie nielsen smoother. Something carbon steel


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (18 Mar 2016)

Hi David

Brian has been working Walnut, Maple, and White Cypress. With respect to Brian, that is not remotely similar to the hard, abrasive woods I use. 

These are not good comparisons, and anyway I has emphasised that steel choice is a case of horses for courses. I do not - and never would - attempt to convince another that their equipment is second rate if it works for them. What works for you would not work for me. I know, because I have build planes with the same irons you have. What works for me is unnecessary for you. You would consider it overkill. I just see it as adequate.

With regard a video, I have thought about one. I may do one if I have the time and the enthusiasm. I am more interested in (furniture and tool) design and handtool techniques. Photo pictorials are easy as I just snap a few as I work. Later, I can put them together as an essay. Sharpening is not a real interest of mine. I've built a few systems over the years, tried a few different grinding machines, but I just want an edge that works in the woods I use. The path to my current system has not been overly complicated. It is efficient, and that is what is important.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (18 Mar 2016)

Derek, if I worked the woods you work, I would probably be searching for aussie wood that's a bit less janka hard so that I could dimension it by hand. 

I did ask on the aussie forum, and some of the members suggested that there is plenty of wood similar to our medium hardwoods available, and that's probably what I would choose. 

The vast majority of woodworkers use wood similar to mine and not what you're using. That includes the beginners who think their chisels don't hold an edge long enough and that spend 5+ minutes sharpening a smoothing plane and flattening stones, etc. 

I have worked several cocobolo billets without issue (from rough), though, and work all of the beech billets by hand. Beech isn't as hard as jarrah, but it's not cherry, either. Same with ash and oak, and some hard maple (hard maple doesn't have very nice hand working feel, though, and I'm not really sure what its redeeming qualities is at all other than maybe baseball bats). 

I tried mortising hard maple dais and cocobolo plane bodies with an expensive imai timber framing chisel, it didn't hold up well, and like Kees, I went back to a vintage timber framer, which actually held up a little better (three pound hammer may have been the cause, but the imai chisel was 24mm and plenty hard enough, just not tough enough and hisao did the same work with a 6 pound hammer). I don't use a 3 pound hammer at this point, but it was a novel thing to try. At any rate, I found all of the tools that "don't hold up to really hard woods", like vintage american chisels, hold up to it fine with an extra 2 or 3 degrees. The difference in those couple of degrees is instant edge failure vs. mortising an entire plane body with nothing more than routine wear. 

I still think all of this stuff about hard irons, etc, is a matter of people not understanding how to work with their tools in most cases. Just me.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (18 Mar 2016)

David

Regarding Australian woods ... I live in Perth, the capital city of Western Australia, which lies on the west coast of Australia. It is essentially a desert climate with a strip of forests south of Perth that grow tall in the sun. The timbers on the wetter eastern coast are softer. However the distance from Perth to, say, Sydney, which is the capital city of New South Wales, lies further away than New York to San Diego. Shipping costs make imports prohibitive. Anyway, I prefer to use local timbers, especially those that are reclaimed. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## David C (18 Mar 2016)

In my article CC reminds me that I wrote, "the cap iron was set very close" Old texts often say "set the cap iron as close as possible".

Unfortunately this type of language is pretty vague, and could mean different things to different people.

This is what was so refreshing about the K K video. Real repeatable measurements were used.

My apologies for referring back a couple of pages.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Corneel (19 Mar 2016)

Indeed David, for me the actual measurement from the Kato video was enlightening. I was experimenting at that time with the various anti tear out possibilities, having a hard time with a bunch of ash. Bill Tindal first asked us on woodcentral at what distance we set our capirons, before he released the undertitled video. I meassured as good as possible and concluded it was set at 0.4 mm. A very close setiing to my eyes, but in reallity, not close enough.

The answer now is really simple, when you still get tearout, set it closer.


----------



## Jacob (19 Mar 2016)

Corneel":11bmhrdq said:


> ......
> 
> The answer now is really simple, when you still get tearout, set it closer.


