# Does better steel get sharper?



## Graham Orm (5 Jun 2015)

I have a set of Stanley Fatmax chisels that I use for work. They do a job, but loose their edge quickly. I bought some Stanley 5001's from Ebay. These are reputedly made from ball bearing grade steel.....whatever that is? All the hoo har seems to be right. I've been using them for work for a week and they deffinitely stay sharp longer.
*However.
They also seem to get sharper when sharpening. *I've gone through the back flattening process with the Fatmax's but they would just never get to thet paper slicing razor edge that the 5001's do or my Narex bench set do. I've bought another four from Ebay and will now have 9 or ten in my box. (I always like to have duplicates, so I can grab another rather than sharpening when one goes off). Happy days and cheap as chips.


----------



## Racers (5 Jun 2015)

Better steel will get sharper, its grain size is smaller and they are probably harder, it all helps to get a really good edge.

Pete


----------



## jimmy_s (5 Jun 2015)

I was thinking the same. 

I have some footprint chisels that I use regularly, they take a good edge but recently I bought a couple of Japanese chisels and was surprised at just how sharp these were after sharpening. 

I have some old Ward and Mathieson chisels that I keep for more careful work, out of curiosity I checked the Jap ones against these as well; the Japanese ones definitely felt markedly sharper.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Jun 2015)

Maybe a qustion for the American forums - they love this sort of debate.

There are very many grades of steel. One reference book we had in the design office listed about 4000 commercially available grades. All of them could be sharpened to an edge, though some will hold that edge better than others, and some would take a better edge. A piece of angle-iron can be made into a chisel, and will take quite a sharp edge - but not for long.

I'm not sure there are any 'absolute' answers (despite all the debate). If there was one grade of steel that took an amazing edge and held it for ever under almost any working circumstances, eveybody would be using it exclusively; there isn't, hence the variety.

'Ball bearing steel' (En31, 535A99, or SAE52100 to the Americans) is quite close to being a 1% straight carbon steel. It has a little bit of chromium - about 1% to 1.5% - in it to help final hardness and depth of hardening, a tiny bit of silicon and a bit of manganese. It's been around for many years, and has, I gather, been used for edge tools from time to time. The fact that it's a simple alloy very close to 1% straight carbon steel may be part of the explaination for it's good edge-taking and holding compared to some of slightly more complex alloys; other alloys might do even better.

There again, what constitutes 'a good edge' and 'good edge-holding' is a bit subjective. Different working circumstaces, and all that. Some want super-sharp, and will touch-up the edge often. Others want long-lasting, and will take a slightly less sharp edge or slightly higher bevel angle. All down to personal opinion, really.

There are not many 'bad' steels out there. The odd example of poor heat-treatment or overheating during grinding show up from time to time, but most toolmakers use steel adequate for the purpose. It's entirely a matter of personal opinion where the line is drawn between 'good enough' and 'not quite good enough'.

Though no doubt somebody will be along with a different opinion!


----------



## custard (5 Jun 2015)

I don't normally join sharpening threads, but I would say that I've often noticed that the first few sharpenings of a new tool rarely bring it up to it's best. Furthermore, if I've nicked a chisel or plane iron and have to grind it right back then the same thing occurs, where it takes a couple of rounds of honing before the tool is again singing.

I wonder if the act of _grinding_ an edge might have an adverse effect on the steel, and it requires some of the surface metal to be honed away (more than you'd normally remove in a single sharpening session) before it's optimised? Possibly some micro bluing that isn't actually visible to the naked eye (although I've experienced exactly the same thing from a cool running Tormek as well as a high speed grinder)?

This is conjecture, but if it's correct it would explain why you need to work with an edge tool for a while before discovering what it's really capable of (so all those "instant" reviews that get posted of new tools are especially useless). Furthermore it's another reason to avoid grinding right to the edge, and to try and preserve the edge by only grinding to within a mill or half a mill away from the actual cutting edge.


----------



## MMUK (5 Jun 2015)

I can see this turning into a full on sharpening debate :lol:


----------



## Jacob (5 Jun 2015)

Harder steel will keep an edge longer but is harder to sharpen. So it's a trade off.
Perhaps the logical best solution is the laminated blade - hard but thin edge steel on the face and a soft back for speedy sharpening.


----------



## Graham Orm (5 Jun 2015)

Thanks for the input guys. It seems I'm right in that good steel does take a better edge. I thought it was some short fall in my technique that the Fatmax's wouldn't become insanely sharp.


----------



## Graham Orm (5 Jun 2015)

Jacob":1i2r9cs2 said:


> Harder steel will keep an edge longer but is harder to sharpen. So it's a trade off.
> Perhaps the logical best solution is the laminated blade - hard but thin edge steel on the face and a soft back for speedy sharpening.



the question Jacob is does good steel get sharper? It seems there is a reasoning that it does.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jun 2015)

Graham Orm":2ty5rq57 said:


> Jacob":2ty5rq57 said:
> 
> 
> > Harder steel will keep an edge longer but is harder to sharpen. So it's a trade off.
> ...


Depends on what you mean by "good steel".
I suppose _hard_ steel must get sharper but I don't know. But that's not necessarily the same as _good_ steel if it takes too long to sharpen.
You can get an incredibly sharp edge on glass but it'll only cut soft stuff (such as your skin) so that's no good either!

It comes down to compromises over the practicalities of actually using the tool on an actual job.

PS Stanley 8001 - did you mean Stanley 5001? These are harder than the blue handled ones, can be made very sharp, probably keep an edge longer, but take longer to sharpen.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Jun 2015)

The reason your FatMax doesn't hold its edge for long is that they are designed as site chisels - if you use chisels made of a better, harder steel they would chip too easily. It better to try to use a tool that's slightly blunt than one with a gert chip out of the edge.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Jun 2015)

custard":3bdbbrqz said:


> I don't normally join sharpening threads, but I would say that I've often noticed that the first few sharpenings of a new tool rarely bring it up to it's best. Furthermore, if I've nicked a chisel or plane iron and have to grind it right back then the same thing occurs, where it takes a couple of rounds of honing before the tool is again singing.
> 
> I wonder if the act of _grinding_ an edge might have an adverse effect on the steel, and it requires some of the surface metal to be honed away (more than you'd normally remove in a single sharpening session) before it's optimised? Possibly some micro bluing that isn't actually visible to the naked eye (although I've experienced exactly the same thing from a cool running Tormek as well as a high speed grinder)?
> 
> This is conjecture, but if it's correct it would explain why you need to work with an edge tool for a while before discovering what it's really capable of (so all those "instant" reviews that get posted of new tools are especially useless). Furthermore it's another reason to avoid grinding right to the edge, and to try and preserve the edge by only grinding to within a mill or half a mill away from the actual cutting edge.



In industrial grinding practice, there is a phenomenon known as 'micro-cracking' which is a particular problem with harder materials (like hardened tool steels).

What happens is that the grinding generates very high temperatures very local to the action (we're talking microns here, not something you detect by keeping a finger near the tool edge whilst it's on the wheel). That causes the metal close to action to both expand (outwards), and soften, becoming slightly plastic - the bulk of the metal behind doesn't get enough heat for either to happen to any degree. The wheel passes, and the edge cools very fast, contracts, and loses it's plasticity, but can't entirely contract back to where it was because the bulk of metal behind it won't move to accomodate it. Consequently, tiny cracks form along the edge (or surface of a piece in a surface or cylindrical grinder). It's almost impossible to grind this damage away, because the localised heat applied by the grinding process just makes the same thing happen again.

In industrial practice, forced flood cooling is used to carry off the heat as it's generated (dipping in a can of water won't do!). In the woodworking situation, honing (far less heat) slowly abrades off the damaged bit. Thus, an edge straight from the grinder and honed once may seem brittle, but the brittleness disappears over three or four honings.

I'm not sure whether that's the only explanation, or whether other factors are involved, or even if it's completely irrelevant. It does seem to fit the symptoms, though.

From the practical point of view I think the practice of not quite grinding right to the edge should avoid the problem. Micro-cracking will still happen further up the bevel where it's ground, but it won't do any harm up there away from the cutting edge.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jun 2015)

phil.p":tlrbdo75 said:


> The reason your FatMax doesn't hold its edge for long is that they are designed as site chisels - if you use chisels made of a better, harder steel they would chip too easily. It better to try to use a tool that's slightly blunt than one with a gert chip out of the edge.


Well yes. I tried to use Stanley 5001s on site but they get chipped very quickly so I keep them for cleaner work where more precision needed. They can be honed to 25º which'd probably be too fine for the Fatmaxs. Horses for courses.


----------



## bugbear (5 Jun 2015)

Graham Orm":23hdxdtl said:


> I have a set of Stanley Fatmax chisels that I use for work. They do a job, but loose their edge quickly. I bought some Stanley 8001's from Ebay. These are reputedly made from ball bearing grade steel.....whatever that is? All the hoo har seems to be right. I've been using them for work for a week and they deffinitely stay sharp longer.
> *However.
> They also seem to get sharper when sharpening. *I've gone through the back flattening process with the Fatmax's but they would just never get to thet paper slicing razor edge that the 5001's do or my Narex bench set do. I've bought another four from Ebay and will now have 9 or ten in my box. (I always like to have duplicates, so I can grab another rather than sharpening when one goes off). Happy days and cheap as chips.



It's obvious that a more abrasion resistant steel will be ground less by a given abrasive.

This means that (in practise) an abrasion resistant steel will act as if the abrasive were _finer_, and finer abrasives give sharper edges.

Assuming harder steels are also more abrasion resistant, this would nicely explain the effect you're seeing.

