# Modern Plane Irons



## Bluekingfisher (1 Sep 2015)

I have several fettled Stanley bench planes with uprated irons & cap irons procured from Workshop Heaven, including the thicker Quengshang iron, which I believe are RC3 treated steel? and the thinner Ray Iles iron. I am very pleased with them all, easily honed on my diamongd plates and perform fantastically well.

I have recently acquired a LN smoother. I understand their irons are A2 steel? 

Does anyone have long term experience or preferences for any particular type of modern plane iron, considering performance, ease of sharpening and edge retention. The scientology of it all is beyond my comprehension although a brief outline of the differences would be much appreciated.

Thanks

David


----------



## Jacob (1 Sep 2015)

Thin ones are easier to hone. Other than that it doesn't make a deal of difference which you have.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Sep 2015)

As you're only honing the thou or so at the end, what difference does the overall thickness of the blade make to it's honing? :? You're going to hone more steel off a thin blade that needs grinding than a freshly ground thick one.
I feel a sense of deja vu coming on again.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (1 Sep 2015)

phil.p":36zyfqw9 said:


> As you're only honing the thou or so at the end, what difference does the overall thickness of the blade make to it's honing? :? You're going to hone more steel off a thin blade that needs grinding than a freshly ground thick one.
> I feel a sense of deja vu coming on again.



I am not concerned as to the thickness of the blades relative to honing, more regards the quality and resiliance of the steels.


----------



## Jacob (1 Sep 2015)

phil.p":1hnbjbw9 said:


> As you're only honing the thou or so at the end, what difference does the overall thickness of the blade make to it's honing? :? You're going to hone more steel off a thin blade that needs grinding than a freshly ground thick one.
> I feel a sense of deja vu coming on again.


Well you asked for it!
Thin ones don't need grinding you can hone the whole bevel. Anyway grinding takes longer on a thick one so it's the same difference.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (1 Sep 2015)

Jacob":ilv1g2sn said:


> phil.p":ilv1g2sn said:
> 
> 
> > As you're only honing the thou or so at the end, what difference does the overall thickness of the blade make to it's honing? :? You're going to hone more steel off a thin blade that needs grinding than a freshly ground thick one.
> ...



Ok Jacob, Have you any info on the resiliance and quality of the steel.


----------



## Jacob (1 Sep 2015)

Bluekingfisher":vuwzdj4l said:


> Jacob":vuwzdj4l said:
> 
> 
> > phil.p":vuwzdj4l said:
> ...


Yes; they are all slightly different. 
Harder ones take longer to sharpen and may hold an edge longer but may be brittle and chip more easily. Laminated ones are quicker to sharpen but more prone to chip, and so on.
Basically stick with what you've got it's all a compromise though personally I prefer old laminated thin Stanley and Record blades but there's not much in it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Sep 2015)

Bluekingfisher":222pdqd6 said:


> phil.p":222pdqd6 said:
> 
> 
> > As you're only honing the thou or so at the end, what difference does the overall thickness of the blade make to it's honing? :? You're going to hone more steel off a thin blade that needs grinding than a freshly ground thick one.
> ...



Sorry. I realised that - I was sidetracked by J's comment.


----------



## MIGNAL (1 Sep 2015)

I think I have examples of them all apart from the new Veritas steel. The differences are pretty small, nothing to lose any sleep over. Seriously, in a working environment you don't bother which type of steel it is. You sharpen it and get on with the work. Things are much more noticeable with something like HSS, which really does take an amount of effort to get truly sharp.


----------



## bugbear (1 Sep 2015)

Jacob":3kre3lvi said:


> Thin ones are easier to hone. Other than that it doesn't make a deal of difference which you have.



Welcome back Jacob! It hasn't been the same without you. :wink: 

BugBear


----------



## mouppe (1 Sep 2015)

The LN blades are excellent and hold an edge for a very long time. I prefer A2 steel to 01 steel for plane blades. I have a chisel from veritas' new steel, but I don't find the edge retention is very good- maybe it's just a one-off?- I'm not sure. 

I hardly ever take my blades to the grinder so I can't agree with Jacob's earlier comment. 

New blades work well for me.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (1 Sep 2015)

mouppe":24vnyshz said:


> The LN blades are excellent and hold an edge for a very long time. I prefer A2 steel to 01 steel for plane blades. I have a chisel from veritas' new steel, but I don't find the edge retention is very good- maybe it's just a one-off?- I'm not sure.
> 
> I hardly ever take my blades to the grinder so I can't agree with Jacob's earlier comment.
> 
> New blades work well for me.




Thanks for the informative feedback gents, much appreciated.

Mouppe - when you mention the new steel from Veritas, are you referring to the PM-11 steel? and if so, are saying the A2 steel holds a better and longer edge? In addition, and as a matter of interest what types of wood are you working with?

David


----------



## mouppe (1 Sep 2015)

Yes, the PM-V11 chisel I have never seems to hold a good edge, but since I only have one of them it's hard to compare. 

I work all types of wood, but mainly focus on North American hardwoods, apart from maple. Hate the stuff for woodworking!


----------



## D_W (1 Sep 2015)

Jacob":2lfycdum said:


> Thin ones are easier to hone. Other than that it doesn't make a deal of difference which you have.



Sounds good to me!

Modern irons have some advantage if you're in a contest to take the longest number of feet of 1 thousandth inch shavings in a row. Which is not far different to how some beginners use planes, and since they are so terrified of sharpening and take so long to do it, maybe it's necessary to have something that needs it less?

If the work goes beyond that (jacking, trying, then smoothing jacked work), there's no advantage to modern irons, except that they are readily available in new forms. Just as there is no advantage to modern cap irons (they are functionally less effective than the stanley design, and require more fettling).

Old irons that are sharpened quickly on a stone that needs no maintenance fit in the workflow much better.


----------



## D_W (1 Sep 2015)

phil.p":3numzdcb said:


> As you're only honing the thou or so at the end, what difference does the overall thickness of the blade make to it's honing? :? You're going to hone more steel off a thin blade that needs grinding than a freshly ground thick one.
> I feel a sense of deja vu coming on again.



Grinding a fully hardened 1/4th inch piece of steel is a waste of time, too. Not just honing.

(unless we're just talking about stanley replacement irons).


----------



## Cheshirechappie (1 Sep 2015)

There seems to be almost as much written on forums about different toolsteels as there is about sharpening. Most of it seems to be either personal opinion (sometimes not all that informed) and some is just outright bigotry. Trying to ascertain definite 'facts' is almost impossible, and in all honesty probably not really worth it anyway. Some people seem to develop their own likes and dislikes - nothing wrong with that - but then plug them as the 'only right answer'.

Almost all handtools sold today have cutters that are fit for purpose (the few that are inadequate tend to be at the VERY cheap end of the market). Some may take slightly better edges in some circumstances, some may hold better edges in some circumstances. The problem is that 'some circumstances' rather implies a laboratory-like set of defined conditions under which blades can be compared, or the extremes of woodworking like ultra-abrasive timbers that most of us don't use very often, if at all. Real life workshop conditions are not those of the laboratory - and my workshop conditions may not be anything like yours, or the next persons! Another problem is that one sample of a particular grade of steel may not behave exactly the same as another by a different maker - there are a lot of variables in steelmaking, shaping and heat treatment. Unless you're going to use a tool so much that you'll wear it out within your lifetime, there isn't too much point in paying extra for everlasting steels.

I think the best bet is just to use the tools you have. Develop a sharpening method that's quick and efficient and suits you and your way of working, then refreshing an edge is no big deal, just part of the normal work-flow. If you find an edge tool you really don't get on with, then maybe it makes sense to replace it, but otherwise just use them and sharpen them up when you feel they need it. Vintage irons tend to vary a bit, and so do modern ones; I think in the end the best is just get used to the particular foibles of your tools so that you keep them happy in their work, and leave the worrying about metallurgy to the toolmakers and pundits on internet forums.

Mind you, that's just a personal opinion.....


----------



## woodbrains (1 Sep 2015)

Hello,

The workshop heaven blades are actually T10 steel, which is a Chinese water hardened steel similar to the now unavailable W1 steel that very old planes may have had. It is a fairly simple carbon steel, but being water hardened, does seem to take a sharper edge than many alloy steels we come across. It is also reasonably hard, so quite good at keeping its edge for a carbon steel. As far as A2 steel goes, I find Ron Hock irons A2 cryogenic to be the best. They seem to take a finer edge than the Veritas and at low angles. The Veritas is fine at slightly higher angles, maybe 35deg, though in milder woods normal honing are fine. These are all a little better than standard Stanly irons and such, though are much better manufactured in terms of surface finish, so easier to prep when new. Older Record laminated irons crucible cast steel are nicest of the ones original to the planes, and are worth keeping. I would never buy a standard manufacturers replacement iron though. For my money, the QS ones are about the best for price and performance. I have a few Clifton forged irons and they are good, but too expensive and now unavailable anyway. I liked to buy British at the time I got them, but in all honesty, they have no performance difference to the QS to justify being 3 times the price. I have not tried the new Cliftons, but suspect they are not much different. Cryogenic treatment of carbon steel has marginal benefit, and I would guess th QS would be indistinguishable or perhaps slightly better. I had to try Veritas PM V11 when it became available in Bailey style blades, and got one for my Record 07. I would say that it is slightly more tenacious to sharpen, but not a major effort, though it needs to be very sharp. I find 8000G water stones to be good, but less fine and the iron just does not perform well. I have not tried oilstones with it yet, because hard Arkansas and a strop to finish would be necessary IMO to get the best from this steel. When truly sharp, it is really rather good for abrasive timbers and does keep an edge considerably longer than anything else I've used. Whereas most other steels are close enough not to make a lot of difference in the longrun, PM V11 is tangibly better by leaps and bounds. But in moderate materials is not really necessary if cost is important. If you need performance in abrasive wood, though, are probably the best in terms of sharpenability and edge retention. HSS will retain its edge but is never as sharp so surfaces are not as good. These are observations I have made with my own tools, over many years of woodworking.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (1 Sep 2015)

I doubt I'd hone a pig sticker mortise chisel at 35* It's just unbelievable to me that people find this acceptable -- a steel that demands honing this high rather than it being the craftsman's choice for whatever reason.

I like cutting wood, not splitting like it was firewood for the stove.


----------



## Fat ferret (1 Sep 2015)

D_W":84ojsu6z said:


> phil.p":84ojsu6z said:
> 
> 
> > As you're only honing the thou or so at the end, what difference does the overall thickness of the blade make to it's honing? :? You're going to hone more steel off a thin blade that needs grinding than a freshly ground thick one.
> ...



Just grind it to as shallow an angle as you dare an hone as normal, you should get loads of sharpens out of it before you have to regrind. That's how my one and only woody I use for rough timber came and I haven't had to regrind yet. 

Cant comment on replacement irons, all of my other planes (three) have standard irons which work well.


----------



## D_W (1 Sep 2015)

CStanford":20tbx7bz said:


> I doubt I'd hone a pig sticker mortise chisel at 35* It's just unbelievable to me that people find this acceptable -- a steel that demands honing this high rather than it being the craftsman's choice for whatever reason.
> 
> I like cutting wood, not splitting like it was firewood for the stove.



I have no clue why anyone would talk about sharpening pigstickers in a thread called "modern plane irons". Or what the proper angle to sharpen a chisel has to do with plane irons at all.


----------



## D_W (1 Sep 2015)

Fat ferret":2mucmrqu said:


> D_W":2mucmrqu said:
> 
> 
> > phil.p":2mucmrqu said:
> ...



I've got two 1/4" irons from earlier days. They bed in an infill plane sole and they'd miss if I do that. The whole assembly is better set aside.


----------



## Jacob (1 Sep 2015)

Fat ferret":33xx9apq said:


> .....
> Just grind it to as shallow an angle as you dare an hone as normal, you should get loads of sharpens out of it before you have to regrind. ....


If you are going to grind a thick blade to make it a thinner you might as well start with thin blade in the first place. This makes honing quicker and you need not regrind it at all.
PMT -111 or whatever it is means nothing it's just a number dreamt up by Veritas advertising dept. No doubt it's perfectly OK but it won't make the slightest difference to your woodwork - unless it's pointlessly thick of course, in which case you have to waste time grinding it thin before you can hone.


----------



## Jacob (1 Sep 2015)

Cheshirechappie":zwemy8du said:


> ....
> Almost all handtools sold today have cutters that are fit for purpose (the few that are inadequate tend to be at the VERY cheap end of the market).......


True but interestingly I had a go with a really rubbish plane (Indian Ess Vee 4) and the only good thing about it was the blade quality. It ain't rocket science!


----------



## D_W (1 Sep 2015)

Jacob":3u9r2vm0 said:


> Fat ferret":3u9r2vm0 said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



I will say this for it (V11), it doesn't rust. It feels to me on a stone like 440C - they won't tell us what's in it. I'm not too concerned, I guess, unless it's carbon and iron and nothing else (and I know that's not the case). 

Carbon steel doesn't do much rusting if it's sharpened on oilstones either, though.


----------



## woodbrains (1 Sep 2015)

CStanford":20ivsq64 said:


> I doubt I'd hone a pig sticker mortise chisel at 35* It's just unbelievable to me that people find this acceptable -- a steel that demands honing this high rather than it being the craftsman's choice for whatever reason.
> 
> I like cutting wood, not splitting like it was firewood for the stove.



Hello,

The angle for honing has never been the craftsmans choice, always dictated by the steel and the material to be planed. 25 deg primary with 30 deg secondary 'standard' for want of a better expression, only came about from many woodworkers over many years consensus that this was a happy medium between sharpness and edge longevity in average carbon steels and moderate woods. It is only ever considered a starting point and if timber or steel or both dictates differently then the craftsman modifies what he does to suit. 

Bevel up planes are often sharpened at higher angles to prevent tear out in ornery woods. 38 degrees gives an effective pitch of 50 degrees in a 12 degree bedded plane. TBH 38 degrees is not really noticeably harder to push than 30, but has advantages in blade edge durability in A2 steel and reduces tear out. Experimenting is fun, too.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (1 Sep 2015)

D_W":2x41u8vw said:


> CStanford":2x41u8vw said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt I'd hone a pig sticker mortise chisel at 35* It's just unbelievable to me that people find this acceptable -- a steel that demands honing this high rather than it being the craftsman's choice for whatever reason.
> ...



In response to this statement by another poster about a modern steel:

"The Veritas is fine at slightly higher angles, maybe 35deg..."

35*... modern steel? If this is the case there hasn't been any improvement in steel technology in at least 200 years.


----------



## CStanford (1 Sep 2015)

D_W":20pcpzpv said:


> CStanford":20pcpzpv said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt I'd hone a pig sticker mortise chisel at 35* It's just unbelievable to me that people find this acceptable -- a steel that demands honing this high rather than it being the craftsman's choice for whatever reason.
> ...



In response to this statement by another poster about a modern steel:

"The Veritas is fine at slightly higher angles, maybe 35deg..."

35*... modern steel? If this is the case there hasn't been any improvement in steel technology in at least 200 years. If you have to hone it this high I'd love to understand what's modern about it or *presumably* an improvement. Holds its edge a little longer than the shanks of yore?


----------



## Benchwayze (1 Sep 2015)

I think CJStanford was referring to narrow chisels, which are not much wider than a modern plane iron is thick. Maybe he thought that was the dimension referred to. Principle's the sme though. With my 1/8th inch chisel, I sharpen it until it cuts as it should. No grinding. Might as well be a Japanese chisels. 

Plane irons? have found that a thick iron, like the LN blades suit me nicely. That doesn't mean I am about to throw away the modern irons for my Records though! (hammer)


----------



## D_W (1 Sep 2015)

CStanford":20jkh1rx said:


> D_W":20jkh1rx said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":20jkh1rx said:
> ...



I don't know what you're planing, but every iron I've used holds up better at low 30s of degrees in a plane. It's just reality. I've got quite an appetite for purchasing (well, I used to), so I doubt anyone on here has tried more different stuff than me. Even the japanese irons don't hold up that well below 30 degrees, it's another "just is", and I guess they should hold up the best. 

A lot of the old stanley material suggests 25 degree grinds (which I guess implies honing at that), but I think those general instructions are for carpenters tools. Maybe clear pine would work well at that, I don't know. knots don't, not even cherry does. I'm sure you can plane with it like that, but you can't finish plane with it like that and the reality is that a plane iron in a bevel down plane lasts longer at 34 degrees than it does at 25. No matter what the steel is.


----------



## CStanford (1 Sep 2015)

woodbrains":2ase5oh7 said:


> CStanford":2ase5oh7 said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt I'd hone a pig sticker mortise chisel at 35* It's just unbelievable to me that people find this acceptable -- a steel that demands honing this high rather than it being the craftsman's choice for whatever reason.
> ...



Yes, I generally agree. But if we still have to hone at angles over 30* then what is 'modern' about that steel? Sounds about the same as the old stuff doesn't it? Same song, second verse and all.

Changing the angle on a bevel up plane is a different animal, that's a move to get a higher angle of attack on a species that's tough to plane.