 :lol: 
Exactly. And when thats not convenient use a scraper - which is more or less the same as a very close set cap iron with just the smidgin of the edge showing.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Mar 2016)

David C":eefh9ae1 said:


> In my article CC reminds me that I wrote, "the cap iron was set very close" Old texts often say "set the cap iron as close as possible".
> 
> Unfortunately this type of language is pretty vague, and could mean different things to different people.
> 
> ...



Just to expand a little on this, the article of David's that I quoted earlier in the thread (it's in F&C Issue 91 of August 2004 starting on page 16, if anybody has back copies and wishes to check) had a comparison of four planes, all sharpened and set with a close cap-iron, and planing a piece of ovangkol against the grain, starting with a very thin shaving, and gradually increasing depth of cut. David produced a table of results showing the shaving thickness at which the first signs of tearout were noticed, and shaving thickness at which tearout became considerable. For all four planes tested, the first figure was near enough 0.002" and the second 0.0025".

I think this is sufficient to indicate that the cap-iron was set close enough to have an effect, thus demonstrating that whilst the exact numbers with regard to cap-iron setting distances may have been a revelation to David some years later, the principle of setting the cap-iron close to the cutting edge to control tearout was known to him, and he could put that principle into practice.

Before anybody accuses me of creeping, may I suggest they rummage through the UK Workshop archives, where they will find that DC and I have held different opinions on several subjects. However, I do respect his woodworking knowledge and experience, and his contribution to the craft in passing on that knowledge to others. I don't think it's fair to use his generous acknowledgement of somebody else's contribution to the general pool of knowledge as a stick to beat him with.

On a more general level, I think the way people take in knowledge has changed over the years. At the time that books like 'Planecraft' were written, wood craftsmen would not have responded to cap-iron settings expressed in thous; the craftsman would have been expected to experiment a bit and learn by experience ("No son, you'll have to get it closer than that - get it so as you can just see a tiny glimmer of light at the cutting edge, then if the plane stalls, back it off a gnat's"). Now, we're used to having things quantified, and many people have digital calipers and the like, so an instruction like, "Set the cap-iron about 0.004" from the edge" is actually meaningful to many people. Times change, and we should read the old texts in the context in which they were written.


----------



## Jacob (19 Mar 2016)

I think the old chaps would not have had the current obsession with perfect planed-only finish and would have happily resorted to scraper and sand-paper at the earliest. 
"Set the cap-iron about 0.004" from the edge" is meaningful but only to people who have modern precision engineered planes and dead flat honing surfaces and jigs - in other words a very recent (fashion) phenomenon. 
Nearly all planes were cambered to some extent with little choice over the matter, and something like 1/16" would be about the practical limit.


----------



## D_W (19 Mar 2016)

I seriously doubt that a pre-power tool user couldn't keep their cap iron and iron in tune with each other. It's easy. It's also not the case that all craftsmen let their stones get out of flat. You can prevent such a thing just with judicious use, but even if you can't, it doesn't prevent you from having only the mildest camber on an iron. 

The 4 thousandth quote didn't do anyone any favors, as it sent all of the unwashed out boasting of their new methods to try to measure 4 thousandths when the reality of the method is simple:

* keep the cap iron and iron closely mated (when honed) by not allowing their iron to get out of relative square with the cap
* set the cap iron the proper distance (which is something you can tell easily by eye with a little bit of experience)

The second bullet point for a beginner is to get a light source, and place the cap iron on the end of the iron and then back it off the slightest amount until you see light. It'll probably be set about right at that. 

As far as what would've been done (scraper, sanding, etc), it would've been based on economics, I'd bet. When the market had mostly skilled users, if planing was faster, i'd bet as many surfaces would be finished off the plane as possible. 

I'm sure people were using the cap iron with effect, though, or nobody would've paid the considerable extra amount for it. 

By the time 1900 came along here (which is where a lot of our industrial-made tools are made, or thereabouts), presumably a large amount of furniture work was done in factories and not of really great quality. Good but not great. 