This theory could be tested, by putting both types of steel though a sequence of grits that ended in a grit deemed to be "too fine", thus negating the postulated effect. If both chisels can be got to equal sharpness this way, the theory would be pretty well proven.

The "which chisel is best" discussion is much broader, and I'm staying out of it.

BugBear


----------



## Beau (5 Jun 2015)

"Does better steel get sharper?" Depends what you call better.

I have never studied the science of metals but can share my experience of various blades from over the years. 

Best edge I have ever had is from an Expensive Japanese chisel. It's relatively easy to sharpen as well but I rarely use it for the simple reason the edge is too brittle. 

I have tried expensive plane irons from Victor and Holty and both have their issues and neither takes a better edge than my original cheap Record blade but they both hold a duller edge for a long time.

It's all a compromise between sharpness, brittlness, longevaty and ease of sharpening. For me Oire Nomi chiesels offer the best compramise but if on site an old set of Marples does well enough. Can't comment on the Stanleys as never used them.


----------



## CStanford (5 Jun 2015)

'Ball bearing steel' (En31, 535A99, or SAE52100 to the Americans) is quite close to being a 1% straight carbon steel. It has a little bit of chromium - about 1% to 1.5% - in it to help final hardness and depth of hardening, a tiny bit of silicon and a bit of manganese. It's been around for many years, and has, I gather, been used for edge tools from time to time. The fact that it's a simple alloy very close to 1% straight carbon steel may be part of the explaination for it's good edge-taking and holding compared to some of slightly more complex alloys; other alloys might do even better.

Basically Japanese 'blue steel.'

Check out the table found here (scroll down to approx. mid-page): http://www.astbearings.com/bearing-materials.html


----------



## Graham Orm (5 Jun 2015)

Jacob":qdrdtrgm said:


> Graham Orm":qdrdtrgm said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":qdrdtrgm said:
> ...



Yes my mistake. Black handle yellow ring very early 5001's black handle white ring later 5001's with nickel finish. Blue handle 5002's (unknown quantity).


----------



## Corneel (5 Jun 2015)

Toolsteel is a fascinating subject. I am far from an expert, just read a bunch of websites...

How a toolsteel behaves depends on at least two factors, hardness and chemical composition. How the steel was produced and with how much skill it was hardened and tempered plays a very important role too.

Rarely was a toolsteel designed especially for handtool woodworking. We want a very sharp edge and we also want it to be very easy to sharpen and hone too. Our demands on durability are laughable when you compare it to steels used in the industry. But those two important factors for us, compromise the durability. Durability comes in two forms, wear resistance and toughness. These contradict each other, a hard wearing toolsteel is usually less tough. Making the steel harder increases the wear resistance but decreases its toughness, it becomes brittle.

O1 is very simpe steel, it has about 1% carbon which makes it hardenable. It also contains a few other elements in small fractions which help it's hardening ability. W1, the more old fashioned tool steel, is even simpler, contains not much more then steel and carbon. It is not as easy to harden, likes to crack and warp. These steels have very fine grain and are easy to sharpen. They have a good compromise between sharpenability, wear resistance and toughness.

A2 contains about 1% carbon, 5% chrome, 1% molybdenum and up to 0.5% vanadium. The chromium, molybdenum and vanadium form carbides. These are very hard, much harder then the steel and carbon. But they tend to cluster together in much larger crystals when the steel starts to solidfy during manufacturing. These large crystals tend to create cracks in the steel. So while they increase the wear resistance, they are not so good for the toughness. They also make the steel harder to sharpen. D2 conatins even more chromium and vanadium making it even more wear resistance but less tough. In other words, better for plane irons then for chisels.

These are conventional toolsteels. They are mixed in a large furnace and then poored into ingots where they can solidify. After that they will be rolled flatter which compressed the steel too. The formation of the large carbides is a problem, especally vanadium is a problem. It is very good for increased wear resistance, but is also really likes to create very large crystals. Large fractions of vanadium are not possible in a conventional toolsteel. But the industry really wanted steels with more vanadium. That's why powdered steels were invented. The steel is melted, then atomised in a kind of spray. They cool very quickly so the crystals don't have the time to grow. Then the powder is compressed under very high pressure and heat to create a solid steel again. The result is a fine grained toolsteel. The steel makers can now add much larger quantities of vanadium. For example CPM-3V, CPM-10V, CPM-15V with increasing amounts of vanadium. That makes a very wear resistant tool steel which is still pretty tough. No magic here either, increasing wear resistance among the PM steels still reduces toughness. And while these steels are relatively easy to sharpen, they are still a lot harder to sharpen then O1.

Which brings us to sharpening technology. You need a sharpening medium comatible with the steel. While oilstones are perfect for O1 and W1, they are not so great for steel with a lot of carbides. You need something which abrades much more agressively, like modern waterstones or even diamonds.

Recently a "new" toolsteel was introduced by LV, PMV-11. They claim that it is a powdered toolsteel, has better wear resistance and toughness then O1 or A2 while it is still easy to sharpen. Of course they didn't invent it themselves, steel making is a separate industry. They most probably used one of the many special knife steels. There are plenty of these around. It is a stainless steel (easy to determine) and because it is still easy to sharpen it can't contain very much vandium. There are not many powdered steels with small quantities of vanadium. This steel still needs to prove itself in the handtool world. First reports are encouraging, but that was the case when A2 was introduced too.


----------



## CStanford (5 Jun 2015)

Yep, people practically soiled themselves over A2 (and to some extent D2 and CPM process steel) and then the same crowd offered a repeat performance when PM-V11 came out. Any more "new" tool steels hit the woodworking tool market I'm going to buy stock in an adult diaper manufacturing company.

Good that you put "new" in quotes in your last paragraph.


----------



## woodbrains (5 Jun 2015)

Hello,

Charles, have you ever used Hock A2 cryogenic plane irons or the Veritas PM V11? I strongly suspect if you had, your sniffy posts would stop. Both are truly remarkable steels and since steel like good old W1 is no longer made and O1 seldom if ever hammer forged to give it that good old grain structure, we need advances in steel technology if our craft is to prevail. I first bought an A2 plane iron after using a particularly ornery wood that actually curled the edge of my plane iron after a couple of passes. The hock iron did not falter. I recently tried a PM blade out of curiosity and it is even better. I don't understand the resistance to progress here. I particularly like the Clifton plane irons, but it looks like they will not continue making them. Tools cannot be hammer forged without tremendous expense, which most users will not bear, so arguing that old tool steel is best is moot since you will not pay for its continued manufacture.

Mike.


----------



## custard (5 Jun 2015)

Cheshirechappie":12n75a0l said:


> custard":12n75a0l said:
> 
> 
> > I don't normally join sharpening threads, but I would say that I've often noticed that the first few sharpenings of a new tool rarely bring it up to it's best. Furthermore, if I've nicked a chisel or plane iron and have to grind it right back then the same thing occurs, where it takes a couple of rounds of honing before the tool is again singing.
> ...



That's interesting, thanks for that.


----------



## CStanford (5 Jun 2015)

woodbrains":2oce0isj said:


> Hello,
> 
> Charles, have you ever used Hock A2 cryogenic plane irons or the Veritas PM V11? I strongly suspect if you had, your sniffy posts would stop. Both are truly remarkable steels and since steel like good old W1 is no longer made and O1 seldom if ever hammer forged to give it that good old grain structure, we need advances in steel technology if our craft is to prevail. I first bought an A2 plane iron after using a particularly ornery wood that actually curled the edge of my plane iron after a couple of passes. The hock iron did not falter. I recently tried a PM blade out of curiosity and it is even better. I don't understand the resistance to progress here. I particularly like the Clifton plane irons, but it looks like they will not continue making them. Tools cannot be hammer forged without tremendous expense, which most users will not bear, so arguing that old tool steel is best is moot since you will not pay for its continued manufacture.
> 
> Mike.



Well, I have a Hock iron in a Record 4 1/2 but alas it's O1. It's fine. It does stay sharper a little longer. It's harder steel, slightly more work to grind and slightly more work to hone. All in all it's about a wash, time-wise. Never have tried the frozen stuff. 

I had a Lie Nielsen plane (a scrub plane) which of course came with A2 and I hated the cutter. I replaced the plane with a vintage Stanley. Love it. Love the plain high carbon steel, love the way it cuts, love the way it hones. I love it. It leaves nothing to be desired IMO. You can practically carve with that little pipper.

I demo'd a PM-VII chisel and while it was beautifully made I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's probably better as a plane iron. It totally did not rock my world.

So yep, I've used all these steels. I even had a mortise chisel in D2 which I loathed. I couldn't put an edge on that ba$tard with SiC sandpaper. Horrific. It never formed a wire edge just this little hump I kept chasing front to back that would never come off. Came dull and stayed dull.


----------



## JohnPW (5 Jun 2015)

woodbrains":1ccgvbjq said:


> Hello,
> 
> Charles, have you ever used Hock A2 cryogenic plane irons or the Veritas PM V11? I strongly suspect if you had, your sniffy posts would stop. Both are truly remarkable steels and since steel like good old W1 is no longer made and *O1 seldom if ever hammer forged to give it that good old grain structure, we need advances in steel technology if our craft is to prevail*. I first bought an A2 plane iron after using a particularly ornery wood that actually curled the edge of my plane iron after a couple of passes. The hock iron did not falter. I recently tried a PM blade out of curiosity and it is even better. I don't understand the resistance to progress here. I particularly like the Clifton plane irons, but it looks like they will not continue making them. *Tools cannot be hammer forged without tremendous expense, which most users will not bear, so arguing that old tool steel is best is moot since you will not pay for its continued manufacture.*
> 
> Mike.