----------



## woodbrains (1 Sep 2015)

Hello,

I fail to see why a steel that needs to be sharpened at a different angle to another is regarded as a backwards step. It is just different. Looking at it from another angle, pun intended if you like, you could argue that leaving out vanadium in the steel, just so it can be honed a bit lower, robs it of abrasion resistance? Why would you want to have a less abrasion resistant steel, just so you can hone 30 degrees, that is just a number, harrumph. The whole point is, nothing is perfect, everything is a different compromise and Al it requires is a bit of understanding and application to the working methods employed. If you use a lot of abrasive woods, why wouldn't you find A2 or PM V11 an advance. If all you plane is pine, you would be right not to care one way or the other. I just observed what I did during use and hocks A2 is superior to LN and Veritas A2 , but all are capable of being used for the job in hand. I must say, the reason I bought my first Hock iron was because of some very ornery timber which would not plane with a standard Record iron. The edge just curled right over after a few strokes. In this instance I could probably have honed the regular iron at 35 or 40 degrees and it might have held up. As it was, the Hock iron worked well at 30 without the edge failing. 

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (1 Sep 2015)

Probably makes no difference in a plane iron though in a bevel down iron there is a point at which you'll lose the clearance angle.

With chisels the angle makes a difference in control, force required to make a cut, and ease of use. 35* is a nonstarter for me. Even with a mortise chisel.


----------



## woodbrains (1 Sep 2015)

Hello,

I must say, I never hone any of my chisels more than 30 degrees. Sometimes less. I don't have any exotic steel chisels though. Don't have any pig stickers either! Maybe this is something I need to remedy, though I do have registered and sash mortice chisels that I don't use often enough. 

Mike.


----------



## Benchwayze (1 Sep 2015)

Mike, 

I bought my 1/8" chisel (Stanley) when I made a writing box, which entailed some smallie dovetails. It did all I asked of it, but I confess I rearely use it these days, as my woodwork moved over to a lot of larger jobs, and utilitarian stuff. These days it's almost dead stop, but as I said, I still have the 'pig-sticker' chisel. Every so often I need to open a jam jar, and now I can't break the seals with my gammy thumbs and wrists!


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Sep 2015)

Going right back to the question in hand I think most things are ok but I don't get on well with A2, it's hard and brittle and not best suited to my needs. The T10 stuff is lovely, it gets really sharp. It might loose and edge a bit quicker but a quick hone and go and you're off again.

If I had a plane I'd keep it standard trim, Stanley, Record, Veritas, Marples whoever made all the parts come together as a package. By the time you open mouth, fit new yokes, iron and cap irons it could be worth considering selling the plane at hand and buying the finished item.

I think also that most of our current crop of superbly made planes and their irons have more in common with panel planes and infill smoothers of the past, used for a quick truing up of a few finishing passes rather than rough sawn board to finish work. D_W has a good example of the merits of using the tools that were used for preparing boards from sawn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEAFManCV8


----------



## Bluekingfisher (2 Sep 2015)

Thanks for all valuable advice and information, very interesting and useful.

It would seem my query has been answered, to a degree at least, 'horses for courses' I suspect and perhaps a little further experimenmtation is required on my part to discover which types of steels work best for the me. As a mere weekend warrior, the importance of which blades used is of no real concern. I suspect I should have known this from the start, different guys have a preferrence for a particular tool or means of tuning/setting it up. It has however has been interesting to receive the perspective of so many woodworkers.

Thanks to all.

David


----------



## Benchwayze (2 Sep 2015)

Horses for courses is right. 

Plenty of people wonder about rounded bevels, and have a dig at Jacob. Fact is, his irons and chisels must be sharp; sharp enough to do the work he does. What more proof does anyone want? 

Do it your own way, and if as a result, your tools are sharp enough, then you'll be doing it the right way!

If your edges will shave the hairs off a gnat's nadgers, fine, but when will you want to do that? :mrgreen: 

Well I think that's right.


----------



## CStanford (2 Sep 2015)

woodbrains":2fhidnnx said:


> Hello,
> 
> I must say, I never hone any of my chisels more than 30 degrees. Sometimes less. I don't have any exotic steel chisels though. Don't have any pig stickers either! Maybe this is something I need to remedy, though I do have registered and sash mortice chisels that I don't use often enough.
> 
> Mike.



As you should. There are plenty of classic sources that refer to 'thinly ground paring chisels' and in context clearly mean they are ground and honed at something less than the standard 25* grind and lift to around 30*. I have a couple of chisels ground somewhere around 15* - 18* and honed on that grind. I love them. Wouldn't be without them for love nor money. I always find it bizarre to learn of a craftsman who sets his or her chisels up at all about the same angle. What's the point in that? It's certainly not how the old guys did it from what I gather. One obviously doesn't just bash the hell out of a chisel honed this low but there are plenty of other times when they are just the ticket.

Manufacturers are thrilled that the buying public will buy in to honing at 35*. Just beyond thrilled. They're totally off the hook. It saves them a lot of time telling the uninitiated that the woodworking would probably be easier at angles less than that, but, arrgghh and gasp you'll have to learn to hone and do it quickly unless you like getting bogged down in theory and honing gear. They ring up their friendly metallurgist and ask for a steel that will hold its edge at 35*, and a wry smile comes across the face as our friendly metals specialist removes a dart from his top right drawer to throw it against a chart of various tool steels. Practically all of them will work at that angle. The rest is just an exercise in creating marketing buzz.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (2 Sep 2015)

CStanford":27abjy8g said:


> woodbrains":27abjy8g said:
> 
> 
> > Hello,
> ...



So, with regards to the chisels you mention, the ones with low ground angles, are you talking of chisels of 1/4" or less?

David


----------



## custard (2 Sep 2015)

CStanford":1evc94zw said:


> There are plenty of classic sources that refer to 'thinly ground paring chisels' and in context clearly mean they are ground and honed at something less than the standard 25* grind and lift to around 30*. I have a couple of chisels ground somewhere around 15* - 18* and honed on that grind. I love them. Wouldn't be without them for love nor money.



Same here. I've a few Ashley Iles dovetail chisels honed at a bit under 20 degrees plus a few Japanese paring chisels honed at a bit under 25 degrees. They only get used for softer woods, and only for paring. They leave a glassy finish with zero tear out and cut straight and true even in fiddly jobs like London pattern dovetails in rippled Sycamore, where a tiny bit of tear out around the gauge line would spoil the crispness of the joint. But if they so much as sniff a mallet, or even come close to end grain rosewood, then they curl up or great lumps chip off the edge!

But I wouldn't want to overstate the case, if you're trying to put your first tool kit together you really don't need stuff like this, you can go an awfully long way with just a few chisels honed at something vaguely around 30 degrees. And if you're about to make the final cuts on a tricky joint it's normally better that you pause and re-sharpen your tools rather than faff around finding your secret weapon chisels, because unless you use these tools a lot an "occasional" chisel like this will feel alien in your hands and you'll do more harm than good.


----------



## CStanford (2 Sep 2015)

Bluekingfisher":65c6nhx2 said:


> CStanford":65c6nhx2 said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":65c6nhx2 said:
> ...



1/4, 3/8, and 3/4...


----------



## Bluekingfisher (2 Sep 2015)

Interesting, thanks.

David


----------



## David C (2 Sep 2015)

A number of years ago I did extensive testing of plane irons, on nasty. dense, abrasive hardwood. (Doussie or Afzelia).

A2 and D2 irons outlasted the awful 1970's Stanley blades which I had been using up till then. Outlasted by many times.

The process of attempting such tests drives one to distraction, so the experiment has not been repeated.

I have not yet formed a clear impression of the new Veritas powder metalurgy steel. The one chisel I have is not being impressive so far.

However Derek Cohen rates the plane blades.

My favorite Stanley 5 1/2 has a Hock A2 blade and my L-N A2 blades work extremely well.

I have a distinct impression (difficult to confirm), that oilstone sharpeners do not get on well with the high speed steels. Waterstones work exceptionally well.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## D_W (3 Sep 2015)

David C":2bx0cobd said:


> A number of years ago I did extensive testing of plane irons, on nasty. dense, abrasive hardwood. (Doussie or Afzelia).
> 
> A2 and D2 irons outlasted the awful 1970's Stanley blades which I had been using up till then. Outlasted by many times.
> 
> ...



It depends on what the high speed steel is. M2 type of high speed steel doesn't seem to sharpen well on oilstones, it's not very fine grained. 

T series high speed steel seems to sharpen fine, but one thing is true, and that is that you won't do grind work with novaculite on high speed steel. Of any type. Really any steel hardness over 60 is trouble if you want to work too much of it, it requires slurrying an arkansas stone to cut effectively, and that doesn't create a very fine edge. 

I went the opposite direction. I started with wondersteel, tested it on cocobolo, etc, while I was sizing such stuff to make infill planes. High angle, thinner strokes, makes you want a steel that lasts a long time. 

And then the cap iron thing occurred, and I realized that if I needed "wondersteel", it's because I was taking shavings too thin. Instead of creeping along, several coarse shavings to near the mark, then a few fine ones. The cap iron allows doing that with no risk. 

I've still got some HSS tools, and like to experiment with things. I grind more often to sharpen them on oilstones, and I think the wire edge longer (working back and forth with light pressure - maybe five times back and forth instead of two) and then strop, and then the edge even on HSS is surprisingly good. ON T series HSS (which is uncommon, I guess), it's as good as carbon steel. 

It did force focus on accurate grinding, but the overall time to sharpen is less on a washita than it was when I used waterstones and wasn't as judicious with grinding every three hones or so. Grinding takes about 30 seconds (i realize that's not a great option for a lot of beginners who are relying on a super jigged setup with some kind of presto holder to help them grind things, or a tormek). 

All of that said, my irons aren't 70s stanley irons, perhaps it helps that they are older stanley irons and older laminated wooden plane irons. 

My saying to anyone now, though, whose iron is too soft is that their iron isn't too soft, rather too many of their shavings are too thin. (dimensioning wood by hand is also a good instructor for increasing the smoother shaving thickness for the initial pass or two, which has merit for removing enough planer crushed wood to eliminate any ripple evidence that goes below the scallops).


----------



## MIGNAL (3 Sep 2015)

Amazing! Didn't take long for the PMV 111 (whatever it is) dissenters to show up. A few months ago it was going to be the saviour and you only had to sharpen it bi annually. Now we have a couple of people who don't really rate it at all.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (3 Sep 2015)

MIGNAL":23op35fd said:


> Amazing! Didn't take long for the PMV 111 (whatever it is) dissenters to show up. A few months ago it was going to be the saviour and you only had to sharpen it bi annually. Now we have a couple of people who don't really rate it at all.



It is interesting to read how some favour the old Stanley/Record irons over the more modern alloy steels, nothing wrong with that, although I have been surprised at negativity (by some) towards what I can only assume is an advancement in steel technology.

Just an observation.  

David


----------



## Benchwayze (3 Sep 2015)

I did buy a thicker Clifton blade from the lad, :wink: Matthew a couple of years back. But to fit it to any of my steel planes would have necessitated opening up the mouth, and TBH I didn't want to mess with my long time servants like that. Had it been possible to drop the blade straight in I wouldn't have hesitated. One day, if I am spared, I might make a Krenov style plane in order to use the blade. Stranger things have happened! 

John


----------



## MIGNAL (3 Sep 2015)

Bluekingfisher":2ad4w61m said:


> MIGNAL":2ad4w61m said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing! Didn't take long for the PMV 111 (whatever it is) dissenters to show up. A few months ago it was going to be the saviour and you only had to sharpen it bi annually. Now we have a couple of people who don't really rate it at all.
> ...



I wouldn't say I favour old steel. I have many, many examples of both old and modern steel. I wouldn't be surprised if I've had well over a hundred plane blades through my workshop. That does include LN, Veritas (O1 & A2), Clifton, Ray Iles, the Japanese laminated blade, HSS, Quangsheng, new Stanley SW and dozens of old Stanley/Records/Marples and English cast blades. 
They all work, unless they have been heat damaged. They all work well enough to plane wood, even the hard stuff. The differences are very small - apart from the HSS which takes an age to get sharp in the first place. I stopped trying to compare these steels long ago. I just reach for or sharpen the blade that happens to be in the plane that I'm using. That may well be new or old steel. I don't really care what it is, at that point in time I'm much more concerned with cutting the actual wood not fussing about the steel type or indeed it's age. 
Apologies if that sounds a little too pragmatic.


----------



## Jacob (3 Sep 2015)

MIGNAL":1r74crek said:


> I wouldn't say I favour old steel. I have many, many examples of both old and modern steel. I wouldn't be surprised if I've had well over a hundred plane blades through my workshop. That does include LN, Veritas (O1 & A2), Clifton, Ray Iles, the Japanese laminated blade, HSS, Quangsheng, new Stanley SW and dozens of old Stanley/Records/Marples and English cast blades.
> They all work, unless they have been heat damaged. They all work well enough to plane wood, even the hard stuff. The differences are very small - apart from the HSS which takes an age to get sharp in the first place. I stopped trying to compare these steels long ago. I just reach for or sharpen the blade that happens to be in the plane that I'm using. That may well be new or old steel. I don't really care what it is, at that point in time I'm much more concerned with cutting the actual wood not fussing about the steel type or indeed it's age.
> Apologies if that sounds a little too pragmatic.


I'd say much the same except I do prefer thin blades against the retro fashion for thick ones.
Even the heat damaged ones are OK and they improve magically as you hone them - usually thin irons having been ground on a bench grinder. It's quite easy to over heat just the very thin edge and perhaps spend a lot of working time with a less than perfect blade. Goes away soon after you stop using a bench grinder.


----------



## D_W (3 Sep 2015)

Jacob":31au4m4y said:


> MIGNAL":31au4m4y said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't say I favour old steel. I have many, many examples of both old and modern steel. I wouldn't be surprised if I've had well over a hundred plane blades through my workshop. That does include LN, Veritas (O1 & A2), Clifton, Ray Iles, the Japanese laminated blade, HSS, Quangsheng, new Stanley SW and dozens of old Stanley/Records/Marples and English cast blades.
> ...



Goes away for most people when others aren't using a bench grinder on their irons.


----------



## DTR (3 Sep 2015)

I can't add much to what's already been said... I have a few Stanley / Record irons (probably 50s/60s vintage), and a couple of QS irons. As has been said above, the edge on a QS iron lasts a little longer, but takes a little longer to hone. On that basis I probably prefer the traditional irons just because they hone quicker. The difference is negligible though.


----------



## D_W (3 Sep 2015)

Bluekingfisher":253jrt9q said:


> MIGNAL":253jrt9q said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing! Didn't take long for the PMV 111 (whatever it is) dissenters to show up. A few months ago it was going to be the saviour and you only had to sharpen it bi annually. Now we have a couple of people who don't really rate it at all.
> ...



It's definitely technically superior, except in sharpenability and speed to grind.

minimizing upkeep time still favors the experienced user more than the one with the technically advanced toys.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (3 Sep 2015)

> It's definitely technically superior, _except in sharpenability and speed to grind_.



It depends on the media you use to sharpen. All steels benefit from being sharpened on the appropriate media.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Bedrock (3 Sep 2015)

I bought a Marples No. 4 earlier this year to see what it was like. I think it must date from the post Stanley takeover as it has a Stanley blade, sharp arrises - looks original - with the stamped metal yoke. I sharpened it the same way as for my other planes which have a mixture of Clifton, Hock, LN, an O1 KH, and older thick blades - Herring etc..

On end grain oak the Marples blade lasted no more than 3-4 strokes, whereas any of the others carried on considerably longer. It has been sharpened, but not ground, several times since, but it will not achieve as good an edge or remain sharp as long as any of the others.
Must be unlucky.


----------



## D_W (3 Sep 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > It's definitely technically superior, _except in sharpenability and speed to grind_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Certainly everything sharpens easily on diamonds. But it's more total time to use diamonds, and with a greater chance of contaminating something if you're using diamonds vs. an old iron on a washita stone and a leather strop. 

Even powder M4 yields to diamonds as if it's been cut by butter - makes you think something might be wrong with the M4 (like it's soft) when you run it across a diamond hone. 

The trouble with diamonds and silicon carbide (in the case someone grinds with a carborundum stone, which is a far better grinding stone than any aluminum oxide waterstone) is that there are certain things that will be damaged on 1000 grit level diamond stuff and silicon carbide. I've encountered that numerous times with higher end plain carbon stuff (most notably, any japanese chisels that are actually the 65 hardness that many claim to be). 

So, what I'm getting toward is that unless one uses only softer carbon steel and harder high speed steels, the only media that really sharpens a high speed steel quickly really isn't that desirable. Personally, i don't find diamonds desirable on any plain carbon steel, not even the softer ones. 

But none of it really matters, efficiency favors experience far more than it favors the man with a technological quiver. We just don't do a very good job (the woodworking community doesn't) telling people that what they do as a beginner may not be what they do when they become a serious hand tool user (as in more than just planing chatter off of boards and flushing dovetails).


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (3 Sep 2015)

I did not mention diamonds, David. The OP asked about A2, and more recently PM-V11 came up. Now, if you insist on using oilstones, then you can do it, but it will be an effort, and there is the very real danger that the bevel will not be properly honed ... and then complaints will be made that the steels are too difficult to sharpen, or do not take a decent edge. 

I began working these steels with Shaptons but, other than the 1000, I was not happy with the speed of the 5000 and 12000. I had used these stones for several years so it was not a big deal to trade up to Sigmas, to 6000 and 13000. These work these steels effortlessly. 