My washita stone came with a hand written note in it that said someone who was a carver in a furniture factory in indianapolis was its owner. The narrow side had been hollowed slightly by sharpening planes or chisels and the face of the stone had several gouge profiles worn into it. The idea of carving in a common furniture factory sounds like relatively uninteresting work, but a local guy wouldn't have been able to keep up with that economically so even 1900 would be difficult to use as a gauge for what skilled users did. The bulk of work was probably done in factories with simplified operations to be able to use unskilled labor.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Mar 2016)

> Just to expand a little on this, the article of David's that I quoted earlier in the thread (it's in F&C Issue 91 of August 2004 starting on page 16, if anybody has back copies and wishes to check) had a comparison of four planes, all sharpened and set with a close cap-iron, and planing a piece of ovangkol against the grain, starting with a very thin shaving, and gradually increasing depth of cut. David produced a table of results showing the shaving thickness at which the first signs of tearout were noticed, and shaving thickness at which tearout became considerable. For all four planes tested, the first figure was near enough 0.002" and the second 0.0025".
> 
> I think this is sufficient to indicate that the cap-iron was set close enough to have an effect, thus demonstrating that whilst the exact numbers with regard to cap-iron setting distances may have been a revelation to David some years later, the principle of setting the cap-iron close to the cutting edge to control tearout was known to him, and he could put that principle into practice.



All this demonstrates is that a thin shaving (<0.002") is sufficient to minimise tearout. It says nothing about the chipbreaker. Indeed, if tearout began to increase with shaving thickness, then there it did not have an effect on tearout, that is, was not set close enough to make a difference. There is "close" and "close enough".

This was the era of gossamer shavings. They were the mark of a well set plane. Still are. However, now thicker shavings without tearout are desired, and a plane needs to be able to do this as well.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Mar 2016)

I was smoothing drawer bottoms with a LN #4 1/2 today and thought of this thread.

My usual preference is a #3 sized plane, however the #4 1/2 was perfect for these wide panels. This #4 1/2 is the bronze Anniversary model that LN brought out several years ago as a one-off. It came with a 50 degree frog, which was still too low then to prevent tearout in my local woods. I added a 55 degree frog .. and hated the result. The cutting angle was still too low, and the plane was very hard to push, even with a waxed sole. And so it wound up on a shelf for years.

Very recently I managed to swap the 55 degree frog for a 45 degree one. A number of years had passed and I am now more proficient in setting up a chipbreaker. 

The wood is quarter sawn Tasmanian Oak, which has similar properties to White Oak, although it is a Eucalyptus. 

The wonderful feature of using a chipbreaker is that you no longer have to be concerned about grain direction. In a panel it is possible to orientate the boards for best match of grain and figure, and no longer be concerned that you are planing into- or against the grain.







The shavings are not gossamer but that are kept thin as I do not want to lose unnecessary thickness of the panel (9mm thick) ...






Those nice, straight shaving indicate that the chipbreaker is dialled in.

The panel has a nice polished look, and the joins are not visible (three boards and two joins) ...






Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Mar 2016)

Careful, Derek - you'll be getting a reputation as the ultimate Plane Fashionista - anniversary editions, high-angle frogs, chipbreaker dialled in - you'll be using thin Stanley irons next!

As for shaving thicknesses - well, find some Ovangkol and plane it against the grain for a direct comparison. Or try David C's planes on Tasmanian White Oak.

Anyway - before this degenerates into yet another pointless internet spat about nothing very much, my point stands. I think David C did know how to set a capiron close to control tearout, and his F&C article demonstrates that. It was generous of him to acknowledge the work done to quantify the numbers involved. Calling him semi-competent on the basis of his acknowledgement is unfair and rather unseemly.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Mar 2016)

I think I missed something here, CC. Did anyone here denigrate David C? David is held in the highest regards by all, including myself. Most of us have learned from him through his magazine articles, books and videos. Indeed, it speaks highly of his character that David was honest enough to admit that he had not known about setting the chipbreaker until this was discussed on the forums. This was very supportive for those of us who also had not known of this technique. If David did not know, well ...

As for me becoming an "ultimate Plane Fashionista" ... well all I can say is "your warning is too late"! :lol: 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Mar 2016)

Well yes, you are missing something - earlier in the thread, somebody did have a bit of a go at David C, and not for the first time. Not you, though.