There's a How It's Made video of chisels being hammer forged, and those were the very ordinary plastic handled socket type chisels. And Ashley Isles certainly hammer forge and I suspect others like Narex and Pfeil as well. I would guess whilst chisels with a bolster or socket are always hammer forged, the small American boutique makers have to makes chisels without a bolster because they cut the chisel from a solid bit of metal because, I've read on the forum, they don't have the equipment to hammer forge.


----------



## G S Haydon (5 Jun 2015)

I'm not and engineer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gittWRq2Sjk is that called a die press? I think that video a good example of mass made quality tools.


----------



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

> Well, I have a Hock iron in a Record 4 1/2 but alas it's O1. It's fine. It does stay sharper a little longer. It's harder steel, slightly more work to grind and slightly more work to hone. All in all it's about a wash, time-wise. Never have tried the frozen stuff.
> 
> I had a Lie Nielsen plane (a scrub plane) which of course came with A2 and I hated the cutter. I replaced the plane with a vintage Stanley. Love it. Love the plain high carbon steel, love the way it cuts, love the way it hones. I love it. It leaves nothing to be desired IMO. You can practically carve with that little pipper.
> 
> ...



Yeah Charles, that makes you an expert on these steels! :lol: 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Corneel (6 Jun 2015)

In handtool use there is always the balance between long wearing and easy sharpening. Because we are no machines, we can't continue to work forever, so sharpening more often isn't as bad as it sounds. The pleasure of having a fresh edge is for some people more important then a longer lasting edge. It's very subjective of course.

D2 probably is a poor choice for handtools. It has too much chrome, is not very tough, is hard to sharpen. O1 is perfectly allright if you don't mind the shorter edgelife. A2 has a micro cracking problem, which can be dealt with a steeper bevel, it lasts a little longer then O1 but is a little harder to sharpen too. On PMV the jury is still out.

I don't know if hamer forging really makes a lot of difference for O1. I've never seen the Cliftons rising to the top in any of the many tool tests (amateur tests of course). The Japanese manage to make some remarkable stuff, they manage a great balance between the very hard cutting edge and the soft backing.


----------



## rafezetter (6 Jun 2015)

Well up to the last few posts (steady boys - and you too Derek) this has been a fascinating read. I'm not surprised the Japanese seem to have the edge (sorry) on making super sharp, but also long lasting, tools. After all they started making swords hundreds of years before anyone else and to a standard that even relatively modern antique versions (the last 150-200 years or so) sometimes command 6 figures sums. For them the art is in the making, not the making of profit from that making, and it's worth noting there isn't a traditionally trained sushi chef in the world that would deign to use a western knife.

The info on microcracking and how to reduce it's manifestation is something I'll definitely try to remember as I've have to grind out a few nicks recently and have a load of old chisels that I bought I've not yet got around to sorting out. For the regrinds, I have (and would have continued) to just put them in my sharpening jig and sat it on a belt sander until the nicked edge was _just_ gone.

It's also made me resolute to go over a few of my very new chisels, which have only been taken to my level of sharp edge (still paper slicing razor - or so I thought...) once or twice and hardly used, again. Prolly the reground plane blades too.

I'll be honest and say I've not noticed a difference, but then my sense for this sort of thing is still extremely new.

Someone might be able to answer a simple question though which may advance that sense... recently I was working some reclaimed cedar and in the box joint bases should a ChrVa tool steel chisel be sharp enough to slice out the endgrain instead of mostly tearing? (my sharpening regime finishes with 5000 grit wet,dry and a micro back bevel; good enough to slice paper).

If it should have sliced - what do ppl recommend to get that final zing for this sort of very soft wood as I have a fair bit of it to work.


----------



## woodbrains (6 Jun 2015)

JohnPW":3q1ie15k said:


> There's a How It's Made video of chisels being hammer forged, and those were the very ordinary plastic handled socket type chisels. And Ashley Isles certainly hammer forge and I suspect others like Narex and Pfeil as well. I would guess whilst chisels with a bolster or socket are always hammer forged, the small American boutique makers have to makes chisels without a bolster because they cut the chisel from a solid bit of metal because, I've read on the forum, they don't have the equipment to hammer forge.



Hello,

Drop forging is different. The only new tools available, forged by hammering, are Japanese tools, (blacksmith made) and only the more expensive of those (very!). The small grain structure, even alloyant distribution and even grain alignment found in tools produced by repeted heating and hammering. This yeilds steel with the best balance of toughness, hardness and fine sharpenabiliy. For example, the Stanley 5001 chisels (very good tools in the day) are made from a steel ( EN31, I believe) which is drop forged. The same steel could be used by Japanese blacksmiths, and hammered repeatedly and will be improved enough to enable it to be harder and tougher and take a finer edge, but exactly the same steel. (OK forge welded to a softer back too) For better or worse, metallurlogical developments try to impart these characteristics in steels without having to resort to expensive hot working the steels. There are always compromises though and some are more successful than others. But I do think cryogenically treating the steels does give noticeable benefits over what we have been used to in recent years and PM V11 is really good. On abrasive materials it is peerless for edge holding and can be got truly sharp, with my water stones. Can't say if it is easy on oilstones, I've not tried, though I suspect might take a while longer. The problem is, I suspect, there is such little interest in hand tool development over industrial cutting equipment, I don't suppose there is much effort put into the development of new steels specifically for planes and chisels, so steels will just be picked from stocks made for other purposes, to the closest approximations of what is needed. I think PM. V11 is a good approximation, though.

Mike.

Edit,

Clifton made fine plane irons by hammer forging, but seem to have abandoned the method in favour of cryogenically treated steel. I'd like to compare the results one day as their old irons were fine.


----------



## Jacob (6 Jun 2015)

Corneel":tjzq6hmq said:


> In handtool use there is always the balance between long wearing and easy sharpening. Because we are no machines, we can't continue to work forever, so sharpening more often isn't as bad as it sounds. The pleasure of having a fresh edge is for some people more important then a longer lasting edge. It's very subjective of course.
> .....


Well yes if you have a simple sharpening regime (freehand on one or two oilstones) it makes a nice little break and you have freshly sharpened edges a lot of the time. A bit like sharpening a pencil and about as difficult.
I think the obsessing about steel quality has a lot to do with the problems due to the pointless fashion for thick blades and complicated modern sharpening regimes.


----------



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

I am not a metallurgist, however I do have a fair amount of experience both using and testing aspects of the various steels in a woodworking context. There are a few accounts of these on my website (under Tool Reviews) for anyone with the interest. I have in use _all of the time _O1, A2, M2, M4, D2, CPM-3V, and PM-V11. My amateur experience ...

First and foremost, before one can make a pronouncement on any of these steels, it is important to get them sharp. This means using _appropriate_ honing media. For some of these steels there is no free lunch. For example, when I first tried it, I thought CPM-3V just not capable of a sharp edge. I was using the wrong media. When I switched to diamond paste it came alive! Anyone here attempting to hone M4 or D2 with oilstones may as well be using a blunt nail for an edge. This is an extreme example, but just to get my point across. Now this is not a discussion of sharpening, the merits of various stones, or whether various steels are good or bad because they require something different. It is simply to point out that one cannot pronounce on a steel until you can get it sharp. 

The second point I want to make is that all the steels have pros and cons, and you need to decide where your priority lies - some excel at ease of sharpening with simple media (such as an oilstone or a natural waterstone), but then struggle to hold an edge with anything more abrasive than pine. Some excel in abrasion resistance for planing, and others for impact resistance for chiseling. 

I suspect that a key factor to edge durability is a combination of how fine the grain is, how hard the steel becomes, and how elastic it is. For planing, one may want more abrasion resistance (more chromium?) and for chopping one wants more impact resistance/elasticity. I'm surmising here - feel free to throw this out the window, but give evidence if you do so.

I have come across an interesting graph showing the correlation of these features ..







This shows how the steels may increase their elasticity with chromium and moly. 

Japanese laminated steels are essentially O1 steel but they do well, and I suspect that this is because the cutting layer is very hard and that this only survives as a result of a soft, _elastic_ backing. They seem to do well both in edge holding when planing and when chopping in hard, abrasive woods (if my experience and tests count). 

Steels such as D2, which have large carbide grains and many find hard to sharpen, appear to have more elasticity, and this be why they do so well in (Ray Iles) mortice chisels. I have a D2 blade in a jack plane, and it excels here as well. Perhaps like the RI, it is better at chopping. And yet high end planemaker Philip Marcou (in New Zealand) considers D2 a wonderful steel for smoothers. He argues that it needs to be left softer than most do.

O1 steel is really poor at edge retention when chopping end grain and planing abrasive face grain compared to all the steels above. A2 is about double its ability, and look where it stands in relation to other steels ...






PMV-V11? I think that it is excellent for planing abrasive woods, but especially good for chopping with chisels. It would make a good alternative to D2 in mortice chisels, and runs close to laminated Japanese steels for paring chisels.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## G S Haydon (6 Jun 2015)

Hi Grayorm

Does better steel get sharper? For a politician style response I'd say you need something to be the right steel for the job. For second fix carpentry, joinery and most furniture making a set of chisels from a supermarket has the right steel for the job, as do the 5001's you have. The edges last long enough, more than long enough and they sharpen readily. The added benefit of choosing chisels like I've mentioned is you have much more £ left in your pocket for timber, hardware or even a few more essential tools! The sharpening media to suit those steels is also easier on the pocket. If all you do is work highly abrasive timer you might need to look at alternatives. 

I don't have O1, A2, M2, M4, D2, CPM-3V, and PM-V11 in constant use in my set of tools. Heaven knows I like to experiment and see how other things work but I think most people interested in making something would be better served by practicing paring, chopping, sharpening and sawing to a line using a set of chisels from a supermarket and an appropriate saw rather than worrying about how long and edge might last.