This is not to say that you cannot use Shaptons, or a multitude of other media, just that some work better than others.

If I was working M4, I would not use Sigma or Shaptons. I would use diamond or Spyderco. In fact I do. 

Why bother with steel that all media cannot manage as well as O1? I can only speak for those who work with abrasive woods, as I do. O1 just does not cut it for long on our local woods. There are real benefits in more durable steels. HNT Gordon sells plenty of HSS (M2) blades. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Bluekingfisher (3 Sep 2015)

D_W":21f6u159 said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > > It's definitely technically superior, _except in sharpenability and speed to grind_.
> ...



Again, a clear case of a personal preference, and again fine. I use diamiond plates to hone my blades and as far a speed is concerned I cannot think of anything quicker. Three or four strokes on the fine plate, a similar number of strokes on the ex ex fine has the blade (3mm) thick with a light baby oil (mineral oil for our US chums) shaves the hair on my arm. If the blade needs to be sharper than that then I am missing something and welcome your instruction.

If you are happy and satisfied with the vintage steel all well and good but as far as upkeep and speed of honing is concerned, well, that's just nonsense. IMOHO


----------



## D_W (3 Sep 2015)

Bluekingfisher":326nvqbs said:


> If you are happy and satisfied with the vintage steel all well and good but as far as upkeep and speed of honing is concerned, well, that's just nonsense. IMOHO



Certainly not. It takes me one minute to sharpen a vintage chisel that's actually dull.

It takes two minutes to sharpen a plane iron that's fully dull, and 30 seconds to grind. 

The only thing that the more modern steels is actually superior for is a contest of taking the longest 1 thousandth thick shaving. If it teaches people to do that, though, that's to their detriment because only the final pass of a smoother is done with something like that. Even smoothing is done better with as coarse of a shaving as appropriate for the bulk of the work. 

I've used more different things, I'd assume, than anyone else on this board (if we need to get into listing, I can do it), and seem to have gone backwards instead of forwards vs. the magazine recommendations (often those recommendations are made by people who use mostly power tools). I tend to discount the views of any magazine writer, blogger, etc, at this point if they have not done much dimensioning. 

(I'd note, too, here in the states, the person who won the speed contest for smoothing a panel at the largest hand tool woodworking event is someone you guys would call a "pensioner" over there - he dimensions wood by hand........and he uses plain carbon steel and oilstones).


----------



## D_W (3 Sep 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I did not mention diamonds, David. The OP asked about A2, and more recently PM-V11 came up. Now, if you insist on using oilstones, then you can do it, but it will be an effort, and there is the very real danger that the bevel will not be properly honed ... and then complaints will be made that the steels are too difficult to sharpen, or do not take a decent edge.
> 
> I began working these steels with Shaptons but, other than the 1000, I was not happy with the speed of the 5000 and 12000. I had used these stones for several years so it was not a big deal to trade up to Sigmas, to 6000 and 13000. These work these steels effortlessly.
> 
> ...



A better idea for 99% of woodworkers is to learn to use the oilstones and skip the modern diemaking steels. That is, if time and results are considerations. I use generally one HSS tool at this point, a chinese tapered mortise chisel - they only offer it in HSS. It's tapered along its length, which makes it superb for mortising planes because it doesn't get stuck in a mortise. It's also not M2, I don't know precisely what it is, it sharpens fine on oilstones.

I know i'd never convince most aussie woodworkers, because I'm a yank, but they would get more work done if they took a thicker shaving and used a cap iron. And not surprisingly, when you do that, the type of steel becomes less important, as does the false notion that only a freshly sharpened 1 micron sharp iron can leave a clear bright surface. Anyone relying on sharpening to limit tearout has been lapped before the race starts.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (3 Sep 2015)

David, in the past I have been criticised for applying the standards for Australian woods to those in the USA. I am careful to qualify the differences these days. You talk about planing thick shavings. But why would I want to do so all the time? There are times when I do and times when I do not. It all depends on what is required. Further, woods like Jarrah have a Janka similar to Wenge, and both these are 50% greater than white oak. How often do you want to take thick shavings in such woods? Building furniture is not just about thick shavings. 

Planing is also not just about using the chipbreaker. You know I am comfortable using one, and I do so much of the time by preference. Still, planes with chip breakers are just a small proportion of the planes I use. There are also single blade rebate planes, shoulder planes, block planes, spokeshaves, etc etc. Some take thicker shavings than others .. when necessary.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## woodbrains (3 Sep 2015)

Hello,

How did this get around to sharpening, the question was about differences in steels? Obviously sharpening is a factor, but should not be viewed independently from the steels abrasion resistance, toughness, hardness and what fineness of edge can be achieved. 

Here is a though though, if an edge in some new exotic alloy could be sharpend as sharp and as quickly as old fashioned cast steel and the edge lasted considerably longer in moderate and abrasive woods, why wouldn't you use it? If it meant changing the sharpening medium to achieve this, would it be churlish not to? Would we still cook on an open fire and never taste soufflé because electric ovens are all modern and unnecessary? 

Mike.


----------



## D_W (3 Sep 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> David, in the past I have been criticised for applying the standards for Australian woods to those in the USA. I am careful to qualify the differences these days. You talk about planing thick shavings. But why would I want to do so all the time? There are times when I do and times when I do not. It all depends on what is required. Further, woods like Jarrah have a Janka similar to Wenge, and both these are 50% greater than white oak. How often do you want to take thick shavings in such woods? Building furniture is not just about thick shavings.
> 
> Planing is also not just about using the chipbreaker. You know I am comfortable using one, and I do so much of the time by preference. Still, planes with chip breakers are just a small proportion of the planes I use. There are also single blade rebate planes, shoulder planes, block planes, spokeshaves, etc etc. Some take thicker shavings than others .. when necessary.
> 
> ...



A thick shaving in something very hard might be 3 thousandths on a smoother instead of 1. You take a thick shaving specifically because it allows you to get the work done faster. It's not only for non-smoothing work. 

the same woods were worked eons ago and the difference between now and then is that the workers were mostly experienced. I doubt working (speaking of smoothing, etc) a 2000 hardness janka wood was very difficult for someone 150 years ago or more with plain steels. 

The whole premise of modern steels is that they'll allow you to work a long time, but implicit in that is that you're taking a million small shavings because that's how the irons are tested. 60 years ago, high speed steel was available, and so were the mediums to sharpen it, but nobody had any interest in it in planes. I'm not sure how relevant planes were even at that point in use, but the few that were made were probably used by carpenters, etc. So maybe that's a difficult comparison for relevance. 

the biggest thing that keeps people from doing more work by hand is speed, my point in all of this is that there is much more speed available to most people, and without sacrificing results. It's just that most people are looking in the wrong place for it. 

I've got a hunch that 200 years ago, all work that was flat was done with a double iron, it wouldn't have been economically feasible to compete with a single iron. Rebates are generally hidden, most joints were in wood, and I would assume most other joinery work was done with chisels and saws - because that's fastest and perfectly neat for an experienced maker to do work right off of the saw and chisel without getting out a whole bunch of specialty planes. The fact that you'd have some tearout in a rebate or a plowed groove would be no big deal, and if the cleanliness for the part of the joint that appeared was paramount, then the line would be struck first before taking the cut. I would put my money on the double iron being a lot bigger deal (as in an economic necessity) than just one method. I'd bet turning was done with much more competence and fewer tools, too than what's marketed now, and the surfaces obtained were probably suitable for use without anything following the skew.

It leads me back to the comment that if steel is perceived to be too soft or too short wearing, the person making that determination probably doesn't know what the real problem is. 

I built two planes out of cocobolo last year, and made it a point to make them both using a stanley 4 with a stock iron in it. Non laminted, nothing special. The face of a flatsawn cocobolo board is about 3000 hardness, though the early wood can be soft and the hardness variable. It's abrasive and some pieces can be really hard on irons. When I first started woodworking, I went to high speed steel irons so that I could continue taking thinner shavings as I crept up on my finished spots. I recall not even being able to thickness a piece of wood for a handle without resharpening. For the two smoothers I made, I sized all of the blocks, made the wedges and removed the bandsaw marks from the sides of the planes - in cocobolo - sharpening each plane once during the exercise. 

The latter was much faster. I saved the very thin cocobolo shavings only for one pass when I had otherwise sized everything and already taken coarse shavings. 

It taught me that the stanley iron will give up taking thin smoother shavings pretty early with cocobolo, but it will take a thick shaving (perhaps 3 thousandths) for a very long time before the abrasion of the wood removes clearance. It opened my eyes. I probably would've bought the high speed steel irons early on if someone would've showed me the productive way to do the work, and I see a lot of people who are where I was then that are just as bullheaded.

(jacking and try plane work in any of those hard woods is slower, though, you just don't take as thick of a shaving - that's a concession you make with them. I'd imagine the maximum thickness that a thickness planer will take off in a pass is also less).


----------



## D_W (3 Sep 2015)

woodbrains":17dicks3 said:


> Here is a though though, if an edge in some new exotic alloy could be sharpend as sharp and as quickly as old fashioned cast steel and the edge lasted considerably longer in moderate and abrasive woods, why wouldn't you use it?



I would, but no such steel is going to exist. And there are physical reasons for that.

sharpening matters, because if it isn't quick or it's too cumbersome, it's going to be a hindrance to actual workflow.


----------



## David C (3 Sep 2015)

Wow, this is a weird discussion, except I'm not able to follow the logical path of many of the contributions.

After working wood for 40 years, with hand planes it is clear to me that A2, D2, M2 and the like are a better bet for dense, abrasive hardwoods. (This is easily demonstrable).

That is better than; Old cast steel, 01, chrome vanadium ...., Quangsheng, old forged Clifton, German production irons. (These are the ones I have tried).

There are no problems with a sensible sharpening regime, I find no difference in honing time. Grinding may take a little longer. My Tormek is somewhat slow but safe for students. No more blued edges.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Bluekingfisher (3 Sep 2015)

woodbrains":2lvs8os2 said:


> Hello,
> 
> How did this get around to sharpening, the question was about differences in steels? Obviously sharpening is a factor, but should not be viewed independently from the steels abrasion resistance, toughness, hardness and what fineness of edge can be achieved.
> 
> ...



=D> =D> =D> Nwell said sir!

Perhaps in my opening gambit I should have mentioned I am a hobby woodworker, thus not as knowledgable as many of those qualified and able who have previously contributed. However, I am sure many, including professional woodworkers have welcomed the new alloys used to form plane irons. I suspect the new metals have been formulated mainly for the hobby market?? What with the fairly recent or expanded interest from home woodworkers there is a definite well to tap. It is probably also fair to state much of the cost of a new high tech blade is swallowed up by the investment in experimentation and marketing, 

I can therefore accept skilled and proficient craftsman are comfortable with vintage steels because they have been weaned on them. however for those (that includes me and many others) with an interest in woodworking and willing to spend their hard earned to enjoy it, the advancement of metallurgery (or whatever the term) can only be of benefit wishing to work wood and not worry to much of the complexities of setting up a tool, least not until their own knowledge base permits them to do so (should they wish) And so what if we are taken in by persuasive advertisement when buying a new toy. And on that point, if the manufacturers of the vintage steel blades were as confident in their properties of their products compared to modern alloys then surely they would be employing similar tactics in an attempt to convince us that 'older is better'
David


----------



## woodbrains (3 Sep 2015)

D_W":3aoe4bz8 said:


> woodbrains":3aoe4bz8 said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a though though, if an edge in some new exotic alloy could be sharpend as sharp and as quickly as old fashioned cast steel and the edge lasted considerably longer in moderate and abrasive woods, why wouldn't you use it?
> ...



Hello,

It probably does exist and you'll never know since you are so dogmatic over Washita stones and stropping, which is one of the physical boundaries you are talking about! Don't forget, almost all steel is produced with a high bias towards ease of manufacture which is why cast steel is obsolete. But if metalugists can design a more easily produced steel with similar or better characteristics than what we are used to, then they will, despite what methods we employ. So a modicum of flexibility and knowledge is going to be required on our part if we want to continue woodworking. Which is why the OP asked the question, I suppose. When all the old tools run out, we will have to get used to the modern stuff and it is satisfying to know that there are still some manufacturers that cater for us in our marginal occupation/hobby.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (3 Sep 2015)

woodbrains":3bbajrli said:


> D_W":3bbajrli said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":3bbajrli said:
> ...


"no such steel is going to exist. And there are physical reasons for that." The reason being that a material which is _more_ resistant to abrasion whilst in use but _less_ resistant whilst being sharpened is logically extremely improbable, if not impossible.
I hope the OP has twigged that he should ignore most of this thread, stick with whatever he's got in the way of plane blades and make the most of it.


----------



## woodbrains (3 Sep 2015)

Hello,

The answer is simple, more abrasive sharpening media! Problem solved, if you let it.  

Mike.


----------



## D_W (3 Sep 2015)

woodbrains":21s90xh4 said:


> D_W":21s90xh4 said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":21s90xh4 said:
> ...



If you'd like to take a look at the range of blade steels out there, look to japan and sweden. Not much blade steel is being made in the west, other than some re-concocted high alloy diemaking stuff. I don't know how much experience you have with steels and abrasives, but I've got a *lot*. Cast steel is out because of difficulty in manufacture of the steel, and especially in the skill of actually laminating it to something or hardening it without lamination. That seems to have been lost. There are swedish and japanese steels that are pretty close to cast steel, perhaps even cleaner. They've also got plenty of steels designed for blades and not dies. 

I've got so many different things that charlie used to make sport of telling me that I was lying about having tried various stones or tools. I always thought that was funny. 

You shouldn't hold your breath waiting for magic steel. I guess the closest thing we've gotten to it in technical information is PM V11, which seems to be a nice steel, but I don't find it quite as long wearing as the original test data said (of course, I'm not performing work that's similar to what the test may have been). It's about as difficult as A2, but A2 never was optimal as a blade steel, it's a diemaking steel. As is D2, and I suppose O1 probably is, too. I think tungsten high speed steels are quite nice, but they fell out of favor because of cost. They are probably better than any of the diemaking steels. 

I'm not blinded by anything, as I've got sharpening media on hand to less than a tenth of a micron, and steel from Freres carbon (which is extremely soft) to powder M4. It's simply more practical to avoid most of it, and it's, with absolute certainty, less expensive to avoid all of it. 

I came to washita and a strop despite having all of the other stuff. I don't use it for everything, but I use it for most. It rewards skill with economy of time, which is a fabulous trade to make.


----------



## D_W (3 Sep 2015)

Bluekingfisher":2gprtilf said:


> woodbrains":2gprtilf said:
> 
> 
> > Hello,
> ...



Not all of us were weaned on the old. I was "weaned", I guess on mostly A2 and M2. 

When the woodworking market for planes was mostly for professional users, they didn't adopt things that were being put into place for metal work for the most part, though a lot of it was given to them due to ease of work (chrome vanadium steels, etc). Some manufacturers use A2 because it's easy to use and it doesn't warp much (lie nielsen left behind their water hardening irons at least partially for that reason). 

The trouble with filtering the wheat from the chaff is that most advice for new woodworkers comes from people tied into either manufacturers or publishing. You won't get the message that professional woodworkers had little regard for new high speed steels, or even carborundum stones for fine work (have a look around at the carborundum and aluminum oxide stones that came out early in the century - many were little used, and people spent a lot of money on them - they were book priced the same as washita stones, and found generally to be good for grinding but not good finishers. You can go so far as to look at razor hones - aluminum oxide razor hones that are a whole lot like modern "ceramic" stones have been available for a very long time, and they were sold well as barber hones. There are bench stone size versions of those hones, but the professional community had no regard for them and they didn't sell. 

The wondersteel wonderment is a gentleman's woodworking thing, and while we'd love to all believe we're seeking improvement, it's not what's lacking for most people. Same as stanley planes lack nothing for woodworking, except often the skill of the user attached to them. What did we end up with? flat ground planes, and in some cases (with lie nielsen), a whole lot of planes where the cap iron can't even be used properly because they had no clue what the cap iron was for and cut the slot in such a place that it can't extend to the end of the iron. 

Certainly, you can spend your money on all of it. I did. I still have a whole lot of all of it, it was interesting to get hands on experience with it. None of it amounts to anything at the end of the day, though, at least not for a differentiator in getting something done in the shop.


----------



## Jacob (3 Sep 2015)

D_W":12vy2k16 said:


> .....
> I came to washita and a strop despite having all of the other stuff. I don't use it for everything, but I use it for most. It rewards skill with economy of time, which is a fabulous trade to make.


There's a sense in which freehand sharpening wastes _no time at all_ in that it's very easy and undemanding - amounting to having a little break from the real work and then going back to it with renewed vigour! :shock:


----------



## Droogs (4 Sep 2015)

Jacob":3tyiz70e said:


> D_W":3tyiz70e said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...




Well it is , once you get the hang of it :lol:


----------



## CStanford (4 Sep 2015)

This should be made a 'sticky' post:

"no such steel is going to exist. And there are physical reasons for that." The reason being that a material which is more resistant to abrasion whilst in use but less resistant whilst being sharpened is logically extremely improbable, if not impossible.

And so when you hear that some new steel sharpens just as rapidly as some other steel but outlasts it by a factor of three, or other similarly spectacular puffery, you know that you are at best being marketed to or at worst being lied to. Yet, intelligent people believe it. It doesn't take craft skills on the order of Alan Peters to realize that the whole proposition is as Jacob put it, "logically extremely improbable." It would be Nobel prize-worthy. It would stand the field of material physics on its head.