Derek - Just for the avoidance of doubt, I'm having a bit of a chuckle WITH you. I am most emphatically not laughing AT you. Or attacking you. You're perfectly entitled to whatever tools you choose, and you've used them on some interesting projects, some of them very technically challenging. You've also been prepared to spend the time to post tool reviews and WIPs on the web, and contribute to several forums. All that is a positive contribution to the craft.

My reason for the original post was to take a slightly wry look at the way things have developed in the field of hand planes, and the way that some tend to chase after each 'new' introduction. Unfortunately, some take these things rather more seriously than others (I really should have seen that coming), and for whatever reason, took it as an excuse to settle old scores, reopen old arguments, justify themselves or whatever. Look at the way David C was attacked by some for daring to suggest that he slightly preferred bedrocks over infills in his original F&C article. The Great Capiron Controversy is another (pertinent) example - when that broke, some were hailing it the greatest discovery since penicillin, and other were posting in a slightly bemused tone that they thought everybody had always known that. In the end, we all learned a bit. 

I daresay in due course somebody will start agitating that such-and-such a setup has problems, and it can be overcome by using infills. Or bedrocks. Or low-angle bevel-up planes. Or whatever. The whole cycle will repeat.

I suppose it's a general reflection of life. Once you've found what works for you, stick with it, whatever the prevailing fashion. However, it does make things a bit confusing for the newcomer trying to get a start.

General comment, not aimed at anybody in particular - C'mon guys, lighten up a bit! It's woodworking, not life and death.


----------



## bugbear (20 Mar 2016)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> A number of years had passed and I am now more proficient in setting up a chipbreaker.



I was absent for the great chip breaker discussion of 2012 (was it on Woodnet)?

I'm assuming the "old" concepts still apply; having the blade back laterally flat, and chipbreaker under surface laterally flat and sightly undercut still apply (per the top image here), so that shavings can't cram their way between the cap-iron and blade.






Polishing the upper curve of the chipbreaker is probably "old news" too.

So is the "new knowledge" no more (and no less) than the distance from blade edge to cap-iron edge?

BugBear


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Mar 2016)

Hi BB

Most of the discussions took place on WoodCentral, but also continued on WoodNet and SawmillCreek. 

This was not about the mating of chipbreaker and blade, but about setting the chipbreaker close to the edge of the blade to prevent tearout. Discussion was stimulated by a video of the research in Japan of Professors Kato and Kawai. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (20 Mar 2016)

Derek,

Took delivery of a CBN wheel Friday (180 grit, IIRC, regardless the grit you suggested). Simply great! I put a concave grind on a Marples beater chisel, nearly to the edge, without any uncomfortable heat to my finger tips!

Great suggestion for those that grind!

Thanks,

T.


----------



## bugbear (21 Mar 2016)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Hi BB
> 
> ...but about setting the chipbreaker close to the edge of the blade to prevent tearout.



That's what I'd guessed. Thank you.

BugBear


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (21 Mar 2016)

Tony Zaffuto":cx6yprgl said:


> Derek,
> 
> Took delivery of a CBN wheel Friday (180 grit, IIRC, regardless the grit you suggested). Simply great! I put a concave grind on a Marples beater chisel, nearly to the edge, without any uncomfortable heat to my finger tips!
> 
> ...



Tony, I am so pleased that you, too, found this a revelation.

Honing is so easy when there is the minimum steel to hone. Plus it levels the playing field somewhat, insofar as making it possible to use less-than-stellar honing media.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (21 Mar 2016)

If one hollow grinds at all it should be done frequently. If more than three or four passes are needed you've waited too long. Almost impossible to burn a cutter with even the cheapest or poorly cared for wheel in this scenario. The wheel, of course, never grinds all the way to the edge in the normal maintenance cycle.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (21 Mar 2016)

CStanford":1kw9wsoq said:


> ... The wheel, of course, never grinds all the way to the edge in the normal maintenance cycle.



That is usually so because wheels other than CBN or wet wheels will heat the blade's edge and affect the temper. 

There is nothing wrong with grinding _to_ the edge - as long as you do not grind _away_ the edge.

A minimal edge to grind reduces the steel to hone, as I stated earlier.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (21 Mar 2016)

If the process is being done correctly one could hone first and then grind to just behind the honed edge and not do one scintilla of damage to the freshly honed edge. I think we essentially agree, though probably not about the cheap vs. expensive wheel stuff.