Just my 2d's worth


----------



## Bluekingfisher (6 Jun 2015)

I would suspect your Fatmax chisels do not retain a sharp as long as some other chisels because that is the way they have been set up by Stanley? They are of course carpenters chisels and most likely subject to all manner of rough and aggressive treatmen. They probably will not need to be razor sharp, as one would expect from a furniture grade chisel. 

I would have thought carpenters don't spend time honing a blade on a stone, more likely to grind an edge on a belt sander or such. So perhaps the manufacturer knows this and formulates the steel accordingly.

A classic case of the right tool for the job?

David


----------



## Jacob (6 Jun 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I.... I was using the wrong media. When I switched to diamond paste it came alive! ....... It is simply to point out that one cannot pronounce on a steel until you can get it sharp. .......


I hereby pronounce that any steel which you can't easily get sharp, is useless! 
If you have to buy special kit it might make more sense to dump the tool instead and get your money back on ebay.

Sharpening is an essential and continuous part of the process just like sharpening a pencil if you were drawing. It needs to be easy. The tool needs to be usable.


----------



## CStanford (6 Jun 2015)

"The second point I want to make is that all the steels have pros and cons, and you need to decide where your priority lies - some excel at ease of sharpening with simple media (such as an oilstone or a natural waterstone), but then struggle to hold an edge with anything more abrasive than pine."

This is absurd on its face -- 'struggle to hold an edge in anything more abrasive than pine.' Pure hyperbole and exaggeration, probably on even the worst chisels somebody could lay hands on, much less decent brands.


----------



## CStanford (6 Jun 2015)

Bluekingfisher":3bpmgrnc said:


> I would suspect your Fatmax chisels do not retain a sharp as long as some other chisels because that is the way they have been set up by Stanley? They are of course carpenters chisels and most likely subject to all manner of rough and aggressive treatmen. They probably will not need to be razor sharp, as one would expect from a furniture grade chisel.
> 
> I would have thought carpenters don't spend time honing a blade on a stone, more likely to grind an edge on a belt sander or such. So perhaps the manufacturer knows this and formulates the steel accordingly.
> 
> ...



It's better if a carpenter's chisel fail by rolling rather than by fracturing. They are made this way intentionally. They need to be honed at a higher angle because they are most often used to chop framing lumber and not pare fine joints. In the U.S this might mean chopping Southern Yellow Pine whose rings can seem as hard as petrified wood.


----------



## Corneel (6 Jun 2015)

Here is some data from the steel makers.

First to compare O1 to A2. O1 is Arne. A2 is Rigor:





Then a very interesting article from Crucible. Here you can compare A2, D2 and stuff like CPM 3V

http://www.crucibleservice.com/eselector/general/generalpart1.html

As you can see. A2 has a little more abrassion resistance then O1, but is less tough. D2 is slightly more abrassion resistant then A2 but is very much less tough. And a steel like CPM-3V is better overall, but it is harder to grind (takes longer) and you need diamonds for honing.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (6 Jun 2015)

G S Haydon":2l6fp6xj said:


> I'm not and engineer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gittWRq2Sjk is that called a die press? I think that video a good example of mass made quality tools.



Hi Graham!

Yes, I think that is a hydraulic forging press fitted with suitable dies. The dies have to be made individually for whatever you're forging, so Narex will have a top and bottom die for each size of chisel they make. Sometimes, the dies have two or even three 'stages' (say, a roughing stage, a press to final shape stage, and a final stage trimming off the 'flash' - the waste squeezed outround the edge of the chisel blank). Conequently, Narex will have a lot of capital tied up in expensive one-off tooling and a large press. The rest of the video shows some pretty specialist grinding and heat-treatment kit, too; they've clearly invested a lot, and intend to manufacture and sell in bulk. I do agree that it's a good example of mass production engineering; they may well have had to do quite a bit of trial-and-error fiddling ('development' in engineer-speak) to get things just right, though.

There are several other ways to make a chisel. Obviously, there's hand-hammer and anvil, which would be appropriate for one-offs or very short runs. Then there's multiple-strike forging under a small power hammer (usually a spring hammer, though Henry Taylor use a Blacker hammer for some of their carving tools) fitted with dies made for the job. Ashley Iles still use the spring hammer method for drawing out their chisel blades, though I think they use a hydraulic press for the tang and bolster end. Then there's drop forging, which uses similar dies to those in the hydraulic press, but with the top die attached to a large weight (up to 10 tons for some applications, probably a ton or so for chisels) which is hoisted to a suitable height and then allowed to drop under gravity, thus doing with one bang what a spring hammer would need maybe a couple of hundred to achieve.

All those methods are quite capable of producing a decent chisel blank. Some people claim that some steels respond better to one method rather than the others - to be honest, I do wonder if there's a bit of personal preference involved. The method selected by an edge tool maker is probably more about capital investment in dies and plant against expected production volume as it is about the finer points of individual tool steels. Most edge-tool steels respond quite well to forging, but you do have to be a bit careful about forging temperatures with some of them.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (6 Jun 2015)

G S Haydon":1tqh3c4m said:


> I don't have O1, A2, M2, M4, D2, CPM-3V, and PM-V11 in constant use in my set of tools. Heaven knows I like to experiment and see how other things work but I think most people interested in making something would be better served by practicing paring, chopping, sharpening and sawing to a line using a set of chisels from a supermarket and an appropriate saw rather than worrying about how long and edge might last.
> 
> Just my 2d's worth



I'm rather inclined to agree. A lot of the 'this steel is better than that steel' debates sound a bit like motor-sport enthusiasts arguing the finer points of Ferraris and Maseratis. Such differences could matter in motor-sport racing, but for most of us needing a car for the daily commute, the weekly shop and an occasional trip to visit Aunt Mabel then the bog-standard Ford, whilst not as glamorous, will do the job perfectly adequately and not cost as much to buy or service. That said, the motor-racing wallahs are perfectly entitled to their sport, too, of course.


----------



## CStanford (6 Jun 2015)

Another strategy might be to invest four figures in sharpening kit then go on a quest for steels that would have one rarely use it.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (6 Jun 2015)

rafezetter":2r2kzj4w said:


> Well up to the last few posts (steady boys - and you too Derek) this has been a fascinating read. I'm not surprised the Japanese seem to have the edge (sorry) on making super sharp, but also long lasting, tools. After all they started making swords hundreds of years before anyone else and to a standard that even relatively modern antique versions (the last 150-200 years or so) sometimes command 6 figures sums. For them the art is in the making, not the making of profit from that making, and it's worth noting there isn't a traditionally trained sushi chef in the world that would deign to use a western knife.
> 
> The info on microcracking and how to reduce it's manifestation is something I'll definitely try to remember as I've have to grind out a few nicks recently and have a load of old chisels that I bought I've not yet got around to sorting out. For the regrinds, I have (and would have continued) to just put them in my sharpening jig and sat it on a belt sander until the nicked edge was _just_ gone.
> 
> ...



When grinding out a nick, you've no option but to grind past the edge. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say that micro-cracking WILL occur, just that if you end up with an edge that seems a bit brittle, it might have happened. However, just carry on using and re-honing, and if it has happened, the chances are that intervals between rehonings will increase as the damage is honed away.

On the softwood problem - yes, I know exactly what you mean! In some respects, soft, open-grained woods can be a harder challenge than harder, denser ones; they tend to crush rather than cut. They really demand sharper edges than some harder woods. If possible, using a slicing rather than stabbing cut can help, thogh that's not always possible - cleaning up dovetails, for example. Another thing some have tried is a lower bevel angle, but regrinding bevels for different woods can shorten chisels faster than most of us would like! Some people keep a few paring chisels with a lower bevel angle than their chopping chisels, and use those for situations like this - not with a mallet though! Probably the best solution is keeping the edge dead sharp, and touching up on the polishing stone more often than you usually would, and being a bit pragmatic about surfaces that will be hidden after assembly - work from both sides so that surfaces are cut clean to the marked line, and don't obcess too much about the middle, hidden, bit.


----------



## G S Haydon (6 Jun 2015)

Thanks for the helpful post CC!

My knowledge of tool making is pretty limited. I like the cut of Narex's jib, great value tools made to a high quality standard and enough for David Savage to recommend to his students "These Narex blades are, to my mind, exceptionally good value and I will be recommending them to students here." I've found tool his tool list to be broadly very good http://www.finefurnituremaker.com/woodworking_tools.htm and well worth a visit for a list of tools when you want to be at the highest level. 

I love the motoring analogy and I know the thrust of your point but I reckon the performance is closer than Ford > Ferrari. And, like you said I'm all for people buying all kinds of things, Holtey, LN, Stanley, whatever they like and at whatever the cost however within reason none of them are the Golden Ticket to perfect results at the bench. Time and practice are much more important.


----------



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

> I don't have O1, A2, M2, M4, D2, CPM-3V, and PM-V11 in constant use in my set of tools. Heaven knows I like to experiment and see how other things work but I think most people interested in making something would be better served by practicing paring, chopping, sharpening and sawing to a line using a set of chisels from a supermarket and an appropriate saw rather than worrying about how long and edge might last.
> 
> Just my 2d's worth



Hi Graham

Keep in mind that I was not stating which steel is "best". My post was to show that there are pros and cons to all the steels, that evaluation of them is not a simple matter as in Charles' pronouncement which was good and which was poor since his sharpening media is not up to getting the steels sharp in the first place. Furthermore, the title of this thread is "Does better steel get sharper?"

Incidentally, do you really think that I sit around and experiment rather than building stuff? 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## G S Haydon (6 Jun 2015)

Hey Derek,

I fear with this kind of thread the tone of voice and body language is lost. I'm sorry if my responses have been taken as personal. I enjoy seeing your projects and reading your posts and I'm thankful you take the time to discuss this stuff with me, I enjoy it! I'll extend that offer of a cold one you made me a while back should you ever find yourself in my neck of the woods.