----------



## Corneel (4 Sep 2015)

Powder metallurgy steels have a finer grain structure then similar highly alloyed tools teels. The smaller grain structure makes it less brittle while it is still relatively abrasion resistant. It also makes sharpening a bit easier because the carbides are smaller. When you look at PMV-11, it is a probably better then an equavalent steel made in the traditional fashion, just as abrasion resistant, but tougher and also easier to sharpen. But it still contains a busload of chromium, so it really is harder to sharpen then O1. All in all there is a bit of magic in these powder metal steels but it all revolves around the carbides (chromiumcarbide, vanadiumcarbide etc). Plain old O1 and W1 contain very few of these carbides.

It's all relative in the end.

And I think David is on to something too. Important is to match the steel with the sharpening medium. And because oilstones have some very favorable properties in the workshop (not much mess, hard surface so no flattening neccessary and no digging of small tools into the surface, and they can always easilly be revived to cut as well as new, unlike diamond stones or sandpaper), it is very understandable that the workers of old prefered toolsteels that work well together with these oilstones.


----------



## bugbear (4 Sep 2015)

Corneel":3rijbopb said:


> And I think David is on to something too. Important is to match the steel with the sharpening medium. And because oilstones have some very favorable properties in the workshop (not much mess, hard surface so no flattening neccessary and no digging of small tools into the surface, and they can always easilly be revived to cut as well as new, unlike diamond stones or sandpaper), it is very understandable that the workers of old prefered toolsteels that work well together with these oilstones.



Yes - the steel and stone must form a "pair". In traditional Japan they have different steels [to the UK] and different stones, which, again, work well as a pair.

You cannot extract an item from its context without consequences.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2015)

Corneel":2jq2wyas said:


> Powder metallurgy steels have a finer grain structure then similar highly alloyed tools teels. The smaller grain structure makes it less brittle while it is still relatively abrasion resistant. It also makes sharpening a bit easier because the carbides are smaller. When you look at PMV-11, it is a probably better then an equavalent steel made in the traditional fashion, just as abrasion resistant, but tougher and also easier to sharpen. But it still contains a busload of chromium, so it really is harder to sharpen then O1. All in all there is a bit of magic in these powder metal steels but it all revolves around the carbides (chromiumcarbide, vanadiumcarbide etc). Plain old O1 and W1 contain very few of these carbides.
> 
> It's all relative in the end.
> 
> And I think David is on to something too. Important is to match the steel with the sharpening medium. And because oilstones have some very favorable properties in the workshop (not much mess, hard surface so no flattening neccessary and no digging of small tools into the surface, and they can always easilly be revived to cut as well as new, unlike diamond stones or sandpaper), it is very understandable that the workers of old prefered toolsteels that work well together with these oilstones.


A1 is fine with oilstones.
"just as abrasion resistant, but ..... easier to sharpen" can't help thinking there is the makings of perpetual motion somewhere in this!


----------



## CStanford (4 Sep 2015)

What you are witnessing is no less than the reason Nigerian email scams work.


----------



## D_W (4 Sep 2015)

CStanford":2pejolfc said:


> What you are witnessing is no less than the reason Nigerian email scams work.



Are we elderly?

What this is missing (it's really not) is Larry showing up and lecturing us on the difference between adhesive and abrasive wear. Larry used to, at least, advocate water hardening steel, though he uses oil hardening steel. I won't contend that it's longer wearing, so I never really got his point with that. If there's a difference between adhesive and abrasive wear, they seem to go together pretty closely when it comes to stone wear and wood wear.


----------



## CStanford (4 Sep 2015)

No 'we're' not elderly but some certainly appear gullible. Shoe fit?


----------



## D_W (4 Sep 2015)

CStanford":1fn2e3f4 said:


> No 'we're' not elderly but some certainly appear gullible. Shoe fit?



Works for me. I have all of the snake oils, but don't tout just because I bought.


----------



## CStanford (4 Sep 2015)

Don't fret. It's shocking how readily people will check their common sense at the door when they want to believe something, or like the person delivering the message. There, I just summed up the marketing profession for you in one sentence.


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2015)

bugbear":1xzbbkyh said:


> ....
> Yes - the steel and stone must form a "pair". ....


Each blade sold with its own stone? And each pair must have its own formula of snake oil perhaps? Could be money in this - Honerite is already one of the most expensive fluids known to man* but that could be just the beginning!

*slight exaggeration - it's only £60+ per litre as compared to about £5 for wd40 (very similar stuff) or £20+ for scotch whisky (does the job and tastes nicer) - there's a sucker born every minute!


----------



## Bluekingfisher (4 Sep 2015)

Jacob":16giht7j said:


> bugbear":16giht7j said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



You are so lucky to be so well informed :wink:


----------



## D_W (4 Sep 2015)

Jacob":h6948ihr said:


> bugbear":h6948ihr said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



I interpreted what he said differently. More thus:

The bloggerators' explanation of old irons was that they are inferior, short wearing and they must've been made by lunks who were stuck with substandard goods and who just had to make do. 

The bloggerators' explanation (at least for a while) of oilstones was that they were inferior, slow cutting, often too narrow, and didn't finish an edge fine enough, especially on some steels. 

Pair car boot tools with a $25 washita, a strop, and perhaps some kind of cheap stone as an edge chaser for paring chisels (like an inexpensive slab of jasper) and then all of the sudden it all makes sense (the whole old steel hardness thing), and we all get why they didn't ask for steel to be harder than it was - because cast steel certainly could've been 62 hardness without an issue. 

Flip over to japanese tools and find a chisel that's 62 hardness and try and grind it with novaculite and it's a pain. You can finish it, but not do medium work. But get binsui through a japanese finisher (which doesn't need to be expensive, though it'll be more than the washita), and suddenly the hardness of the irons makes sense with the stones. 

Where it falls apart is if you try to do the mating of every type and you want to have something from every rung of the ladder. Japanese tools are obviously cut well by alumina, but the result looks terrible. old tools are cut fine by alumina, but modern alumina stones are generally less convenient than washita. 

If someone can pick just one rung, they can get away cheaply. I bought the whole ladder, but I like the novaculite and old steel rung the best, and notice that if someone asks me off the record for advice on something, they usually have much better restraint and they can buy one rung and get on with the work. 

(there are things where old steel and old stones were better than anything made now, at least of common quality - most notably knives and straight razors. For razors, nothing is as good as the early 1900s razors made of very plain steel and sharpened with stones that came out of the ground and then where the razor is maintained by true linen strops and horse leather. None of those things are common now, so "Carbon steel" in most new razors is something similar to chrome vanadium, strops are mostly cowhide, there is no such thing as a treated genuine linen any longer and the finest razor stones from thuringia were clapped out in the 1920s).

Sticking to one rung of the ladder for anything (shaving, food prep, woodworking) is more than fine, it's only not enough when the ladder is more important than where it goes.


----------



## Andy Kev. (4 Sep 2015)

bugbear":3qlpjg7n said:


> Corneel":3qlpjg7n said:
> 
> 
> > And I think David is on to something too. Important is to match the steel with the sharpening medium. And because oilstones have some very favorable properties in the workshop (not much mess, hard surface so no flattening neccessary and no digging of small tools into the surface, and they can always easilly be revived to cut as well as new, unlike diamond stones or sandpaper), it is very understandable that the workers of old prefered toolsteels that work well together with these oilstones.
> ...


One inference that you can draw from that is that you could produce of table of steel types vs. stone types with crosses showing which worked with which. If it appeared that having three different kinds of steels meant that you needed three different kinds of stones, it would probably concentrate minds a bit and make people choose different steels which could all be sharpened on the same stones or restrict themselves to one or two steel types.


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2015)

Hello,



CStanford":xz9vf367 said:


> And so when you hear that some new steel sharpens just as rapidly as some other steel but outlasts it by a factor of three, or other similarly spectacular puffery, you know that you are at best being marketed to or at worst being lied to.





But no one has ever said this as a rule, now have they. You are making a false argument and then ridiculing your own nonsense. The script is usually something like, ' holds an edge longer and can be sharpened with the usual methods.' Or, ' holds an edge up to 3 times longer, and does not take appreciably longer to hone'. If you read my observations, they say about how longer edges last in abrasive materials and how they may prove to be more difficult to sharpen. David Charlesworth says the same, so does everyone else's tests that I have read, some say certain steels cannot be sharpened on anything but ceramic or diamond hones, such as D2. Some say the edges are not always as truly sharp as carbon steel, but the edge holding advantage is often worth it. There is always a proviso made, I've not read anything that doesn't. 



CStanford":xz9vf367 said:


> Yet, intelligent people believe it. It doesn't take craft skills on the order of Alan Peters to realize that the whole proposition is as Jacob put it, "logically extremely improbable."



Alan Peters realised that standard plane irons were lacking and in his time, did not benefit from the better aftermarket offerings we are privilaged to now. Hence he had 4 irons for each plane, so he could just swap an iron out and continue working, rather than constantly sharpen.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (4 Sep 2015)

That's a reasonable strategy in any age. It's not significant commentary on anything other than a workshop practice, for instance spending the first fifteen to thirty minutes of the day making sure the tools one expects to use that day are sharp. You're reading too much into it and I don't think Peters did this out of any disdain for Record plane irons. He talked about buying a Norris, even when he was established enough to afford one, but never did. He was afraid it would sit on a shelf. To me, that's the highest compliment he could have ever paid the tools he did actual work with.

I find it liberating to KNOW these tools can do the work, have done the work. For others, it seems to inexplicably stick in their collective craw and is something they need to explain away somehow. I'll never understand it, especially from a Brit.


----------



## D_W (4 Sep 2015)

There's nothing exceptional about D2. It wears a little bit longer than A2, but it has a chipping problem when first honed and wears more coarsely than carbon steel (and doesn't finish as nice). It sharpens fine on every waterstone I've ever used, and the only remaining tool I have of it (a ray iles pigsticker) sharpens fine on every stone I have.

I don't know what Alan Peters did to sharpen, but I think if it took more than 2 minutes, he would've benefited by 15 minutes in my shop. God knows that there is absolutely nothing else that he did that I do that he'd have learned anything from me. Unless he wanted to learn to build a double iron plane (I know better than that). 

Abrasion and adhesion are the things that wear good quality irons. Chipout happens on not-so-good quality irons, and it should be excluded. Abrasion and adhesion aren't that far apart in terms of how an iron wears, apparently. Abrasion wears irons on stones, adhesion on wood if you go by the definition (adhesion being frictional wear that occurs when two things are rubbed together and particles are moved. Abrasive refers to a hard surface wearing a softer surface. With irons, this only happens if there are silica particles or hard minerals in wood. 

If you want to make a steel that is easier to sharpen and wears longer in wood, it has to:
* be less resistant to abrasive wear
* more resistant to adhesive wear
* somehow maintain the characteristic that it won't chip at reasonable angles in woodworking use

If this was an easy thing to solve, it would be solved already. It's fairly often, probably, that a manufacturer of a new steel or someone applying a new steel (as in A2, D2, etc) that was manufactured for something else will try to come up with a scientific test, and the test may not be a great indicator of actual use. I suspect when veritas (not that they've told me this) or ...well, I don't guess lie nielsen gets this advanced ...let's stick with veritas. Veritas is very careful about being able to prove what they claim, I suspect that when they talk about the wear profile of V11, they are doing some kind of machine-related test (like a planing machine) with a control material so that they can test everything equally. That may or may not work out in reality. When V11 came out, on their chart it outlasted everything or almost everything on the chart. I have had two V11 irons. I found them in my shop planing cherry and beech (all i've used them on so far) to last about like good A2, and sharpen about like it, but they rust less than A2. I would guess nickel or chromium is the reason for that - thus the comment about it being like higher hardened 440C. Good a2 lasts well. Bad a2 chips (see brent beach's analysis of a shepherd tool iron - I too have a shepherd tool infill plane iron that does not last longer than carbon steel, but of course it is harder to sharpen than carbon steel, even if you're just talking about using waterstones). It's certainly possible that whatever is in V11, it does much better in a controlled test than A2, I certainly don't think Veritas has some dishonest attempt at anything - the steel they came up with is good, and it's barely more expensive than A2 (and perhaps more consistent). 

What I'm getting at is that if this was an easy problem, there have been steel companies making blade steel for hundreds of years, and there are companies still doing it now (some more traditional like hitachi, etc, and some more like modern US powder metal makers). The probability that they're going to just walk into something that's unlike anyone has ever seen is very low.

For me, it's vintage carbon steel or white #2. Having been exposed to all of it, nothing else satisfies as well when inserted into the work process.


----------



## D_W (4 Sep 2015)

CStanford":3cwvrc3s said:


> That's a reasonable strategy in any age. It's not significant commentary on anything other than a workshop practice, for instance spending the first fifteen to thirty minutes of the day making sure the tools one expect's to use that day are sharp.



That makes more sense now -desiring to set sharpening aside as something to be done outside of the work cycle.


----------



## CStanford (4 Sep 2015)

You and I think a lot alike and that should scare the hell out of you.


----------



## D_W (4 Sep 2015)

CStanford":1puqyjss said:


> You and I think a lot alike and that should scare the hell out of you.



I'm going to get a used straitjacket and see how it feels. Maybe sleep in it a day or two .... must be the direction I'm going!

If I develop a taste for danish modern and literary references, I'll know i'm done for.


----------



## Corneel (4 Sep 2015)

I don't know if adhesive wear plays a role in woodcutting. Whenever you read a scientific paper about this stuff they invariably write that the wear from woodcutting is an abrasive process. Adhesive wear is the kind of wear happening for example in automotive bearing when the oil supply fails. Under high heat and pressure molecules are transmitted from the axle to the bearing or vice versa. It is very obvious when you see it. But I don't know how you could measure anything like that in woodcutting, so it gets a bit theoretical. But especially with the slow speeds and low temperatures in handtools it seems unlikely.


----------



## CStanford (4 Sep 2015)

D_W":ycjfhgts said:


> CStanford":ycjfhgts said:
> 
> 
> > You and I think a lot alike and that should scare the hell out of you.
> ...



Start picking out padding for your cell....


----------



## profchris (4 Sep 2015)

This is a fascinating discussion, but almost completely unhelpful to my own woodworking. Faith-based assertions ("this is the only steel to use, and this the only way to sharpen it") don't convince, and methods which work for others often don't work for me (though all are worth a try). 

My empirical findings, which I'm entirely prepared to abandon as I learn more, are:

1. I can get an edge good enough to make musical instruments, which I guess is fairly high end goodness, from a range of steels. For planes I have an oldish Stanley, a Veritas, two Quangshengs and some venerable woodies. None seem vastly sharper, or keep their edge less well. 

2. But I can't consistently get a good edge, no matter what sharpening method I use. Jigs and guides make me no more consistent than freehanding. 

3. My (tentative) conclusion is that practice is more important than the steel or the technique. So I'm going for the easiest option, freehanding on a diamond plate. I'm getting more consistent. 

But I will take away the idea that sharpening a chisel to less than 30 degrees might be helpful. I though the edge just fell off if you did that!


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2015)

Hello,

So this is my take on things. I can sharpen any tool I need to to a very high degree and reasonably quickly. Fast enough for how I wish to work. So, I have a normal (whatever that means) carbon steel iron, that after grinding, takes 5 or 6 strokes of an 8000G water stone to produce a wire edge and a couple more on the back to remove it. I'm having a bad day and some ornery wood is requiring me to rehone after 10 minutes of planing. Now I also have a special alloy iron that is purported to last 3 times longer. Using the logic that a tool that will resist abrasion 3 times longer, it will take 3 times longer to hone (in ideal circumstances, how else could this be) then I will have to hone this iron 15 to 18 strokes on the stone and can plane for 30 minutes. So tell me that the second scenario is not advantageous and is not a logical course to take.

Mike.

Edit, to put it another way, invest 5-6 seconds honing for 10 minutes planing versus 15-18 seconds honing for 30 minutes. I think tis is what our American friends call a no brainier. ( this does not account for removal and reinsertion of the iron into the plane, which will be 3 to 1 for the carbon steel iron if 30 minutes planing time was accomplished there)


----------



## Bluekingfisher (4 Sep 2015)

woodbrains":1srwrh6n said:


> Hello,
> 
> So this is my take on things. I can sharpen any tool I need to to a very high degree and reasonably quickly. Fast enough for how I wish to work. So, I have a normal (whatever that means) carbon steel iron, that after grinding, takes 5 or 6 strokes of an 8000G water stone to produce a wire edge and a couple more on the back to remove it. I'm having a bad day and some ornery wood is requiring me to rehone after 10 minutes of planing. Now I also have a special alloy iron that is purported to last 3 times longer. Using the logic that a tool that will resist abrasion 3 times longer, it will take 3 times longer to hone (in ideal circumstances, how else could this be) then I will have to hone this iron 15 to 18 strokes on the stone and can plane for 30 minutes. So tell me that the second scenario is not advantageous and is not a logical course to take.
> 
> ...



Of course you must also consider the time it takes to flatten the waterstone , which I assume needs attention each time you hone an iron. Again three times more with the vintage steel? 