----------



## MIGNAL (21 Mar 2016)

That's basically how I sharpen plane blades. 100G on a hand crank (Ruby wheel) followed by an 8,000 waterstone. Less chance of overheating on a hand crank (of course it can still be done) and you can creep up to that glint on the edge.
I'll probably go to a diamond plate next, I'm fed up with that silly slurry stone. 
Chisels get a different treatment but that's because they don't fit on my hand crank guide.


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2016)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> That is usually so because wheels other than CBN or wet wheels will heat the blade's edge and affect the temper.
> 
> Derek



I never had trouble heating the edge of anything with a brown al-ox wheel (which is mid grade here), but I also have a grader hanging in my grinder to keep the wheel fresh. You can always tell if an iron is hot by grinding it and dragging the flat side across your palm (where the skin is less sensitive and it won't burn if it's hot - key being to keep the iron moving). If the iron is too hot to drag across your palm, then it's being ground too hard. 

BUT, the CBN wheels are so superb that I have no interest in going back to any wheels that shed grit, and you can do what I mentioned above faster. I still don't have water at my bench and I can square off an iron and grind a bevel on it (which is much more grinding than is ever subsequently done) and still drag the iron across my palm (or even just place it there) and have no issue with the CBN wheels. The abrasive absorbs and transfers so much of the grinding heat to the wheel that it's incredible.

Derek, I don't know if it was you who mentioned it first that I saw it, but if it was, I'm glad you did. 

(there is one type of edge that I heated regularly on the brown wheel, and that is the muji planes - they're rubbery working on a grinding wheel and resistant to abrasion and the heat builds up, but they tolerate it just fine. And I don't use those much any longer).

I think the price of them will come down at some point, maybe not too much, though. When I bought mine from Ken Rizza, there was a short period where he was transitioning style sand selling stock for $125.

Maybe it's been a couple of years now? Not sure, but I've done a fair amount of preparation of old plane irons on my wheel and I've reground some chisels substantially and I don't notice any difference in its ability to cut other than an initial step down from ultra aggressive where the particles that were standing up too tall probably got blown off.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (21 Mar 2016)

Dave, I can get close to the edge of the blade without burning it on a white wheels as well. However the CBN does this with less effort. 

And, yes, I did give you the heads up on these wheels (on SMC). 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2016)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Dave, I can get close to the edge of the blade without burning it on a white wheels as well. However the CBN does this with less effort.
> 
> And, yes, I did give you the heads up on these wheels (on SMC).
> 
> ...



There is probably some difference between what you're grinding and what I'm grinding as the carbon steel stuff grinds faster without as much heat (so the advantage between old and new is better for you than me). But even so for me, the CBN wheel grinds faster (I only have the 80 grit) than any loose grit wheel I've had - heat notwithstanding, the wheel itself is just incredibly fast. And no looking for the diamond grader or spitting abrasive around. 

It's one of the few new things that's come along that really lives up to the hype 100% (or even surpasses it).

I would much rather have the cheapest grinder with a CBN wheel than the best grinder with a friable wheel.


----------



## Carl P (22 Mar 2016)

Just noticed this from Derek, I'd better ask before I forget!


Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Very recently I managed to swap the 55 degree frog for a 45 degree one. A number of years had passed and I am now more proficient in setting up a chipbreaker.



Does this mean that the cap iron is less effective at 55 degrees, or just that you prefer to use it at 45 degrees?

Thanks,

Carl


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (22 Mar 2016)

Hi Carl

A plane with a 55 degree blade is hard to push, especially when it is 2 3/8" wide. A plane with a 45 degree frog is significantly easier to push. Their is rarely any need to use the chipbreaker with the 55 degree plane. Even so, the angle is not high enough to prevent tearout in my hardwoods. The chipbreaker comes into its own with the 45 degree frog. So, easier to push and better tearout resistance, the 45 degree frog is the preferred plane.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Carl P (22 Mar 2016)

Hi Derek,

Thanks for the clarification - I have some experiments in mind so I'm trying to clear my thoughts and get rid of irrelevancies,

Cheerio,

Carl


----------