On Grayorm's point about better steel getting sharper we would first have to agree about "better". The Fatmax is a better steel for site tools, the 5001 or whatever better for fine work etc etc. The sharpest always seems to be simple carbon steels.

The thrust of my point was that someone wanting to improve "people" would be better served not worrying too much and steel that's easier to hone would be easier to deal with for them. Then focus on the practice and making

The "people" did not mean "Derek". I know I've bought and then sold more planes over the past few years than is healthy to learn about them as I find the topic interesting and I wanted to find out for myself what suited me best. I'm sure you find the same with the tools steels, methods of work too.


----------



## CStanford (6 Jun 2015)

If one's upgrade path is essentially infinite then the debate is meaningless. Rest assured there will be a "new" steel in a year or so and babies everywhere will go out with the bathwater.


----------



## rafezetter (6 Jun 2015)

Cheshirechappie":npb9kjqv said:


> When grinding out a nick, you've no option but to grind past the edge. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say that micro-cracking WILL occur, just that if you end up with an edge that seems a bit brittle, it might have happened. However, just carry on using and re-honing, and if it has happened, the chances are that intervals between rehonings will increase as the damage is honed away.
> 
> On the softwood problem - yes, I know exactly what you mean! In some respects, soft, open-grained woods can be a harder challenge than harder, denser ones; they tend to crush rather than cut. They really demand sharper edges than some harder woods. If possible, using a slicing rather than stabbing cut can help, thogh that's not always possible - cleaning up dovetails, for example. Another thing some have tried is a lower bevel angle, but regrinding bevels for different woods can shorten chisels faster than most of us would like! Some people keep a few paring chisels with a lower bevel angle than their chopping chisels, and use those for situations like this - not with a mallet though! Probably the best solution is keeping the edge dead sharp, and touching up on the polishing stone more often than you usually would, and being a bit pragmatic about surfaces that will be hidden after assembly - work from both sides so that surfaces are cut clean to the marked line, and don't obcess too much about the middle, hidden, bit.



Thanks for the reply, I did take the pragmatic view in the end, and stopped stressing about the middle bit, and I did as best I could to have crisp edges as I made the layout lines deeper from each side with my marking knife that did slice better; as you say probably down to the fact the blade is only 1.5mm thick and a very shallow cutting angle. I've enough chisels I can spare a small one and make it a shallow paring chisel - I need a skew with shallower shoulders anyway.


----------



## woodbrains (6 Jun 2015)

Jacob":12jnoilj said:


> hereby pronounce that any steel which you can't easily get sharp, is useless!
> If you have to buy special kit it might make more sense to dump the tool instead and get your money back on ebay.
> 
> Sharpening is an essential and continuous part of the process just like sharpening a pencil if you were drawing. It needs to be easy. The tool needs to be usable.



Hello,

I suppose Hengis Pod made a similar statement when someone tried to get him to change his bronze sword for a steel one! :lol: 'Try this nice new steel sword, Hengis, to repel the Romans. But you won't be able to use a bit of sandstone to put an edge on it. No? sure? OK suit yerself' 

By that logic, Japanese chisels are useless if one doesn't own waterstones. It is an odd assertion that one should only own tools that a previously owned maintenance kit will service. Surely you get the tools you need then the stuff to take care of them. All metallurgists please stop devising new steels, because they out perform out oilstones and we won't change!

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (6 Jun 2015)

woodbrains":2qusn4yl said:


> Jacob":2qusn4yl said:
> 
> 
> > hereby pronounce that any steel which you can't easily get sharp, is useless!
> ...


Bronze is much more difficult to sharpen then steel and doesn't keep an edge. Sandstone is good for sharpening steel swords - what else do you imagine they used?


> By that logic, Japanese chisels are useless if one doesn't own waterstones.


Yes there is some truth in this.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Jun 2015)

BB will be along with the popcorn shortly.


----------



## Graham Orm (6 Jun 2015)

So anyway, does it?


----------



## bugbear (6 Jun 2015)

Graham Orm":gg79knv4 said:


> So anyway, does it?



I gave a careful answer to your actual question on page 1.

I suppose it got lost amongst the cut 'n' paste hobby horses.

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie (6 Jun 2015)

Graham Orm":3ipkc46z said:


> So anyway, does it?



Whether one steel is 'better' than another is rather subjective. However, given exactly the same sharpening equipment, tools made of some steels do give sharper edges than the same tools made of some other steels. So the short answer is 'yes'.


----------



## woodbrains (6 Jun 2015)

Jacob":2iv4d7vm said:


> Bronze is much more difficult to sharpen then steel and doesn't keep an edge.




Hello,

This is exactly what Hengis said! But still he didn't recognise the superior steel with its longer edge holding properties, just kept on with the same old same old. Jacob, I'd ask if you were one of Hengis' decendants, but I guess some Roman steel ended his lineage back in the Bronze Age. :shock: 

Japanese steel is 'better' and does take a finer edge, so yes, better steel can be 'sharper'. Necessary or not is another debate, but in my workshop it is. 

Mike.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Jun 2015)

Does better steel get sharper? Better steel for a bean can probably doesn't.


----------



## Graham Orm (7 Jun 2015)

Cheshirechappie":sv6c6bi8 said:


> Graham Orm":sv6c6bi8 said:
> 
> 
> > So anyway, does it?
> ...



Thank you CC, I'd surmised that on the first page of the thread ;-). I was being sarchastic about the meanderings that the thread has taken, quite often missing the point.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jun 2015)

woodbrains":3lj5uwq7 said:


> Jacob":3lj5uwq7 said:
> 
> 
> > Bronze is much more difficult to sharpen then steel and doesn't keep an edge.
> ...


Mike I don't have any bronze tools - what are you burbling on about?


> Japanese steel is 'better' and does take a finer edge, so yes, better steel can be 'sharper'. .....


Sounds a bit circular to me! Surely "better" steel means steel _which can be made sharper_ (in the context of tools) by definition. There isn't "better" steel _which can not be sharpened_ because this would make it "worse" steel.


----------



## Corneel (7 Jun 2015)

It wouldn't surprise me if Stanley used a chrome vanadium steel for its fatmax chisels. These form large and rock hard carbides, which prevent the formation of an ultimate edge, make sharpening more difficult and reduce the toughness of the steel. Add to that the indifference of the underpaid workers in some far away country and you probably take your chances with the hardening and tempering proces too. 

To compensate for the reduced toughness of the type of steel they temper to a lower hardness level, 56 HRc or so, kind of negating the virtues of the carbides.

At least, that is how my carpentry Bahco chisels seem to be, they love to chip and are a bear to grind.

And meanderings of threads are a wonderfull thing and should be encouraged at all times!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Jun 2015)

Graham Orm":1xawwp5p said:


> Cheshirechappie":1xawwp5p said:
> 
> 
> > Graham Orm":1xawwp5p said:
> ...



Well, in one sense, it did open a discussion about toolsteels and their differences, and the result was for the most part thoughtful, informative and interesting, with fewer than usual silly or snarky posts. I rather agree with Corneel, though - sometimes meandering threads can reveal useful woodworking insights. It was a worthwhile question, given the ensuing discussion, so thanks for asking it Graham!


----------



## woodbrains (7 Jun 2015)

Jacob":bhj5bsin said:


> Mike I don't have any bronze tools - what are you burbling on about?
> 
> 
> > Japanese steel is 'better' and does take a finer edge, so yes, better steel can be 'sharper'. .....
> ...



Hello,

I'm not suggesting anyone does have bronze tools, I'm using a metaphor for people who disparage development, without any evidence for doing so, because they refuse to try it, or take the opinions of those who have.

The Stanley 5001 chisels are good tools, but there is compromise in the steel, which to some extent exists in all tools. It just depends which element of the tool is more important to the user. The 5001's have a fair bit of chrome in it, which gives the steel a certain amount of toughness for its hardness. But chrome reduces the level of sharpness a bit; the wire edge is clingy and does not break away as cleanly as a purer carbon steel. A plain carbon steel, for equivalent hardness, will be sharper, but will not quite have the toughness. Both these steels are relatively easy to sharpen with oilstones, say. Neither are terribly abrasion resistant. A2 is more abrasion resistant, but has an even more tenacious wire edge so needs a bit more care to get a sharp edge. Not difficult, just a bit different, if the user understands what is going on. Water stones help with this. A2 is a little less tough, hence higher honing angles. It is a trade off. I find Hock A2 cryo has a better sharpenability in this regard. Metallurgists and metalographers try to develop steels that have the best balance of all the characteristics. So far PM V11 is ticking more of the boxes than other steels I've used, but still is a compromise. I'm finding it to be no more difficult to sharpen as A2 but releases its wire edge super cleanly; it gets sharper. It is more abrasion resistant than steels I've used before and seems not to have a fragile edge, so can be sharpened with lowest honing angles. I've not tried a chisel, so can't tell definitively about toughness, but the edge of a plane iron shows little signs of break down of the edge as plain A2 sometimes does, so I suspect toughness is improved, too. In short, it sharpens as well as plain carbon steel without too much more effort, it can be made truly sharp, it has prodigious wear resistance and looks like it is tough. Logically it must be tough, it is hard too and the edge does not break, so must be tough. Better steel? 

Mike.


----------



## bugbear (7 Jun 2015)

I think harder is generally deemed better.

For example, an experienced woodworker said this a while back:



> If I wanted 2nd hand better than Marples (the old blue handled ones) I'd look for Stanley 5001s which were top of the range back then. Identical shape but black handle and *harder* steel.