David


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2015)

Hello,

I like your thinking, but no! All things equal here, so no loss either way.

The big advantage is time planing versus time sharpening, so, on a good day when wood is behaving, 20 mins with the carbon steel will equate to an hour with the fancy alloy, but still for the same investment in honing times. The advantage increases, in fact, with easier woods.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2015)

D_W":3sri8dgf said:


> CStanford":3sri8dgf said:
> 
> 
> > That's a reasonable strategy in any age. It's not significant commentary on anything other than a workshop practice, for instance spending the first fifteen to thirty minutes of the day making sure the tools one expect's to use that day are sharp.
> ...


Would an artist be happy with pencils only sharpenable at dawn?
Getting back to reality - you do it as you go. If you do it freehand you hardly f**g notice it's like blowing your nose.


----------



## CStanford (5 Sep 2015)

Of course you do it as you go but you start the day clean. Nothing looks more ridiculous than to be surprised by a dull edge on the first board of the day.


----------



## D_W (5 Sep 2015)

woodbrains":3p077mgn said:


> Hello,
> 
> I like your thinking, but no! All things equal here, so no loss either way.
> 
> ...



The argument that there's some sort of time savings is a myth. 

If you sharpen your carbon steel iron the same way you'll sharpen a high speed steel iron, certainly that's longer than it would take to sharpen a carbon steel iron with a setup intended for carbon steel irons....and carving tools, and chisels, and marking knives. 

I used to buy into that, but it doesn't materialize. I don't think there's anything that lasts three times as long in wear as a decent vintage stanley iron, though maybe if you're planing MDF you could get M2 or M4 to do it. In real conditions with a medium hardwood, it might be twice for HSS. 

I'd like to see your sharpening start to finish on youtube with an iron that's already been honed twice since grinding. i'll compare it to mine and we'll see where we get. 

I don't really know what I could plane for 10 minutes. I'd have smoothed four large panels from try planed wood or more in that amount of time, but I'd do it with a stanley 4 (should I say, have done it). The bulk of time with work is jack and try plane, but they take a shaving so coarse that they will wear you out before you need to resharpen, even the softest iron you can find. 

I used to believe all of that stuff, but in reality I was just taking too many thin shavings to finish something. If you need to finish plane something 8 or 10 passes, then you should start with a very coarse smoother shaving, do it twice, and then take one finish shaving. If you have a highly alloyed iron that presents small chips, then the finish won't be suitable, it will have dozens of tiny lines in raking light, and now you have to scrape or sand. 

Take a look at the wear patterns on brent beach's site to see what I'm talking about (for the berg and the tsunesaburo and others, you might have to click on the articles to see the pictures). 

http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/bladetest.html

Compare the wear bevel on the carbon steel irons to what it looks like on A2, d2, etc. What made me put those down is that I couldn't get an acceptable finish surface with them after not much time without going to 35 degrees, which limits clearance a little more and means a smaller wear bevel before planing again. And then I was rewarded (modern stones or older) with more passes on the stones, which means more flattening of the stones, and less ability of the stones to cut the steel well because they load (for an example of what i'm talking about, try sharpening a mujingfang iron on a shapton finish stone - it will load the surface unless you slurry the stone. Now try carbon steel, it doesn't load the surface). 

The time advantages you're thinking you're getting only occur if it takes you a long time to sharpen. For me, from stopping cutting to starting again on any of my planes, it's less than two minutes. Whether I chase the burr with a strop or with jasper. But, look again at the wear pattern on the carbon steel - I can continue to finish a surface with a full wear bevel. With most of the diemaking steels, you cannot.


----------



## D_W (5 Sep 2015)

Jacob":1ci9zt7b said:


> D_W":1ci9zt7b said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":1ci9zt7b said:
> ...



You're preaching to the choir. Some people like that kind of thing, I like to do it when it's necessary and only keep one iron in nick as two of my three are clocked to the cap iron and I like to know their cutting edge is in line with the cap well. 

I understand in some cultures (especially japanese) that some of the craftsmen don't like to sharpen their tools on paid time because they don't want to be seen doing it, so they sharpen on breaks or before or after work. I think that's like hiding the fact that you put gas in a car, but that's their hang up and not mine. I figured maybe mentally Peters would've felt good if he did that outside of his work routine for some reason.


----------



## D_W (5 Sep 2015)

profchris":coiil16o said:


> This is a fascinating discussion, but almost completely unhelpful to my own woodworking. Faith-based assertions ("this is the only steel to use, and this the only way to sharpen it") don't convince, and methods which work for others often don't work for me (though all are worth a try).
> 
> My empirical findings, which I'm entirely prepared to abandon as I learn more, are:
> 
> ...



I'd like to have a guy like you in my shop for a few hours, I could point you in the right direction, and if you felt like trying an array of stuff you'd not find elsewhere just to see that it's novel but not necessary, I've certainly got it. It really doesn't make any difference what steel you use. I think the only folks who believe it does are those who haven't gotten enough wood to pass through the mouth of a plane yet. Those of us who either started (others) or ended (me) with the older stuff don't have anything against the notion that you can do good work with the modern stuff, it's the notion that you have any difference in results or time if you use modern stuff vs. old. 

If I am making something I haven't made before, the time is spent in figuring out how it will look, whether I'll need to make some tools, and carefully looking at whatever I'm making to make sure the design is nice (do I have nice crisp lines where I want them, do I have curves where I want them, have I broken some nasty rules such as having a flowing curve move into a dead straight line, etc). 

Sharpening is but a fart in the breeze, here and gone just like that.


----------



## MIGNAL (5 Sep 2015)

I have to agree. Not one single steel type will last 3 times longer than Carbon steel. It's not even anywhere close to that. HSS is just about the only steel that has a chance of even approaching that figure. I agree with DW, it _may_ last twice as long, it doesn't get as sharp (although sharp enough) and you'll have to put in some serious work to get it to sharp enough. My A2 examples are only very marginally longer lasting than my old Carbon steel blades.


----------



## CStanford (5 Sep 2015)

Very true but it's still shocking how many people think there is a large and tangible difference. There just isn't. I've been skewered on various forums more times than I care to remember for stating the same thing. Indeed kicked off a couple for confronting the actual manufacturer and telling them they were basically full of it. 

Some sort of psychology in play, not sure what it is. Power of suggestion, wanting to believe, needing to believe, not wanting to admit one made a bum purchase or recommendation. Don't know, but there is something other than actual performance of steel on wood that explains it. Of this, I'm sure.

The majority of the claims made defy logic (as Jacob so aptly points out) if not the laws of material physics. Improvements are marginal and likely only matter to large manufacturing concerns running cutting machinery continuously for sixteen hours a day. The differences are essentially unmeasurable and meaningless ('reviews' and attempts at quantification aside) for a guy pushing a hand plane over wood.

Again, this is news over which one should rejoice, not shuffle dirt with their feet.


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2015)

CStanford":rpeczm39 said:


> Very true but it's still shocking how many people think there is a large and tangible difference. There just isn't. I've been skewered on various forums more times than I care to remember for stating the same thing. Indeed kicked off a couple for confronting the actual manufacturer and telling them they were basically full of it.
> 
> Some sort of psychology in play, not sure what it is. Power of suggestion, wanting to believe, needing to believe, not wanting to admit one made a bum purchase or recommendation. Don't know, but there is something other than actual performance of steel on wood that explains it. Of this, I'm sure.
> 
> The majority of the claims made defy logic (as Jacob so aptly points out) if not the laws of material physics. Improvements are marginal and likely only matter to large manufacturing concerns running cutting machinery continuously for sixteen hours a day. The differences border on the unmeasurable and meaningless ('reviews' and attempts at quantification aside) for a guy pushing a hand plane over wood.


100%
Well 99% I still have a sneaking preference for a thin laminated old Stanley and I don't like retro thick ones much.


----------



## CStanford (5 Sep 2015)

Those laminated Stanley irons leave nothing to be desired when you get down to it. I'm always shocked when I hear of somebody sniffing the air at the mention of these old warriors, but plenty do just that.


----------



## D_W (5 Sep 2015)

CStanford":17s27kjp said:


> Those laminated Stanley irons leave nothing to be desired when you get down to it.



Ditto that. The earlier non laminated ones are even pretty good. They wear like those pictures show, giving a good surface all the way to the point that they stop cutting.


----------



## MIGNAL (5 Sep 2015)

CStanford":33y52oxb said:


> Very true but it's still shocking how many people think there is a large and tangible difference. There just isn't. I've been skewered on various forums more times than I care to remember for stating the same thing. Indeed kicked off a couple for confronting the actual manufacturer and telling them they were basically full of it.
> 
> Some sort of psychology in play, not sure what it is. Power of suggestion, wanting to believe, needing to believe, not wanting to admit one made a bum purchase or recommendation. Don't know, but there is something other than actual performance of steel on wood that explains it. Of this, I'm sure.
> 
> ...



I guess people like to hear of the 'new' and the revolutionary. Maybe it provides a bit of excitement and perhaps they gain comfort in being told that the latest offering is going to change their whole woodworking life. 
I've seen this sort of thing numerous times and it's not just confined to woodworking, believe me. 
Typically what happens is that this new product is reviewed. Everything tends to get exaggerated to an enormous extent. You read another review, that agrees with the first. Before you know it you've put your hand in your pocket and you are buying this exact same revolutionary new product that is going to change your life. 
It arrives. Amid all the excitement you lose a little sense of 'balance'. You too believe all the hype. It's real, you've just tried it! Gradually, over the next few days, the hype wears off a little. Then you start to compare it to your old, tired tool that's been doing the same work that it always has. Within a week or less you've hit the conclusion that the new tool is going to change. . . . absolutely fck all. 
It's all a terribly big let down. 
You can probably tell I've been through the same, and many times over!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Sep 2015)

+1 for the laminated Stanleys. I have a lovely old American No.8 - I'd didn't notice until I first ground the iron that it was laminated. I didn't notice the little heart and SW til I looked then.


----------



## CStanford (5 Sep 2015)

MIGNAL":b7drinil said:


> CStanford":b7drinil said:
> 
> 
> > Very true but it's still shocking how many people think there is a large and tangible difference. There just isn't. I've been skewered on various forums more times than I care to remember for stating the same thing. Indeed kicked off a couple for confronting the actual manufacturer and telling them they were basically full of it.
> ...



Yes, I think this nails it. I remember distinctly all the buzz about A2 and thinking back, and likely even looking back through various forums' archives, and with the benefit of hindsight one can see these exact phenomena in play.


----------



## CStanford (5 Sep 2015)

D_W":t0b6p27k said:


> CStanford":t0b6p27k said:
> 
> 
> > Those laminated Stanley irons leave nothing to be desired when you get down to it.
> ...



The progression from sharp to dull is a smooth one. There's never a time that one pass is great and the next just rips the board to shreds.


----------



## D_W (5 Sep 2015)

CStanford":2m69rhv4 said:


> D_W":2m69rhv4 said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":2m69rhv4 said:
> ...



The picture of the eskilstuna iron on beech's page is a thing of beauty - the wear is a black line with no jags. Stanley's pre-chrome irons aren't too far behind, perhaps a touch softer, but very consistent. the same properties make superb straight razors and knives. Not surprisingly.


----------



## CStanford (5 Sep 2015)

Very enlightening. Thanks.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Sep 2015)

I must get me some of those laminated Stanleys. Where did you say they were sold?

(I promised myself to stay out of this thread, but could not resist this .. . )

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (6 Sep 2015)

Gosh, you probably have some already. You should check. Don't you have a few vintage Stanley planes around?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Sep 2015)

Gosh, golly gee, Charlie .. my Stanleys did not. Should I contact the manufacturer for replacements?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (6 Sep 2015)

Record did laminated as well. They aren't marked in anyway I just happened to notice when I was sharpening - the line shows up if you grind on a belt sander, and you can see it along the edges too. I've no idea whether or not they were common.
Somewhat contradicts the stupid idea that thin Stanley blades are inferior and only done that way to save money.
Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it - it might set off a flurry of anxiety amongst the tool fetishists!


----------



## David C (6 Sep 2015)

Stanley also did HSS blades for Australia. I have one.

David


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Sep 2015)

David C":1mclb8lu said:


> Stanley also did HSS blades for Australia. I have one.
> 
> David



Hi David

Yes, they are highly prized. Last made (in Hobart, Tasmania) in the 60s, I think. Brent Beech rated them the best blades he ever used.

Academy Saws, in Sydney, made HSS blades for a while. These were also highly thought of.

I have a Mujingfang HSS blade in a #3. It was not made for Stanley planes (has the hole at the other end of the slot), but it fits and works ... very well.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Corneel (6 Sep 2015)

Tools from japan sells laminated replacement blades too for Stanley planes. Made by Tsunesaburo. Not cheap.

http://www.toolsfromjapan.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=339_514_546

I think they are made from a ready made bulk product also used for japanese kitchen knifes. So they aren't made one by one at the forge like some other Japanes blades are made, but as a large sheet with a laminated edge, which is then cut out. Stanley back in the day probably made them in a similar way.


----------



## CStanford (6 Sep 2015)

Stanley and Record both did HSS for Australia and New Zealand. I'll try to find the source but I'm sure I read that they were never all that popular. Of course, these irons do not account for the beautiful work from native species housed in Australian museums and private collections made well before HSS would have been available. They muddled through somehow.

Kunz still make HSS replacement irons that will fit and has provided these for years. Anybody in need of something more robust certainly has had this option for a few decades, at least, not accounting for the Stanley/Record HSS that might have been available in the vintage market.

Here's Kunz that will fit a No. 4 or No. 5:

http://www.pecktool.com/shop/50mm-2-hss ... lane-iron/

And scroll down at the link for HSS block plane irons.

Maybe we need to see a review of these irons, plus the ones Corneel linked to, vs. PM-VII and high end A2. 

Alas, I won't hold my breath.

If one is totally freaked about tearout whilst four-squaring some gnarly tropical species, Kunz make toothed blades you can drop in your bench plane then finish up with their HSS for your No. 4:

From England's own Workshop Heaven:

http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Kun ... lanes.html

Two Cherries USA has HSS that is a bit less expensive than the Kunz offering:

https://twocherriesusa.com/product/hss-cut-plane-iron/

Mujingfang make their planes with the option of HSS as well:

http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Muj ... lanes.html


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Sep 2015)

Hi Kees

I have one, I think ... mine is badged "Smoothcut". I have been led to believe that they are the same. Not HSS, rather a typical Japanese laminated blade. And very nice it is too. Same thickness as the Stanley blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (6 Sep 2015)

Yes, the description at the link he provided said it was a laminated iron, blue steel as a matter of fact.


----------



## MIGNAL (6 Sep 2015)

Axminster did the Japanese laminated Stanley replacement blades. I think I bought mine back in the mid '90's, so they've been making them for a while. It wasn't cheap even back then, the last time I saw them in Axminster I think they were around £50? 
Anyway, hard steel. The difference was noticeable when honing.


----------



## D_W (6 Sep 2015)

Corneel":apew5h1k said:


> Tools from japan sells laminated replacement blades too for Stanley planes. Made by Tsunesaburo. Not cheap.
> 
> http://www.toolsfromjapan.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=339_514_546
> 
> I think they are made from a ready made bulk product also used for japanese kitchen knifes. So they aren't made one by one at the forge like some other Japanes blades are made, but as a large sheet with a laminated edge, which is then cut out. Stanley back in the day probably made them in a similar way.



Yes, rikizai. Pre-laminated material that comes from the mill and looks like it's cut on a stamping machine. Someone in japan (not stu) mentioned to me that a lot of the lower priced plane irons that are called "hand forged" are rikizai material. It's still very good quality stuff and a good option for someone with synthetic stones who doesn't want to use a grinder. 

Same goes for the knives that are rikizai, they are super quality and should be relatively cheap. can't steel them, though.


----------



## CStanford (6 Sep 2015)

MIGNAL":2cqzbyor said:


> Axminster did the Japanese laminated Stanley replacement blades. I think I bought mine back in the mid '90's, so they've been making them for a while. It wasn't cheap even back then, the last time I saw them in Axminster I think they were around £50?
> Anyway, hard steel. The difference was noticeable when honing.



They still have them:

http://www.axminster.co.uk/japanese-lam ... ane-blades

Good Lord hardened to HRc 68, blue paper steel #2.

I see Axminster must have dropped their "Tools to Your Door" slogan and logo. I always sort of liked it.


----------



## MIGNAL (6 Sep 2015)

That's the one. It's an expensive blade. I can't remember how much I paid for mine. It was significantly more expensive than a normal Stanley blade but I don't think the difference was anywhere near what it is now. In other words the normal Stanley has probably risen with inflation, the Japanese laminate with inflation + quite a bit more.


----------



## Corneel (6 Sep 2015)

HRC 68 should be taken with a huge grain of salt! That would be magical steel again.

In pounds the Tsunsabur plane irons are about 28 pound, but add to that VAT, import tax and postage.


----------



## CStanford (6 Sep 2015)

I certainly did a double-take at the hardness level. The HSS irons I linked to are around 62 to 64 I think. Much more realistic.


----------



## CStanford (6 Sep 2015)

"Yes, rikizai. Pre-laminated material that comes from the mill and looks like it's cut on a stamping machine. Someone in japan (not stu) mentioned to me that a lot of the lower priced plane irons that are called "hand forged" are rikizai material."