:wink: 

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (7 Jun 2015)

bugbear":1l2xh0j8 said:


> I think harder is generally deemed better.
> 
> For example, an experienced woodworker said this a while back:
> 
> ...


You've been in my archive again! Well spotted BB keep up the good work. 
You may have missed my slight change of opinion on this (see above somewhere). I think 5001s are too hard for some purposes - they are prone to chip and not suitable for "site work"; if you hit a bit of grit etc it may take out a bigger chip from the edge as compared to a softer chisel. But then 5001s will take and hold a finer edge e.g. honed to 25º - it's horses for courses.
The trouble with our OPs question (Does better steel get sharper?) is that it is meaningless unless you can define "better" steel in a way which doesn't take into account sharpening, which for an edge tool would also be meaningless. It's circular.


----------



## Graham Orm (7 Jun 2015)

Jacob":37fzadkc said:


> bugbear":37fzadkc said:
> 
> 
> > The trouble with our OPs question (Does better steel get sharper?) is that it is meaningless unless you can define "better" steel in a way which doesn't take into account sharpening, which for an edge tool would also be meaningless. It's circular.



You're splitting hairs just for the sake of it Jacob. The word 'better' is defined by the description 'ball bearing grade steel' the bar is set by that statement, the assumption of the populus being that the 5001's are made from 'better' steel and so are sought after and acclaimed. They have acheived this noteriety simply because they are 'better' than most.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jun 2015)

Graham Orm":31om8d5r said:


> Jacob":31om8d5r said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":31om8d5r said:
> ...


"Ball bearing grade steel" is specific (I presume) but "better" is very vague.
So you question makes sense if you rephrase it "Does Ball bearing grade steel get sharper?" except that you have to ask "sharper than what". So it's still circular.

But yes 5001s get to stay sharper than some softer steel chisels, but may be too hard for some jobs.


----------



## bugbear (7 Jun 2015)

Jacob":cnx9sm2g said:


> bugbear":cnx9sm2g said:
> 
> 
> > I think harder is generally deemed better.
> ...



You keep spoutin' inconsistencies, I'll keep pointin' 'em out.

More generally, woodworkers have always avoided steel that takes a good edge, and holds it.

No, wait, hang on, that can't be right!

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Jun 2015)

Might be worth noting for the non-metallurgists amongst us that a given grade of tool steel can be 'harder' or 'softer' depending on the heat treatment it's received.

Straight carbon steels (and the simpler alloys) achieve their maximum hardness when heated to their critical temperature and then cooled very fast - quenched. The rate of quench can be altered by using different quenchants; caustic soda is one of the fastest, brine is fast, cold water a bit slower, warm water slower still, then oils of various types and finally air (for straight carbon steels, oils and air tend to be too slow, but they work well for some alloy steels). A faster quench gives a harder steel. 

However, in the fully-hard condition, the steel is very brittle. Some toughness can be re-introduced by tempering back, the amount of tempering controlling the final toughness, but at the expense of hardness.

Thus, 1% straight carbon steel hardened and tempered back to about 150 centigrade is very hard and quite brittle, but makes good finish turning tools for materials like brass. Temper back to 300 centigrade, and the steel loses a bit of hardness, but gains enough toughness to make springs and sawblades. Other types of tool are somewhere in between - you could have quite hard and slightly brittle paring chisels, or slightly softer but tougher mortice chisels from the same steel by controlling the tempering temperature.

Thus, it's not necessarily right to say that harder is better. Harder is more brittle, generally.


----------



## bugbear (7 Jun 2015)

Cheshirechappie":5c8kwn6y said:


> Thus, it's not necessarily right to say that harder is better. Harder is more brittle, generally.



Of course, the whole point of some "interesting" alloys is to be hard(er) without being (too)brittle. 

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Jun 2015)

bugbear":2otx6qwt said:


> Cheshirechappie":2otx6qwt said:
> 
> 
> > Thus, it's not necessarily right to say that harder is better. Harder is more brittle, generally.
> ...




Indeed so! 

But steel metallurgy is complex indeed - one good source for anybody wanting to explore further is 'Engineering Metallurgy' by Higgins. Part 1 is the relevant volume. Warning - it's a well written text, but the subject can still be heavy going.


----------



## Graham Orm (7 Jun 2015)

Jacob":5li2off4 said:


> "Ball bearing grade steel" is specific (I presume) but "better" is very vague.
> So you question makes sense if you rephrase it "Does Ball bearing grade steel get sharper?" except that you have to ask "sharper than what". So it's still circular.
> 
> But yes 5001s get to stay sharper than some softer steel chisels, but may be too hard for some jobs.



OK Sheldon.....errr I mean Jacob. :wink: :lol:


----------



## Jacob (7 Jun 2015)

bugbear":3clro9iq said:


> Jacob":3clro9iq said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":3clro9iq said:
> ...


I wouldn't trouble yourself too much BB I don't think you'll get it. :roll:
I think you should go and play in the garden while the sun is still shining.


----------



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

bugbear":3unrn39o said:


> Cheshirechappie":3unrn39o said:
> 
> 
> > Thus, it's not necessarily right to say that harder is better. Harder is more brittle, generally.
> ...



Exactly.

Good Grief ... I posted on this earlier in this thread - elasticity vs hardness, and how to add the former to the latter. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Downwindtracker2 (7 Jun 2015)

I worked in a wire mill. The simple answer is yes. Steel varies greatly in quality within the same grade depending on the steel mill ,heck even between batches from the same mill. Batches are called heat numbers, BTW


----------



## Corneel (7 Jun 2015)

Toughness and wear resistance are opposites in steel. And that's the job of the metalurgist, finding a good balance for the job at hand. And because handtool woodworking is not a real factor in the market anymore, we choose from what is available. But don't expect miracles anytime soon. PMV-11 seems to be heading in the right direction. It's still fairly expensive stuff though. Which also is a factor.


----------



## woodbrains (7 Jun 2015)

Hello,

The new Stanley Sweetheart chisels are made from the same alloy as the old 5001's BTW. They sharpen well but not quite as well as Ashley Iles. Probably a bit tougher, though. Both are head and shoulders over Fat Max!

Mike.


----------



## Graham Orm (7 Jun 2015)

woodbrains":16dsia12 said:


> Hello,
> 
> The new Stanley Sweetheart chisels are made from the same alloy as the old 5001's BTW. They sharpen well but not quite as well as Ashley Iles. Probably a bit tougher, though. Both are head and shoulders over Fat Max!
> 
> Mike.



That's the answer Iwas looking for Mike! I've filled my box with crispy sharp 5001's and ditched the FatMax's.


----------



## woodbrains (7 Jun 2015)

Hello,

I don't know why Stanley didn't continue making the 5001 chisel. I cut my teeth on them and they were great. Nice fine lands, too, so it can be done, though sadly not on the new Sweetheart line. My set are as old as me, bought by my dad the year I was born. They are now butt chisels, in my collection, after a life of use the. Blades are about 1 1/2 long, but still going strong. I rehandled them with short bubinga handles, so they an be used where other chisels dare not go. I might look for some more used ones, though I have loads of chisels already. Still, the remind me of my dad, so where is the harm having a few more!

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jun 2015)

woodbrains":3h0wb1m7 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I don't know why Stanley didn't continue making the 5001 chisel.....


Lack of demand I guess.
It's easy to forget the massive shift in the market from about 1960 to now, with the decline in hand tool trade use. That's why we have vast quantities of old tools available dirt cheap. Even cheaper if you want wooden planes.
They still supply what the trade wants and needs (Fatmax etc) but the new generation of amateurs, or born again hand toolies, don't get catered for so well.
I bought a few new 5001s in about 1970 but only because they'd run out of much cheaper blue handled ones*. The 5001s were top of the range.

*from Hazelhursts in Derby - an old established proper tool shop long since disappeared. The rot was setting in then - I asked for a mortice chisel (my first one ever) but the lad behind the counter didn't know what they were. The queue of old chaps behind me were derisive - "it's a chisel for cutting mortices yer daft t.wat" etc etc


----------



## Corneel (8 Jun 2015)

woodbrains":2f20k4m0 said:


> The 5001's have a fair bit of chrome in it, which gives the steel a certain amount of toughness for its hardness. But chrome reduces the level of sharpness a bit; the wire edge is clingy and does not break away as cleanly as a purer carbon steel. A plain carbon steel, for equivalent hardness, will be sharper, but will not quite have the toughness.
> 
> Mike.



I reach back a little in this thread, because I think this is not quite correct. Chrome doesn't make a steel tough, it makes it more wear resistant. Take for example O1, A2 and D2. They have increasing amounts of chrome (0.5%, 5% and 12% resp.). O1 is tougher then A2, which is tougher then D2, and the wear resistance is the other way around. Vanadium has a similar effect. They are also very hard, so they make sharpening more difficult.

Why is this? These elements form carbides and during cooling these clump together in large crystals. Around these large crystals there is tension in the steel and microcracks can appear. Molybdenum has the effect of reducing the grain size so enhances the toughness, Manganese helps with hardening. Every element has its own pecularities.

PMV-11 is a stainless tool steel with more then 15% chrome. So why is it still tough? The steel cools while it is "powderised" so it cools very fast. This reduces the tendency to form large crystals. The smaller grains also make the steel easier to sharpen, but because chromium carbide is so hard, it is not as easy to sharpen as O1.


----------



## CStanford (8 Jun 2015)

PM-V11 is almost assuredly nothing more than a private label steel. No different than a large dairy who packages milk under a large supermarket chain's name and under its own as well, and maybe several others.

I haven't seen the use of the word "proprietary" in any of Lee Valley's online marketing blurb for PM-V11. If I've missed it, I'd be happy if somebody pointed it out to me.


----------



## Corneel (8 Jun 2015)

I allready wrote that. It is just a standard stainless knife steel.
And LV didn't claim they invented it. They claim that they investigated a lot of likely candidates.


----------



## CStanford (8 Jun 2015)

I think it's a point worth emphasizing.

One wonders why they gave it a proprietary name when surely it has a simple trade name like A2. I don't care for A2 but I do appreciate the fact that Lie-Nielsen felt no need to sex it up with something other than the name for which the formulation is commonly known.

I'm sure if I rang up a steel supplier and attempted to place an order for PM-V11 they wouldn't have the foggiest. 

If it was simply one of dozens of candidates then what's to hide? Why not identify it by its trade name, ANSI name, or whatever standards organization would cover this.

Sometimes marketing guile can be insulting. We're supposed to just accept that this is a 'better steel' without being able to inform ourselves as to its content or just its regular trade name in the industry. The only way to find out is to buy some of it, so, sale made I guess.

Lie-Nielsen, Stanley with its new line, Hock, Holtey no less -- no confusion about what you're buying. You can make an informed decision about the honing media you currently own and whether it will require 'upgrading' and whether it's worth all that plus other factors. 

The whole thing leaves me cold.


----------



## Jacob (8 Jun 2015)

CStanford":21gjwlb5 said:


> ....
> The whole thing leaves me cold.


The whole thing leaves me uninterested. 
In the beginning I did listen to all the baloney and bought a Hock blade and a Smoothcut for a no4 and 5. They are different from the originals (and each other) but are otherwise pointless and a waste of money.


----------



## iNewbie (8 Jun 2015)

CStanford":3vhauamh said:


> I think it's a point worth emphasizing.
> 
> One wonders why they gave it a proprietary name when surely it has a simple trade name like A2. I don't care for A2 but I do appreciate the fact that Lie-Nielsen felt no need to sex it up with something other than the name for which the formulation is commonly known.
> 
> ...



Is it kick Veritas week, this week? 

I'll sit back with my popcorn...


----------



## CStanford (8 Jun 2015)

Nope, just asking why they won't identify the steel. What's the big deal? None of the other major players apparently have a problem with it.


----------



## woodbrains (8 Jun 2015)

Corneel":2r7wvvlj said:


> I reach back a little in this thread, because I think this is not quite correct. Chrome doesn't make a steel tough, it makes it more wear resistant. Take for example O1, A2 and D2. They have increasing amounts of chrome (0.5%, 5% and 12% resp.). O1 is tougher then A2, which is tougher then D2, and the wear resistance is the other way around. Vanadium has a similar effect. They are also very hard, so they make sharpening more difficult.
> 
> Why is this? These elements form carbides and during cooling these clump together in large crystals. Around these large crystals there is tension in the steel and microcracks can appear. Molybdenum has the effect of reducing the grain size so enhances the toughness, Manganese helps with hardening. Every element has its own pecularities.
> 
> PMV-11 is a stainless tool steel with more then 15% chrome. So why is it still tough? The steel cools while it is "powderised" so it cools very fast. This reduces the tendency to form large crystals. The smaller grains also make the steel easier to sharpen, but because chromium carbide is so hard, it is not as easy to sharpen as O1.



Hello,

You are right, I should have written abrasion resistance, and have contradicted what I said earlier. The point about trading off one characteristic for another is my main point here, though. Get a bit of extra wear resistance and lose a bit of hardness, gain a bit of hardness lose some toughness etc. etc. 

PM V11 better balances toughness, wear resistance, sharpenability and hardness of anything I have come across so far, without losing too much of one in preference for another. It doesn't matter what Veritas choose to call it, The designation A2 or O1 are just as meaningless, it is just a convenient way of labelling and differentiating stuff. What was it Richard Feynman said about the names of things. They don't mean a thing, or tell us anything about that thing and it doesn't make us clever knowing the names. We need to know the nature of things to understand them, I'm paraphrasing, obviously.

Mike


----------



## CStanford (8 Jun 2015)

"The designation A2 or O1 are just as meaningless, it is just a convenient way of labelling and differentiating stuff. What was it Richard Feynman said about the names of things."

It is probably meaningless with respect to woodworking hand tool marketing programmes. Not at all meaningless if you're an engineer buying steel for a critical application, or a company that makes tool and die products.

They have standards institutes for steel I assume you know. This isn't done just for kicks and giggles.


----------



## iNewbie (8 Jun 2015)

CStanford":27ctlemq said:


> Nope, just asking why they won't identify the steel. What's the big deal? None of the other major players apparently have a problem with it.



You're right, they don't - none of the other manufacturers have a problem with what they want to call it. Its only you.


----------



## CStanford (8 Jun 2015)

Other tool companies call steels by their industry standard name. Why can't Lee Valley? Seems simple enough.

If it's patented/proprietary, fine. If not, what is it?


----------



## Downwindtracker2 (8 Jun 2015)

If the marketing of powdered metal #7 leave you cold, the price of a chisel will leave you frozen, chuckle.


----------



## CStanford (8 Jun 2015)

... good one ...


----------



## iNewbie (8 Jun 2015)

CStanford":3raxoeuf said:


> Other tool companies call steels by their industry standard name. Why can't Lee Valley? Seems simple enough.
> 
> If it's patented/proprietary, fine. If not, what is it?



Your not going to buy it either way so why do you even care - apart from the trolling...


----------



## bugbear (8 Jun 2015)

CStanford":1sp91dkl said:


> Other tool companies call steels by their industry standard name. Why can't Lee Valley? Seems simple enough.
> 
> If it's patented/proprietary, fine. If not, what is it?



Surely a "practical" man like yourself just wants to know how well it performs, not what it's made of,
or what the composition and heat treatment of the steel involved?

Or are you going all "theoretical" on us?

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (8 Jun 2015)

If the steel is not completely proprietary to Lee Valley I'd like to know the name by which it is known in industry -- powdered metal grade or whatever.


----------



## iNewbie (8 Jun 2015)

There you go: http://www.leevalley.com/US/home/Contact.aspx


----------



## Jacob (9 Jun 2015)

If you can be bothered to google PMV 11 you discover it is entirely a fabrication of Veritas - possibly in both senses of the word.
You will find no objective information about it at all except as derived from Veritas's own web pages and repeated by their fans and various retailers selling their products.

Take it or leave it! :lol:


----------



## iNewbie (9 Jun 2015)

Jacob":1f0lm7il said:


> If you can be bothered to google PMV 11 you discover it is entirely a fabrication of Veritas - possibly in both senses of the word.
> You will find no objective information about it at all except as derived from Veritas's own web pages and repeated by their fans and various retailers selling their products.
> 
> Take it or leave it! :lol:



The old 'fan (boy)' comment always raises a larf. If someone posts something a _detractor_ gets irked about your a "fanboy" - not just someone with an open mind and no agenda...

LV own no-one anything. They put $250,000 into their research and they can tell you what info they like as far as what steel it is. Its their research - if you don't like it, don't buy it. Simples. 


The objective info Jacob is, that it does what it says on the tin... 

Another fanboy finds it works for him, too - and what would he know, eh? :roll: :

http://sauerandsteiner.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... m-v11.html


----------



## Corneel (9 Jun 2015)

The only one outside the Lee Valley factory who really tested the iron in a controlled manner is Derek Cohen. He did some tests on endgrain. And if I understand his reports correctly, then he didn't yet see much difference between an LV A2 iron and a PMV one in the LV shooting board plane after 60 strokes on a nasty piece of Australian concrete. In the LN 51 shooting board plane (which has a higher cutting angle) he saw that the LN A2 iron performed worse then the LV PMV.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LVShootingPlane.html

Derek isn't 100% independent, because he has a close connection with them, but I don't think he would be lying.


----------



## CStanford (9 Jun 2015)

End grain schmind grain. Good Gawd fellas, how wide of an incised line does one need to saw? If a cut needs more than a couple of passes what's needed is better sawing technique, not some super steel. The worst plane you've ever owned ought to handle it with no problem.


----------



## Corneel (9 Jun 2015)

Dereks test was an effort to do a controlled comparison of toolsteels. Whatever you th think otherwise, the test itself certainly wasn't a bad one.


----------



## Jacob (9 Jun 2015)

The only real test is to indulge in long periods of planing on a variety of real projects (not test pieces), with all the intermittent probs of sharpening. You gradually get to prefer certain planes and find others just don't get used.
For me the big users are Record 5 1/2, Stanley 7 (with laminated blade), record 5, Stanley 220, Stanley 78. Could just about dump the others - in fact have done most of them after suitable trial period. Clifton 4 next to go - it doesn't earn it's keep and simply couldn't compete in term of value for money


----------



## CStanford (9 Jun 2015)

Corneel":1ho8rsus said:


> Dereks test was an effort to do a controlled comparison of toolsteels. Whatever you th think otherwise, the test itself certainly wasn't a bad one.



It actually highlights how ridiculously esoteric all of this really is -- the 'best' test is doing something one shouldn't have to do much at all. But it's supposed to 'extrapolate' I suppose.


----------



## iNewbie (9 Jun 2015)

Corneel":5u4ylhd6 said:


> The only one outside the Lee Valley factory who really tested the iron in a controlled manner is Derek Cohen. He did some tests on endgrain. And if I understand his reports correctly, then he didn't yet see much difference between an LV A2 iron and a PMV one in the LV shooting board plane after 60 strokes on a nasty piece of Australian concrete. In the LN 51 shooting board plane (which has a higher cutting angle) he saw that the LN A2 iron performed worse then the LV PMV.
> 
> http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LVShootingPlane.html
> 
> Derek isn't 100% independent, because he has a close connection with them, but I don't think he would be lying.