Have to love their marketing moxie, if nothing else. Maybe somebody's hands touched the material at some point in the industrial process.


----------



## bugbear (6 Sep 2015)

Long ago (mid 90s), Axminster offered a hard Japanese laminated blade called "Smoothcut" (NOT Samurai) which was rather cheap (only twice the price of Stanley "cheese" blade of the period).

I bought one, and it's been superb.

EDIT;

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

BugBear


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (7 Sep 2015)

bugbear":228fmdd5 said:


> Long ago (mid 90s), Axminster offered a hard Japanese laminated blade called "Smoothcut" (NOT Samurai) which was rather cheap (only twice the price of Stanley "cheese" blade of the period).
> 
> I bought one, and it's been superb.
> 
> ...



Hi BB

It is interesting how long "improvements" have been made with just an upgrade in blade. Clearly not about using the chip breaker since there is mention of very fine shavings. Very fine shavings have long been the measure of a well tuned plane, and the harder Holtey and Hock blades helped in that regard, and have done so for 15+ years, according to Old Tools discussions. Longer planing sessions are also highly prized.

Regard from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (7 Sep 2015)

I think there's a huge element of the fisherman's tale with regard to long planing sessions and being put out about stopping to hone. Some guys look as if they need to stop for nitroglycerine, if not a honing break. 

For some reason my wife thought this needed to be memorialized. Probably thought I'd die, or something. Earlier in the summer. 105+ degree heat index, four straight hours of four-squaring at this point (NOT a fisherman's tale). I stopped for a rest on a rolling parts cart that's in the shop. Marples jack in hand. Oil lamp burning citronella to ward of mosquitoes. Honing breaks were welcome, though the old Marples didn't need all that many believe me:







Sweatshirt to keep sweat from running down my arms to the tool and wood. You're looking at a tired puppy who couldn't care less about edges that go off too soon. I wish the Marples went off faster. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for little fairies that flit around bitc*ing about planes getting dull too fast. I got a six mile run in later that evening in about 43 minutes. Not bad for a 54 year old with bad knees.


----------



## CStanford (7 Sep 2015)

On a less severe note, my daughter got her first public library card today. Here is a picture of her with it and the first book she ever checked out under her own name. I built the mantel she's standing in front of (I'll post better pictures of it sometime soon):


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (7 Sep 2015)

Charles, you look exhausted. I feel for you. Perth in summer is dry but very hot (40 Centigrade most days mid December through February). My wife has been pushing me to get air con in the garage/workshop, which is sensible as it is difficult to last longer than a hour at a time before taking a break.

Your daughter is cute and gorgeous. You are a lucky man. That's what it is all about.

Oh, and the mantle looks excellent. I would like a close up.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (7 Sep 2015)

CStanford":2uv81ewb said:


> I certainly did a double-take at the hardness level. The HSS irons I linked to are around 62 to 64 I think. Much more realistic.



I had one of those irons, and when I went to oilstones, I sent it out with a millers falls plane. I'm sure someone is either enjoying it or in possession of it rusting. 

I don't think it was hardness 68, but it was definitely too hard for oilstones unless ground to only a feather of bevel. Certainly wouldn't have done initial back flattening with oilstones. 

Shame they're they equivalent of $90 or whatever in the UK. They cost about $40 to get directly from stu and they're an interesting novelty in that they last like hard alloyed steel but wear like carbon steel. 

The convenience of oilstones wins out, though.


----------



## Corneel (7 Sep 2015)

Hey Charly, you look charming in that picture  

I agree wholeheartedly. When doing a lot of planing, the longvity of the edge is the least of your worries. Most of the work is in the foreplane stage, and they can keep on going with sub-sharp blades anyway. Maybe doing big boards of silica rich wood would change my opinion, I don't know. In my shop the only instance when I would like a longer lasting blade is when doing a large amount of engrain work, for example smoothing out a coarsly sawn large and thick table top. But that doesn't happen too often, so I don't mind to sharpen an extra time or two.


----------



## G S Haydon (7 Sep 2015)

Nice couple of photos Charles.


----------



## MIGNAL (7 Sep 2015)

bugbear":1kdvzj51 said:


> Long ago (mid 90s), Axminster offered a hard Japanese laminated blade called "Smoothcut" (NOT Samurai) which was rather cheap (only twice the price of Stanley "cheese" blade of the period).
> 
> I bought one, and it's been superb.
> 
> ...



I think that must have been the one I bought. It was about the same period, mid 90's. 
I later sold it to a friend. I didn't get on with it as I found it difficult to sharpen. Of course I'd have a much better chance now, especially given the number of different stones that I have. Back then I only had a Smiths Arkansas as a fine stone and that seemed to cut very slowly. I still have the Arkansas. I should have sold the Arkansas and kept the blade!


----------



## Bluekingfisher (8 Sep 2015)

View attachment 11703184


Sweatshirt to keep sweat from running down my arms to the tool and wood. You're looking at a tired puppy who couldn't care less about edges that go off too soon. I wish the Marples went off faster. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for little fairies that flit around bitc*ing about planes getting dull too fast. I got a six mile run in later that evening in about 43 minutes. Not bad for a 54 year old with bad knees.[/quote]

Hmmmm........ 'mad dogs and Englishmen'


----------



## CStanford (8 Sep 2015)

I'm going to start a blog called "The Ugly Woodworker" with the subtitle "I've outlived my usefulness" 

Probably the only thing I've written on a woodworking forum in years that all can agree on...


----------



## CStanford (8 Sep 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Charles, you look exhausted. I feel for you. Perth in summer is dry but very hot (40 Centigrade most days mid December through February). My wife has been pushing me to get air con in the garage/workshop, which is sensible as it is difficult to last longer than a hour at a time before taking a break.
> 
> Your daughter is cute and gorgeous. You are a lucky man. That's what it is all about.
> 
> ...



The woodworking was the easy part. I did the tile too. It's some sort of special stuff my wife had made. Photos don't do it justice, it has a very low-key iridescent quality. I honestly can't remember what it's called but there is a term for it. Early dementia, I fear.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (10 Sep 2015)

Charles, you need to find a "cool" hobby for the summer months. We have the odd day in the UK when the temp hits the 80's, we even made it to the magical 100 about 15 years ago. How you can work in regular 105 degrees is beyond me.

My blood would literally be boiling in that heat and so things would be flying across the wshop, (with a few oaths thrown in for good measure) not an enjoyable experience...................and then to go for a run :?: :wink:


----------



## CStanford (10 Sep 2015)

I did a lot less this summer than I usually do. The heat has broken here, will be below 90* for the next several days so I plan to get busy again.

I may be in a position to build a small shop over the next several months which will definitely be air conditioned!


----------



## Bluekingfisher (10 Sep 2015)

CStanford":h43a7s73 said:


> I did a lot less this summer than I usually do. The heat has broken here, will be below 90* for the next several days so I plan to get busy again.
> 
> I may be in a position to build a small shop over the next several months which will definitely be air conditioned!



....................You consider 90* tolerable?

Mind you, I sweat in a hail storm


----------



## CStanford (10 Sep 2015)

Yep. 

We usually have four to six weeks of weather with heat indexes over 100* which usually means the temp is at least 95* We have had summers with over 20 days temps at or over 100* and the heat indexes at 110* or higher. People die here from the heat. During these bad heat spells the *lows *for the day were 80* to 85*

The winters here feel very cold too because of the high humidity. Memphis has higher humidity and more rainfall (54"a year on average) than most places in Great Britain.

You cannot imagine what it feels like to have a rainshower in the middle of the day then the temp climbs back up into the high 90s. Stifling doesn't begin to describe it.

I usually just go in and fix a gin and tonic or a big glass of white wine and say to hell with it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Sep 2015)

54" p. a. ? Desert conditions.


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2015)

phil.p":11696o4c said:


> 54" p. a. ? Desert conditions.


Here yer go http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ ... ualmonthly


----------



## Bluekingfisher (10 Sep 2015)

Wow - Do you ever have nice weather in TN? seems like if you are not stewing, you are developing webbed feet.

Perhaps it's something you can acclimatise to? at least you have the right remedy .......served and drunk from a tall glass.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (10 Sep 2015)

CStanford":kyak9fv7 said:


> You cannot imagine what it feels like to have a rainshower in the middle of the day then the temp climbs back up into the high 90s. Stifling doesn't begin to describe it.


I don't need to imagine it. Ten years of living in Houston, Texas gave me a pretty good idea of how challenging it can be to work in high heat and humidity. April to October/ November were hellish: October to March usually pretty pleasant. I haven't missed the Houston summer weather at all now that I'm living back in the UK, but I do sometimes miss the vibrant arts and crafts scenes, the frequent dynamism people displayed in their ventures, and the similarly frequent generosity of people's spirit. Slainte.


----------



## CStanford (10 Sep 2015)

Fall can be really gorgeous, some days in spring too but it heats up pretty quickly.

Houston is as bad or worse though I think Memphis' raw temps in summer are hotter because we're landlocked. 

Cotton grows well and so do mosquitoes.


----------



## D_W (11 Sep 2015)

Been to houston exactly once, the woodlands at a training conference. It was 101, 100, 99, 101, 103 while I was there. The dewpoint was in the low 80s, which is extremely uncommon, even for houston. It was awful. Driving range with premium loaner clubs was complimentary (better clubs than I'd ever buy), and the heat caused me to become sick after hitting balls for about 45 minutes. 

They had attendants driving carts around looking for people who couldn't handle the heat. 

Air conditioning in the hotels was a dry 78 degrees. I've never felt such a cold sensation at 78 degrees. 

Meanwhile there were plenty of men from south of the border working construction outside of the hotel in jeans, boots, hard hats and long sleeve shirts. I admired their toughness and heat tolerance. 

In my youth, I worked many days outside in the mid to high 90s with high humidity, some farm work (and much hotter than that in the barn) and some contract mowing government land (a lot of that work was on foot). Something happens once you're in an office for a while, those things seem impossible without substantial breaks (we took breaks no more often than every two hours on any of those jobs).


----------



## Bluekingfisher (11 Sep 2015)

My sister lived in the States (VA) for 4 years while her husband was seconded with the military. Although she thoroughly enjoyed her time out there the two issues which she considered uncomfortable and precluded a permanent stay was, 1. The prolonged heat and 2. Unbelievably high health insurance costs. 

Perhaps the NHS isn't that bad afterall?

David


----------



## MIGNAL (11 Sep 2015)

The US spends about 17 % of it's GDP. on health. The UK around 9.5%, a little lower than that economic powerhouse known as Portugal!


----------



## Bluekingfisher (11 Sep 2015)

MIGNAL":s9n8t7b2 said:


> The US spends about 17 % of it's GDP. on health. The UK around 9.5%, a little lower than that economic powerhouse known as Portugal!



Surely not a snipe at our beloved institution?


----------



## MIGNAL (11 Sep 2015)

No. Just giving the stats on health spending and counteracting the notion that we spend huge amounts on health. We do but so does everyone else!


----------



## Bluekingfisher (11 Sep 2015)

Totally in agreement, however the point I was highlighting was the additional and high cost of health care in the States for those willing or able to pay for it which is of course voluntary. However, I am sure we have all (at least in the UK) heard one or two horror stories of the often huge fees for medical care in the US. 

For example, my wife many years ago while a student came down with an almost fatal illness while on holiday in the US (just bad luck and nothing to do with the US I might add). The illness was so serious she had to be flown to another part of the States to undergo the treatment. While lying on a gurney on the runway in a state of delerium she can only recall waiting for a period of time while the authorities established the level of her health insurance cover. God only knows how it would have turned out had she not had the foresight to ensure all her correspondence were in order.

I also have a good friend in IA, he once wrote to tell me he had considered himself lucky, he managed to acquire two hearing aids ( two for the price of one) for $7K. bargain!

Charles (if he has an interest) may be able to outline the situation re health care costs in the US. 

Our system is not perfect partly because it has far out grown the initial plan and needs to be revamped for it to continue, IMOHO.

David


----------



## D_W (11 Sep 2015)

Bluekingfisher":3cf9osbe said:


> My sister lived in the States (VA) for 4 years while her husband was seconded with the military. Although she thoroughly enjoyed her time out there the two issues which she considered uncomfortable and precluded a permanent stay was, 1. The prolonged heat and 2. Unbelievably high health insurance costs.
> 
> Perhaps the NHS isn't that bad afterall?
> 
> David



If you're in an urban area and you need advanced care, our system is better than most national systems. If you need routine work done and you want it done with parsimony, it's not so good for that, and I'm sure that it's regular practice in the US for - especially specialists - to review insurance coverages and let the work follow the money trail. 

I'm not that big of a frequenter of health care, I'd personally rather have a lower cost system and allow people to pay out of pocket if they want care above and beyond the standardized level. If you can't pay in the US and are destitute, you'll eventually get care (perhaps sooner that eventually implies), but you have to jump through hoops to get it. If you have assets and no coverage and you get sick, you'll soon have no assets. Point being ducking in and out of the job market if you'd like is a much more difficult thing here because coverage is usually attached to your job.


----------



## D_W (11 Sep 2015)

Bluekingfisher":3igdg3r0 said:


> For example, my wife many years ago while a student came down with an almost fatal illness while on holiday in the US (just bad luck and nothing to do with the US I might add). The illness was so serious she had to be flown to another part of the States to undergo the treatment. While lying on a gurney on the runway in a state of delerium she can only recall waiting for a period of time while the authorities established the level of her health insurance cover. God only knows how it would have turned out had she not had the foresight to ensure all her correspondence were in order.



There are definitely instances where the amount of care provided is dependent on whether or not there is insurance coverage. My daughter fell down the steps at her grandparents' house while we were visiting there and got concussed. When we took her to the emergency room, she was nearly fine by then, but they wanted to examine her. I heard the nurses say the same thing "they said to keep her two more hours if she has coverage, otherwise send them home". 

There was fairly little activity in the ER that day, and ER coverage is something in the states that we have at a fairly low cost - it's what happens after the initial emergency is over that costs money. They scanned my daughter's head, at the last second, with a portable x ray device or something that looked like a notebook computer. I thought, is that really necessary? Sure enough, when I got the bill, they charged us $700 for the scan, which they are only supposed to do if it's non-emergency care. Insurance was going to pay for it, but I fought it anyway, on principle. The hospital said that they scanned my daughter twice, once in emergency and once as an inpatient, but they didn't do that, and they eventually relented. I think most people would allow the charge to go through, and that's part of the problem here - that kind of stuff happens most of the time and the bills can be difficult to remember by the time you get them.


----------



## D_W (11 Sep 2015)

Bluekingfisher":curumwwv said:


> Our system is not perfect partly because it has far out grown the initial plan and needs to be revamped for it to continue, IMOHO.



Seems to be the case for many. Ours (in the US) certainly. It's grown on its own like a weedy garden, and nobody ever trimmed out the undesirable parts.


----------



## Jacob (11 Sep 2015)

There's a strong tendency to criticise the NHS - encouraged by the right as they run it down, employ more wasteful management and sell it off. 
But it's still amazingly cost effective and one of the best in the world. 
The USA system sounds appalling - unless you have loadsa dosh. Even insurance can catch you out with the small print or if there's a hiccup like late payment or job change


----------



## D_W (11 Sep 2015)

Jacob":14luv61y said:


> The USA system sounds appalling - unless you have loadsa dosh. Even insurance can catch you out with the small print or if there's a hiccup like late payment or job change



The trouble with most and their insurance is they don't make any effort to know what's in it until after they've already run up charges. It's sort of like buying a citroen 2cv, and then criticizing when you find you don't have something equivalent to a lexus. 

In reality, most over here with good work coverage sail through health issues, insurance pays most, we pay the balance, service is fast and more thorough than it probably needs to be and there are a gaggle of customer service or concierge services that go with it. The worst cases of people who don't have things lined up well or where someone makes mistakes and it falls back to the patient are the ones that tend to make TV coverage. 

Clickbait. And certainly there are gaps for large groups of people who are under covered or who have no coverage or who make no effort to understand what they have. That's part of the issue with the disparity in our system between the payers and the folks who don't want to pay or who can't pay.

The Canadian president of a health and benefits consulting firm where I used to work always said to us about the US system "best health care in the world if you can pay for the best. If you can't, you're better off in canada or europe". I'm sure most of our specialist physicians are happy here, they can make a ton of money, as well as the folks who sell medical equipment of the complex type (like laser surgery machines, etc). Everyone else is scratching for pennies (rank and file hospital staff, the hospitals themselves, etc). Physicians control the flow of patients so hospitals do whatever they can to keep them happy, and they recruit physicians from each other all the time. The rank and file employees only get attention for a short bit of time if there's an extreme shortage. Many of the lower rank and file are paid abysmally. 

I personally ascribe to the notion that I'm not going to live in fear of morbidity or mortality. There's a lot of fear mongering with health care, here and overseas, and too many stories about it are just clickbait to generate ad revenue.


----------



## CStanford (11 Sep 2015)

We're (the whole family) insured through my wife's employer. Costs us about $800 a month. We can go to any doctor, any time, no need for referrals, waits, etc. I was diagnosed with torn cartilage a few years ago on a Monday and was in surgery on Wednesday. Had is been a sudden injury (it wasn't) like a high school football injury or something like that they would have gone ahead and admitted me and probably operated within 24 hours. They could have done it on Tuesday if I'd wanted to. And this was one of the leading orthopedic surgery groups in the South. Sounds like a lot of money until you get sick then it's peanuts. When my wife had our daughter I think our out-of-pocket expense was $50. She had her at the best all-women's hospital in town (beautiful really), fully private room, just unbelievable care. She had to be induced and there was a point in time that the baby's heart rate dropped and the room filled up with neonatal doctors (three of them; one a neonatal heart surgeon) and two neonatal surgical nurses. Everything turned out fine, but the care we got was just stunning. At that moment, of course, I would have spent any amount of money to have the doctors in the room that needed to be there. When you think about your newborn maybe having to be rushed in for heart surgery I promise you don't begrudge a dollar these guys make. Hell, I hoped the guy was earning $10MM a year (probably not far from it), and not some overworked, bitter quack. Turned out he was a Harvard and Johns Hopkins trained physician and had done his surgical residency at Boston Children's all of which is about as good as it gets over here.

My 88 year old mother who lives with us is on Medicare (with a supplement that costs very little) and her care is as good or better. Her Medicare premiums are less than a $2000 a year and are netted against her Social Security income. It's seamless. Her primary care physician is a board certified Gerontologist and he is just an incredible doctor. She had cataract surgery on both eyes about three years ago, all under the auspices of Medicare, with no copays or any out-of-pocket at all. All done in a top-notch facility by a great doctor.


----------



## Jacob (11 Sep 2015)

D_W":1ol2w3gt said:


> ..
> In reality, most over here with good work coverage sail through health issues,......


That's what is known as a "self evident truth".
It's the one's who don't have "good work coverage" who test the system.
In the UK and the EU EVERYBODY gets first class health care whether or not they are insured. Insurance or private care buys a few frills but not much else.
It's just so much cheaper and efficient this way - we spend far less on health than the USA and get a much better service.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Sep 2015)

It's OK, Jeremy, you've probably won. You can stop now.


----------



## Jacob (11 Sep 2015)

phil.p":2lqatzmc said:


> It's OK, Jeremy, you've probably won. You can stop now.


I'm flattered by the "Jeremy" :lol: :lol:

But you have to keep banging on - another subject but how do you persuade yanks of another self evident truth: that fewer guns means fewer gun fatalities?


----------



## D_W (11 Sep 2015)

Jacob":cbtishy7 said:


> D_W":cbtishy7 said:
> 
> 
> > ..
> ...



I know enough people who moved from England to here to know that the quality and speed of care there isn't quite up to par with first rate care here. 

But you're right about the people who don't have coverage here, they're in a bind.

Personally, I'd settle for the English system without complaint, but it's not a choice here.


----------



## MIGNAL (12 Sep 2015)

It may surprise some to know that there are more GP's per 100,000 population in the UK than in the US. 
You would also expect a certain standard of health care in the US (generally speaking). If a country is spending some 17.5% of it's GDP on health it should have a good standard of health care. It would be ridiculous if it wasn't. You really do have to understand just how much is being spent. There's no comparison. 17.5% is far higher than any other advanced industrialised country. I think Germany comes in at around 11% of GDP iirc. Even a 1 % difference of GDP is an awful lot of money.


----------



## custard (12 Sep 2015)

D_W":3g1ogj4f said:


> But you're right about the people who don't have coverage here, they're in a bind.



It's an interesting point. I used to work in the US where I spoke to some very talented and enthusiastic hobbyist woodworkers who said they'd love to make the move to full time, professional furniture maker, but the one thing stopping them was that they'd lose their health cover. I also heard an American musical instrument maker say that the reason there were so many independent instrument makers in the UK was that the safety net of free health care allowed them to take that chance.

Maybe Obamacare will unleash a flood of creative talent by enabling woodworkers to transition to full time makers?


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (12 Sep 2015)

Our health care is fine if you cut yourself with old fashioned O1 steel, but cut yourself with PMV11 and you need more advanced care


----------



## Jacob (12 Sep 2015)

custard":39g9ux6x said:


> D_W":39g9ux6x said:
> 
> 
> > But you're right about the people who don't have coverage here, they're in a bind.
> ...


CStanfords $800 per month would be beyond many one man start-ups. 
Is being enslaved by health-care concerns the reason Americans don't take holidays and work longer hours than in the EU? Slavery is not dead yet!


----------



## MIGNAL (12 Sep 2015)

custard":mzhg66cd said:


> D_W":mzhg66cd said:
> 
> 
> > But you're right about the people who don't have coverage here, they're in a bind.
> ...



There aren't many independent instrument makers in the UK. There are a few who can call it a full time occupation, for the rest it's a part time income supplemented by other means. I would go so far to say that the UK and the US has around the same number of full time makers, taking into account population differences. The market in the US is a bit more healthier (cough) for higher end instruments. No different to hand tools. I'll take a guess and say that for Philly the US is one of the better places to sell Planes. I suppose it comes down to disposable income and the US has a certain proportion of it's population that has enough of that disposable income.


----------



## custard (12 Sep 2015)

MIGNAL":2s8mbkox said:


> I suppose it comes down to disposable income and the US has a certain proportion of it's population that has enough of that disposable income.



I'm a full time furniture maker, pretty much all of my clients are either very wealthy or it's corporate business. I think it's always been that way, it didn't take the Arts & Crafts movement long to realise that they were only selling to their well-off chums, and the ideal of well-made furniture for the common man was just a pipe dream. In that respect the real winners were the modernist movement who grasped that marrying great design to industrial production was the way forward.

I pretty much accept all that as a given. But what really interests me is that only a tiny fraction of the UK households that can afford hand crafted furniture actually ever commission any. So it's not just money that's restricting the opportunities for designer/makers, there are many other factors at play.

When I was there I did sense (without a shred of quantified evidence!) that in the US there was a slightly greater willingness amongst wealthier households to take a chance on commissioned furniture and original design. I suspect that the real issue is the "original design" part of the equation, and that the moneyed UK client is just that bit more cautious.


----------



## CStanford (12 Sep 2015)

Jacob":2gm0xle3 said:


> custard":2gm0xle3 said:
> 
> 
> > D_W":2gm0xle3 said:
> ...



Dunno Jacob. My wife is a school teacher and gets tons of time off. I get more than I'd like to have when the work dries up. 

Pretty much standard corporate vacation policy (vacation time is in no way a federal mandate) is three weeks after about as many years' service and it goes up from there depending on the company. Otherwise, usually one week in the first year though better companies will go two weeks in the first year. Senior executives will usually negotiate more on the front end when changing jobs. If you job hop a lot you're shooting yourself in the foot with respect to your vacation time. You do have to earn it over here by staying on board with a company (unless you are a very highly placed executive). It isn't given to you except as an award for years of service. Most people I know take their vacation time. And that was my experience in the corporate world as well with FedEx and International Paper.

Private insurance costs are now subsidized under 'ObamaCare' (the Affordable Care Act), your income level determines how much you have to pay out of pocket. Some people pay virtually nothing or a very nominal amount. My family is not eligible for the subsidy. If you are able to afford the coverage you have to pay for it yourself. If you don't carry coverage, you're penalized on your tax return (with a few exceptions). If I were single and just starting out I would likely have to pay nothing for full coverage.

Because of the subsidy, there is theoretically no reason anybody should be without coverage and indeed if you do go without it for some reason you have to pay the aforementioned penalty (essentially a tax) when you file your annual income tax return. Some people, inexplicably, are not taking advantage of the program even when they would have to pay little or nothing at all. There is no logical reason for this other than some sort of social conditioning.

As in all countries that do this or something similar, the actuarial mathematics require essentially full participation, especially by younger insureds. This is especially crucial under the ObamaCare mechanism.


----------



## D_W (12 Sep 2015)

MIGNAL":37kz981k said:


> It may surprise some to know that there are more GP's per 100,000 population in the UK than in the US.
> You would also expect a certain standard of health care in the US (generally speaking). If a country is spending some 17.5% of it's GDP on health it should have a good standard of health care. It would be ridiculous if it wasn't. You really do have to understand just how much is being spent. There's no comparison. 17.5% is far higher than any other advanced industrialised country. I think Germany comes in at around 11% of GDP iirc. Even a 1 % difference of GDP is an awful lot of money.



I don't know how the system works in the UK, but I'd imagine the difference for the supply of GPs has to do with compensation levels being flatter there. It's not unheard of here for a GP to make $200k and a specialist to make closer to $1 million (some make more than that, though it's certainly not the majority). 

In the US, you can see a specialist without a reference, so people tend to go to a GP when they have a cold or something, or when they don't know what to do, but not for everything. 

I agree it's a horrible amount of money, and it's not a market making an educated decision, and that's part of the problem. The English few that I know that have lived here for a while expect something of the same level of spending when they go back to the UK, and they complain that the care doesn't move as fast as they'd like and facilities and equipment are outdated. (that's compared to here. I doubt I personally would think any of it's outdated). 

When I walk into a community hospital here and they literally upgrade everything all the time and the facilities every decade and a half get completely revamped, I think "I'm paying for this remodeling, and i'm only here for a couple of hours. It doesn't need to look like the inside of a brand new high end mall if I have the paying choice". Colleges here have much the same problem, there is a lot of contest spending on status.


----------



## MIGNAL (12 Sep 2015)

I don't know. In the last 15 years they have built a huge amount of health infrastructure. Every single one of my old GP centres have gone (3 of them). They have all been replaced with these very new looking medical centres, built from the ground up. Some are like mini hospitals. In fact they do small run of the mill procedures that never existed under the old system. I think it's pretty much the same throughout the whole country. Unfortunately they paid for this through private funding, which has now turned out to be a huge burden. It was all predicted of course. 
The only other experience I've had was going through the doughnut. That looked pretty brand spanking new to me. Either that or they had given it a good wash.


----------



## D_W (12 Sep 2015)

custard":2ntr82yb said:


> Maybe Obamacare will unleash a flood of creative talent by enabling woodworkers to transition to full time makers?



It could, but I doubt it. Not because there isn't maker desire, but because there isn't much desire in the US on a widespread basis for more than house upgrades or remodeling. Furniture and other such stuff here is consumables to most, to be replaced when it gets dented or when a color change is desired. You're absolutely correct that the sentiment of not having basic needs taken care of without being destitute - that drives people to search for jobs that have coverage and not purchase on the individual market. That said, a young individual in the US can still purchase coverage inexpensively on their own, but some of the law's changes shifted older peoples' costs to younger people. Still, insurance for younger healthy folks is much less than the average. Maybe $250 a month or something, which is probably not far off of the tax burden difference between here and there. 

The other thing (and maybe it exists there, too) is that as soon as you start a small business, you have to pay both sides of the social security tax here (which is significant) and you have a whole gaggle of payroll and tax related things to overcome. It seems like the lazy (who are more likely to skip doing that and wait to see if they get in trouble) are more likely to go take a shot at a dream. 

The established makers usually get hooked up with a museum (either by salary or by business arrangement for reconditioning or repair of museum pieces) or a school, and they probably spend a lot more time repairing and teaching than they do making things from scratch. Charlie would know more about modern furniture, I don't know anything about what the market for that stuff is like, other than to notice that when it does pop up in the artsy fartsy areas around here that have a lot of old money, there still seems to be quite a bit of turnover in makers. 

George Wilson, Peter Ross and those types are a good example of the makers here - extremely talented - but worked in a museum environment and did what interested them on the side. I think I can convince George to post here. He is the finest and most capable maker I have ever met. 

I do know a few other makers (and I feel impolite to say this) who are not very good, and inevitably move to teaching beginners classes here and they can do so because they have a wife with a professional occupation. At the retail level for a guy like me, I could probably work my planes up a notch or two in finish to sell them but it wouldn't be worth the trouble and I hate trying to convince people they should see value in something I do - because I hate it when other people do it to me. Charlie sells some furniture on etsy, and some other stuff, maybe he can describe the market for it here. Tax work probably pays better and finds a check faster.

What we do have is kitschy craft shows here that are a combination of inexpensive stuff (my mother does those...and very well money-wise), and ridiculously priced things like $40 pens made from kits or very good quality turnings, but with offensive prices. There's just not a good widespread craft segment here. 

At any way, the health care thing doesn't help any of that - the idea that you can go out and make yourself an amount of money to get by on food until you get established and live in your maker's space is usually illegal (the latter part) and if it's not, your maker's space will be in a residential area where you have no exposure.


----------



## D_W (12 Sep 2015)

MIGNAL":5no1u09h said:


> I don't know. In the last 15 years they have built a huge amount of health infrastructure. Every single one of my old GP centres have gone (3 of them). They have all been replaced with these very new looking medical centres, built from the ground up. Some are like mini hospitals. In fact they do small run of the mill procedures that never existed under the old system. I think it's pretty much the same throughout the whole country. Unfortunately they paid for this through private funding, which has now turned out to be a huge burden. It was all predicted of course.
> The only other experience I've had was going through the doughnut. That looked pretty brand spanking new to me. Either that or they had given it a good wash.



Trust me, if they did the building they do here, it wouldn't be for 10 or 11% of GDP. It's completely out of control here, and hospital mergers to acquire more cash and do more building and modernizing, even in rural areas, is picking up in order to control patient flow in insurance networks. Completely out of control.


----------



## D_W (12 Sep 2015)

Paddy Roxburgh":hcvi9bit said:


> Our health care is fine if you cut yourself with old fashioned O1 steel, but cut yourself with PMV11 and you need more advanced care



You have to have provincial canadian care, because what's in it is a secret only known in canada.


----------



## CStanford (12 Sep 2015)

The market for custom furniture and cabinetry is mostly local so it's difficult to make broad inferences. The notion of a craftsman/artist building whatever he or she pleases and there being an adoring market awaiting each piece is largely mythical though there are some obvious exceptions. If that's the metric then so few meet it that comparisons become meaningless I think. Krenov got to that point but was so deliberate in his work he still couldn't make a living without the woodworking school. I don't think this invalidates his artistic bona fides. It just is what it is. And the market for period reproductions of even the highest quality is essentially gone, again, with the exception of local pockets of activity mostly in the Northeast. 

This architect is the older brother of a girl I dated in college:

http://johnjonesarchitect.com/hillstone/

The interior fitments and woodworking were done impeccably by this Memphis firm:

http://www.oldcitymillwork.com/residential.html

Almost every piece of furniture in the home itself excluding fully upholstered items (first link) was custom made by a certain local craftsman (not me unfortunately) though I think the cabinet/joinery firm did do a couple of the standalone pieces. Fairly easy furnituremaking, but a lot of it. I can't imagine somebody not being super happy to have this work though the pieces themselves don't set one's portfolio afire. The ability to handle a large commission, however, speaks to other talents and critical mass of an actual furnituremaking business. These sorts of commissions tend to beget others if the group works together harmoniously -- architect, joinery/cabinet firm, and furnituremaker.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (12 Sep 2015)

Australia is essentially a socialist society insofar as the social benefits are huge - unemployment benefits, Medicare, free state housing, benefits for students, etc etc. Taxation is high to cover all this. 45% of my income goes in tax. On top of this there is 2% for Medicare on the taxable income. Private health care is needed if you want prompt attention. The medical services are excellent but costly. 

The health system is changing around Australia, and moving to centralised management. The bean counters have moved in and have new theories about keeping costs down. Strangely, this has not happened! :shock: I am so relieved that I left the Health Department (17 years ago) and moved into private practice. Many of my colleagues live by the month not knowing if they will have a job after that.

Here in Perth a couple of new hospitals have gone up. One was budgeted at $2 billion, and ran $300K over. By the time it was complete, the equipment was out of date, such as air filters, and many wards remained empty because they no longer met standards. Interestingly, there was one point in time when the only people employed are the administrators as there was no funds left for the medical staff.  

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (12 Sep 2015)

Ours haven't gotten that bad yet. We still have private for-profit hospitals the notion of which some people abhor but I think is good. I mentioned the hospital my wife had our child in. Well, the competing hospital corporation in town built their own version of a women's hospital to an even higher standard, so now the other one is upgrading. On the micro level, this is good for patients. There is really brisk competition for a woman to have her baby in one or the other. Obamacare could and probably will put somewhat of a damper on all of this. Most of these wheels were in motion before it was firmly implemented.

The highest marginal tax rate in the U.S. is 39.6% for *taxable* income over $413,200. Ours is a graduated bracket so dollars are taxed at different rates depending on one's taxable income. Your first $10,000 of taxable income (roughly) is taxed at 10%, the lowest rate in the bracket regime.


----------



## D_W (12 Sep 2015)

I wonder what it would take to get this back to plane iron discussions. Or if we're done with that.


----------



## Jacob (12 Sep 2015)

CStanford":9ar79hgo said:


> Ours haven't gotten that bad yet. We still have private for-profit hospitals the notion of which some people abhor but I think is good. I mentioned the hospital my wife had our child in. Well, the competing hospital corporation in town built their own version of a women's hospital to an even higher standard, so now the other one is upgrading. On the micro level, this is good for patients. There is really brisk competition for a woman to have her baby in one or the other. Obamacare could and probably will put somewhat of a damper on all of this. Most of these wheels were in motion before it was firmly implemented.


There has been an attempt to introduce competition into public services in Britain but it's been a dismal failure across the board - inefficient, wasteful and expensive. Public opinion is turning and there is a lot of pressure for re-nationalisation and other forms of rationalisation with control firm back with the people/state. 
Oddly enough the big sell-off didn't exclude foreign _nationalised_ industries and large sectors are now run by them - EDF etc.


----------



## CStanford (12 Sep 2015)

Pretty hard to set up competition in health care in less than a couple decades I would think.


----------



## CStanford (12 Sep 2015)

D_W":kdsecl8l said:


> I wonder what it would take to get this back to plane iron discussions. Or if we're done with that.



Don't know how much there's left to say David. The best high carbon steel Japanese irons,chisels, etc. pretty much put everything else to shame in most people's reviews. The problem with the super steels is in the sharpening and the initial quality of the edge. All the usual trade-offs are still very much in play. Nobody has yet to overcome molecular physics, again, as Jacob so aptly pointed out much earlier in the thread.

Maybe this will get it back on track.... :wink:


----------



## AndyT (12 Sep 2015)

D_W":1pye6d03 said:


> I wonder what it would take to get this back to plane iron discussions. Or if we're done with that.



I think it's going for some sort of record for the longest, most off-topic ramble yet seen.
And why not?
I for one am quite impressed by the way it has skirted round controversial areas but remained reasonably factual and well mannered.

How's your garden looking at this time of year?
Ours is quite nice but the fig has not done as well as we hoped, despite being in a sheltered spot by a sunny wall.


----------



## CStanford (12 Sep 2015)

AndyT":1nl9fsm1 said:


> D_W":1nl9fsm1 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what it would take to get this back to plane iron discussions. Or if we're done with that.
> ...



We're having trouble with our basil. We harvested a lot of leaves are are going through our repertoire of dishes that require fresh basil. We're freezing some of it and those who didn't know you could do this, now you know. The plants have been cut way back and we'll see. 

The culinary arts are my first love. Let's don't even get started.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (12 Sep 2015)

Charles, now we can discuss knife steels.  

David knows something about this, at least the cut throat type.

So, Japanese steel or not?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (12 Sep 2015)

You'll not be surprised one bit that I use plain old Dexters with the hygienic handle. I did notice that a few of the newer ones are made in Japan so there's your answer. When these knives get a dinged tip or some other something that rankles you just buy a new one. They get plenty sharp. If I cut a lot of fish I might go up the ladder a little. Otherwise, you don't need to.

Now, my vintage E. Dehillerin tin lined copper pots and pans are another matter altogether.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Sep 2015)

Wusthoffs or J A Henckels.


----------



## CStanford (12 Sep 2015)

We have 3 Wusty Classics.... stay in the drawer. Handles are too slick when wet or greasy (chicken fat, etc.). My wife cut herself horribly with one.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Sep 2015)

I have a beautiful Wusthoff Cordon Bleu, the edge of which swmbo buckled trying to smash three deep frozen beefburgers apart. All she would say was that knives are meant to cut things.


----------



## D_W (12 Sep 2015)

In the kitchen, of regular used knives, I've got a wusthoff paring knife and two chef's knives, one japanese stainless and the other a friodur. I'd say something derisive about the friodur and the wusthoff, but you can steel them and that counts for something if you're being abusive or an abusive person uses them. 

I've got two other japanese knives, but they're carbon steel and they scare the wife. I get them out when we have the inevitable guest who talks about how sharp they like their knives and about how they're not sure I'd know what that means. Every single one of them has felt unsafe with a blue steel knife that has nearly no secondary bevel and they go back to our regular stash and never talk about sharpness again. the lone japanese knife that I have out elsewhere is a pedestrian western style knife made of VG10 steel and hardened to about 61 according to its brochure. It's less expensive than the german knives, but far better for anyone who can use a finish stone once a month and avoid things that chip knives. 

The remainder of mine (which I don't generally use) are soft forged chinese knives with a western brand stamped on them. I can use them just fine, they are just soft, even a little soft given that you can steel them (which is saying a lot). 

Razors - I prefer plainest steel possible, and proper hardness which means not too soft and not too hard. Too soft, a razor can't hold an edge. Too hard, a razor can't hold an edge AND it doesn't respond correctly to a leather strop. When a razor is made properly and ground with skill, it can be used for a year without ever seeing abrasives. (the razor community is an overly fascinated oversharpening community, one that generally doesn't get the subtlety of taking care of a razor with some horse leather and true linen without abrasives). There are some really hard japanese razors that do work fine with a strop, made of yasuki labeled steel, but they are very expensive and more a demonstration of skill and technology than practical gain. The real skill that is lost these days is the ability of the cutlers to accurately execute a double hollow grind to paper thin on the blade, make the razor dead straight by eye by tapping the spine straight while grinding and then finish a razor so it looks like it never saw a grinding wheel in the first place. the finest finisher I've ever seen was a japanese man named tanifuji (expensive, again), but there were a ton of guys in solingen that also did wonderful work. 

The amateur market of shavers now is enamored with heavy "custom" razors that cost several times as much as a new old stock old razor and that are not ground as delicately because that part of the art is not so easily duplicated. 

There, that's my contribution 

Just like old irons, there are lots of older irons around for a fair price, some NOS for half the cost of a new razor, and better. The difference between razors and tools is that anything with big carbides is out, powder metal is out (because it tends to be brittle at the finest of edges and low angles), and shavers don't want a razor to be overhard because it makes them less functional.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (12 Sep 2015)

AndyT":3gbw61sg said:


> D_W":3gbw61sg said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what it would take to get this back to plane iron discussions. Or if we're done with that.
> ...



The tomatoes didn't come to much, being late-cropping and rather less juicy than usual, but the blackberry bush cropped earlier than usual and heavily. We've enjoyed several blackberry and apple crumbles, and there will be bumper quanties of blackberry gin this Christmas.

Sorry to mention plane irons, but way back in about 1860 (or so) it was discovered in Sheffield (and maybe elsewhere) that adding about 1% of Manganese to a cast steel melt, usually in form of ferro-manganese or spiegeliesen, helped to de-gas the melt and improve the steel quality. It was the first 'alloying agent' added to cast steel, which previously had been just iron, carbon and a very small amount of impurities.

Anybody noticed a difference in the performance of early (pre-1860) irons and later ones?


----------



## CStanford (12 Sep 2015)

We just throw the Dexters in the dishwasher. I hit them when they come out on a relatively cheap little jig with a diamond grinder and ceramic rods. I hit them five or six times on the diamond then twenty times through the ceramic. They're always sharp. And clean. No worries. My wife has a supermarket brand Santoku with a rubber handle that we work on the same little honer, it has a grinder section at 15* (or so it says) to keep that blade where it's supposed to be. That edge doesn't last but it's a go-getter for the fifteen minutes of slicing and chopping it takes to get dinner on the table. She loves it and it has a hell of a positive grip. She won't get near the Wusthoffs. 

The copper gets babied, but that's about it. Half the time I just brown and saute' in an old lightweight stainless steel pan. That thing starts to get hot before you even put the fire under it.


----------



## D_W (13 Sep 2015)

I sharpen all of mine, except the carbon japanese knives, on an IM 313 setup. Well, except the parers, I work them on chinese diamond hone (but not a low quality one) that was too worn out for the shop, and then steel them. Maybe once per month on the stones for the knives that can be steeled and the same or a little less for the stainless japanese knife (it is just soft enough to be sharpened by oilstones, but hard enough that it takes a great finish off of them because they can't cut very deeply). 

The carbon steel japanese knives get sharpened on a suita. I wouldn't want to remove damage with it, but it does a beautiful job for maintenance and the edge is wonderful and entertaining (if a bit dangerous for someone not aware of how easy it will move through things). If I didn't have it, I wouldn't buy it for the job, but I have it.I guess that goes for all of it, it's not terribly practical to have carbon steel knives if there are people in the house who don't like what carbon steel looks like after onions or people who refuse to wipe a wet knife.

I am not by any means a force in the kitchen, and I don't have sophisticated taste, but I like knives that work well to prevent the intrusion of a million gadgets, and I appreciate proper temperature control and properly cooked meat....which sometimes seems like a rarity (the latter).


----------



## D_W (13 Sep 2015)

I sharpen all of mine, except the carbon japanese knives, on an IM 313 setup. Well, except the parers, I work them on chinese diamond hone (but not a low quality one) that was too worn out for the shop, and then steel them. Maybe once per month on the stones for the knives that can be steeled and the same or a little less for the stainless japanese knife (it is just soft enough to be sharpened by oilstones, but hard enough that it takes a great finish off of them because they can't cut very deeply). 

The carbon steel japanese knives get sharpened on a suita. I wouldn't want to remove damage with it, but it does a beautiful job for maintenance and the edge is wonderful and entertaining (if a bit dangerous for someone not aware of how easy it will move through things). If I didn't have it, I wouldn't buy it for the job, but I have it.I guess that goes for all of it, it's not terribly practical to have carbon steel knives if there are people in the house who don't like what carbon steel looks like after onions or people who refuse to wipe a wet knife.

I am not by any means a force in the kitchen, and I don't have sophisticated taste, but I like knives that work well to prevent the intrusion of a million gadgets, and I appreciate proper temperature control and properly cooked meat....which sometimes seems like a rarity (the latter).


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (13 Sep 2015)

My wife, who thoroughly enjoys cooking and is very good at it, who reads recipes and can literally tell how closely similar ones differ in taste from other, but has absolutely little interest in the tools she uses for cooking. This extends to knives. For example, she will work on a granite surface only (because it it is easier to clean) ... so good bye sharp edges within one stroke! And then the knives are tossed into the dishwasher with disregard for the edges (well, what is left of the edges) or whether the handles will cope with the heat (they do not - I have had fun re-handling knives, which then become my knives because they must be hand washed). 

I have offered to buy her "good" knives, but she is happier with medium (low?) quality stainless steel, because their upkeep is minimal. I guess, like some woodworkers, the interest lies in the output and not the journey.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (13 Sep 2015)

Just might as well sharpen often rather than try to preserve an edge. The Dexters get sharpened every single time they're used, after they come out of the dishwasher. I cut pastry dough and puff pastry all the time with these knives on either a stainless table or a pastry marble. So do millions of cooks around the world, since one rarely rolls out or ever handles pastry on wood. Trying to preserve the edge of a working kitchen knife is truly the quintessential fool's errand (meant generically not aimed at posters). One just needs to have a quick way of honing up. In boning a chicken or other bird the knife is used to scrape bones, cut around the bone at articulations (knife meets bone/cartilage, tendons), when cutting up a chicken the knife with cut/break through bones, like when cutting the back out of the bird, though some use poultry shears which I find too slow and you have to pick up another tool.

Your wife is a smart lady. Worrying about edges, too much, is surely a nickel holding up a dime.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Sep 2015)

"We just throw the Dexters in the dishwasher."
How do you manage to get cattle into your dishwater?


----------



## AndyT (13 Sep 2015)

My default kitchen knife is an ordinary stainless steel cook's knife left behind by a flatmate thirty something years ago. I think he was given it by his mum.
Am I just a cheapskate or am I cutting an independent path past all the branding and marketing?
I do manage to chop onions etc whenever I need to. :wink:


----------



## Racers (13 Sep 2015)

AndyT":3rice29h said:


> My default kitchen knife is an ordinary stainless steel cook's knife left behind by a flatmate thirty something years ago. I think he was given it by his mum.
> Am I just a cheapskate or am I cutting an independent path past all the branding and marketing?
> I do manage to chop onions etc whenever I need to. :wink:



Just look upon it as another slope.

Pete


----------



## CStanford (14 Sep 2015)

AndyT":3sftrkb1 said:


> My default kitchen knife is an ordinary stainless steel cook's knife left behind by a flatmate thirty something years ago. I think he was given it by his mum.
> Am I just a cheapskate or am I cutting an independent path past all the branding and marketing?
> I do manage to chop onions etc whenever I need to. :wink:



Those onions you chopped --- figment of your imagination.


----------



## Jacob (14 Sep 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQV6CijIzrc

Don't put too many onions in da sauce


----------



## CStanford (14 Sep 2015)

Great movie...


----------



## Bluekingfisher (15 Sep 2015)

D_W":7ngzgsyw said:


> I wonder what it would take to get this back to plane iron discussions. Or if we're done with that.



At the risk of becoming a bore or opening up old wounds, I have another query, which does in fact relate to plane irons.

I attended the European WW show at Cressing Temple at the weekend, I had the great pleasure to chat, albeit briefly with David Charlesworth, what a very helpful and down to earth chap. I'm sure he must be asked dozens of silly questions over the weekend, however he answered my silly questions without the slightest hint of a snigger or :roll: . 

He even let me loose with his everyday user plane on a Sycamore board, what struck me as unusual was it was Stanley 5 1/2 jack, which he has set up as a smoothing plane. I don't know why I found this unusual, perhaps I was expecting to see him with top of the line tool. Apart from it being well fettled the only other difference from the stock tool, at least as far as I could tell was his choice of cutting iron and cap iron. Ok, you want to know what his set up is, I don't suppose I will be in contravention of the official secrets act so, he has a Lie Nielsen cap iron with a Ron Hock A2 iron. I asked him why the A2 and not the 01 steel version. His response was, as he primarily uses hardwoods the A2 iron ensures longevity between sharpening without compromise on the sharpness. fair enough I thought. 

Despite Ron Hock being sited on the stand next to David I didn't get the chance to speak with him on the merits and advantages of his irons. It was near the end of play and SWMBO was pining for a glass of pinot grigio (mental note to self, next time......go on my own).

David


----------



## D_W (15 Sep 2015)

If you're trying to take the largest number of feet of shavings at a thin setting, then A2 does last longer. Maybe something on the order of 1500 feet or more of planing at 2 thousandths. 

It's probably something folks might favor if they like those thin shavings and don't have the need to take thicker ones. 

The advantage of the replacement irons starts to wane when you take only one or two final thin shavings, but many other thicker than that. I get the sense on the internet that the bulk of people sharpen with a guide and take a lot of smoother shavings, but not too much else.

Well, except for the fact that they're usually in pretty good shape new - so if your old iron is very pitted, they may be a labor saver. 

The best carbon steel irons will last about as long in the cut in practice, but they are probably no cheaper (if you can find NOS eskilstuna made irons, or the japanese very hard carbon steel type).

David is a nice guy, class fellow. First time I ever sharpened a plane iron was after watching his original video. It provided the benefit of never having to try to use a dull tool.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (15 Sep 2015)

Surely then having this particular iron in a smoothing plane is beneficial? afterall, it is intended to take a few shavings at or near the completion of a job where the reliability of the wafer thin shaving you speak of is required. 

One of the other snippets he relayed to me was, he does very little in the way of heavy stock preperation/removal by hand, rather the bulk of this work undertaken by machine. I would then assume he perhaps has no need for planes set up to remove lots of material?? (I didn't ask him that, just my assumption) 

I would then accept that removing a lot of stock is not requiring of a specialty blade and the original vintage steel irons are more than up to the task.

David


----------



## mouppe (15 Sep 2015)

I also use a 5 1/2 as a smoother with an LN A2 blade. But I prefer a low angle jack for heavy stock removal, particularly with a toothed blade. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bluekingfisher (15 Sep 2015)

Even on straight grained timbers?

David


----------



## Bluekingfisher (15 Sep 2015)

Even on straight grained timbers?

David


----------



## D_W (15 Sep 2015)

Bluekingfisher":su8ph2ht said:


> Surely then having this particular iron in a smoothing plane is beneficial? afterall, it is intended to take a few shavings at or near the completion of a job where the reliability of the wafer thin shaving you speak of is required.
> 
> One of the other snippets he relayed to me was, he does very little in the way of heavy stock preperation/removal by hand, rather the bulk of this work undertaken by machine. I would then assume he perhaps has no need for planes set up to remove lots of material?? (I didn't ask him that, just my assumption)
> 
> ...



Yeah, nothing requires any specialty blade. The vintage ones work quite well, but the market is beginners and apparently beginners have a problem with sharpening quickly (understandable). 

I used to be in that category, and I liked the irons that worked a long time. Blades run out of clearance faster on a thin shaving than a thicker one. 

I don't think most of the instructors do much bulk dimensioning by hand, even the ones who pose as more old school (and David is not one of those people who extols the virtue of the satisfaction of using hand tools to turn around then and run everything through the machine planer - he's forthright about that).


----------



## D_W (15 Sep 2015)

mouppe":2dr041y1 said:


> I also use a 5 1/2 as a smoother with an LN A2 blade. But I prefer a low angle jack for heavy stock removal, particularly with a toothed blade.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



That's an interesting thing that I think is also a modern incantation with gentleman's planes. I've never seen an older plane with a toothing iron with relatively large teeth needed for heavy work. The toothing irons are generally installed close to 90 degrees in a veneer plane.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Sep 2015)

Incarnation?


----------



## D_W (15 Sep 2015)

phil.p":37fhm6tv said:


> Incarnation?



Yeah, that. Remember, it's not actually English that we speak over here in the states. :shock: 

Except the pretentious folks.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (15 Sep 2015)

D_W":o0mhrwc2 said:


> phil.p":o0mhrwc2 said:
> 
> 
> > Incarnation?
> ...



You just make up the words as you go along then


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Sep 2015)

Bluekingfisher":10pva40z said:


> D_W":10pva40z said:
> 
> 
> > phil.p":10pva40z said:
> ...



Da yoof do that in Britain too, innit.


----------