From his summing up:

"Another notable area of excellence is the blades, either the A2 or, better still, the PM-V11. Both take an edge well and hold it a longer time than any other blade used in this test."

"Since there was a comparison with the LN #51 a comment or two about that plane is important. My respect for the LN is not diminished at all. It was and remains a superb plane for shooting. It is balanced and powerful – more powerful than the Veritas – and works exceptionally well. The main factors highlighted here are that the set up (blade insertion and positioning) is not as sophisticated and as easy to do as the Veritas, and that the blade does not hold an edge as long as either the two Veritas steels in this review. However the blade does get sharp and it does perform well – just that the steel is not in the same class as the Veritas'. It will dull sooner and then begin to underperform. Maintain a sharp blade – with more frequent honing – and you will be rewarded with a top notch performance."


----------



## woodbrains (9 Jun 2015)

Hello,

I'm still not sure why those who have not used the steel are finding something negative to say about it, even inventing arguments such as why it is calls what it is. I've use the stuff in a Record 07 plane and it is remarkable how it holds an edge. If this is of no interest, then fine, but arguing hat it doesn't do anything remarkable when it has not been experienced is plain silly. I have no affiliation to Veritas whatsoever, I am fairly gimmick averse, though I do like high quality kit. I have spent a good long while working with ordinary tools, though tuned up to perform. I have a liking for earlyish Record planes, which have been my mainstay for decades. So believe me or not, the PM V 11 is different. Could I get by without it, absolutely and aside from the plane iron I have, probably will. But make no bones, with ornery abrasive timbers, it is worth having one iron in your kit. Modern woodworkers have to put up with all kinds of stuff the period craftsmen did not. Plywood, MDF, laminates of various kinds, exotic woods, even kiln dried timber is not as friendly as old air dried stuff. If we never work anything beyond mild, home grown timbers (Aussie nationals excepted) then it doesn't matter too much, but I do work that I don't like, such as planing edges of MDF and plywood. Suppose I should get D2 irons for that, but they are not nice for regular work. PM V11 is good for anything I throw at it and does my preferred fine work too. Jacob mentions the old laminated Stanley and Record irons as being the best he has. I don't disagree that they are very good, they were made in a time when tools were very good quality. They don't make them any more because of cost, and I'll bet if they were to be made now, they would cost as much as these PM V11 irons, or more. And they are not as good, IMO. Guess what, we are actually advancing and improving, if people would be a bit more positive and embrace the developments, we might actually enjoy ourselves more and be more productive. I'm having fun, though, and even the naysayers won't put a dampener on it, because my eyes are open. When I got my first Veritas plane, I could not believe how much better it was than what I had had before. So now I never doubt that modern tools and equipment are improvements, until I try them, or take a trusted opinion. Whether they are needed is down to the individual, but make no bones, LV, LN, et al, tools are vastly superior to their heirs, they just are.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (9 Jun 2015)

Personally I am very curious to what PMV-11 actually is. I also bought a blade out of curiosity, and so far it certainly doesn't disappoint. It is very hard to make an objective comparison, because every bit of wood is different and I am also not a machine. So any comparison is going to be highly subjective. Nothing wrong with being subjective of course, but subjective is never going to be objective. Or so to speak.

In the mean time I am plenty happy with my old planes. Maybe largely because I am hopelessly romantic, and these new ones just don't speak to me like a 125 year old Stanley does. And I like lighter planes better then heavy ones, which also makes me enjoy the oldies better.

There is probably something Calvinistic too: Thou shall not enjoy new and shiny planes!


----------



## JimB (10 Jun 2015)

I think the problem lies in modern-day advertising. There is so much out there being promoted as the answer to a woodworker's dreams that any real advances tend to get lost in the noise (or buried in the shavings).


----------



## CStanford (10 Jun 2015)

Honing breaks sort of suit me. They give me time to think before I do something stupid, this doesn't always work but I'm glad for the break anyway.


----------



## Jacob (10 Jun 2015)

CStanford":26y5jr1s said:


> Honing breaks sort of suit me. They give me time to think before I do something stupid, this doesn't always work but I'm glad for the break anyway.


Ditto sharpening pencils.
Parallel worlds. You can buy all manner of mechanical pencils with loose leads in different diameters and hardnesses, some with a sharpener and a rubber built in. Such an advance the those silly wooden things! But somehow the old ones are much easier to work with. 
There's a tiny level of skill required to sharpen a wooden pencil with a knife or a chisel but it's a skill well worth acquiring - it's quicker and you don't have to invest in a lot of kit and stupid gadgets.
And they are infinitely more useful than Sketchup.


----------



## bugbear (10 Jun 2015)

JimB":ix8wt11q said:


> I think the problem lies in modern-day advertising. There is so much out there being promoted as the answer to a woodworker's dreams that any real advances tend to get lost in the noise (or buried in the shavings).



I don't think it's advertising; the problem is that, at any point in time, there are many innovations, and it's not always easy to tell which are the good ones, the ones which will last.

I am reminded of this most saturday mornings, when a radio 2 show plays most of the music from the 1950's and 60's.

In hindsight, we tend to think it was a golden age, with nothing but great music.

This programs shows you the dross as well.

BugBear (who hears it in his round of the town charity shops, bargain hunting)


----------



## Jacob (10 Jun 2015)

JimB":3l2j438x said:


> I think the problem lies in modern-day advertising. There is so much out there being promoted as the answer to a woodworker's dreams that any real advances tend to get lost in the noise (or buried in the shavings).


What advances? 
Most of what is talked about is retro styling - going back to thick blades, poor quality adjusters, giving meaningless steam-punk names to bits of steel (PMT-999) whatever it's called.
I can't say I'm aware of any advances over my collection of very old tools - quite the opposite - increasing cosmetics but a serious decline in quality - the steel they use on LN LV plane bodies is soft and inferior to the normal cast iron of a generation ago.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jun 2015)

Yes, Sounds of the Sixties. It just reminds you how dire much of it was.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (10 Jun 2015)

Knowing way more than a bit about powder metallurgy, I have purchased a chisel and a block plane blade made from PMV-11 and find it easily delivers for the types of wood I work (cherry, walnut, white oak, and similar species). I found little time difference in achieving an edge with either my oilstones or SpdyderCo ceramics, after determining the correct bevel angle (around 25 degrees). The edges held up better than A2 (which I hate-O1 or W1 are my favorites).

Why my interest in PMV-11? To begin with, I own a powder metal parts manufacturing business and I was curious as to how the material would hold up. It is made differently than traditional powder metal (which would describe my plant) and characterizing the material as powder metal does not do it justice as the processing of the metal composite is what gives the material its uniqueness. In using the edge tools I have, I have paid close attention to see if it would show the negatives of using a traditional powder metal manufacturing method, and the PMV-11 did not exhibit any of those negatives. 

I'm not sure of Rob Lee's future plans for this material, but I see uses for it far beyond the tiny hand tool market, perhaps it will be used in a larger segment of the Lee Valley business, or perhaps it is the first iteration of an evolving material. I don't know. I will say it is my belief that how it was done is certainly patentable for content and process (I hold a patent on a powder metal material where we have achieved electrical conductivity approaching 30% above traditional wrought materials, for process and material composition).


----------



## Corneel (10 Jun 2015)

LV is on the application side of the material, not the development side. I guess the steel manufacturer certainly has patented this stuff. I am not sure if you can patent an application of an already patented material in this case. When you choose a knife steel and use it for plane blades and chisels, would that be patentable?

When you dig around a bit you find all kinds of wonderfull new steels. They have entire lines dedicated to knife steels for example these ones: http://sb-specialty-metals.com/products/knifesteels

LV makes it clear in their published articles that they didn't invent the steel themselves, they just investigated likely candidates.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (10 Jun 2015)

Corneel":3m4m20v6 said:


> LV is on the application side of the material, not the development side. I guess the steel manufacturer certainly has patented this stuff. I am not sure if you can patent an application of an already patented material in this case. When you choose a knife steel and use it for plane blades and chisels, would that be patentable?
> 
> When you dig around a bit you find all kinds of wonderfull new steels. They have entire lines dedicated to knife steels for example these ones: http://sb-specialty-metals.com/products/knifesteels
> 
> LV makes it clear in their published articles that they didn't invent the steel themselves, they just investigated likely candidates.



LV is on the application side of the material, but also could control the development, as I did. Within the PM industry, there are only a handful of raw material suppliers, and end users having an active role in development is not at all uncommon, as is the patenting of the end result. In my case, it was not a new steel, but a method of using a carrier material to permit an additive to remain within the final part. The carrier material liquifies and "burns out" of the end product, leaving the desired material within. All materials are commonly available, but the process and mixture was new. Incidentally, the use of it is for a really exotic product: solenoids and stators for electric motors. 

I have no knowledge if LV did or did not patent the material or process, but does demonstrate a measurable incremental improvement over other steels. How it is accepted is up to the marketing department as well as the buying public!


----------



## Corneel (10 Jun 2015)

LV did not apply for a patent on this product.

BTW, pretty interesting stuff you are working on!


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (10 Jun 2015)

The interesting part lasted for about five minutes! Then it's just work.

Application is also pretty boring: shell/case for solenoids as I said, but the higher conductivity makes for a more energy efficient product for our customer. For electric motors, it is cost savings for the motor builders, as our material will permit a single stator instead of a stack of stamped stators, without any degradation of performance.


----------



## bugbear (10 Jun 2015)

Corneel":174vqak2 said:


> LV is on the application side of the material, not the development side. I guess the steel manufacturer certainly has patented this stuff. I am not sure if you can patent an application of an already patented material in this case



In general, it is certainly possible to patent the novel and unobvious application of an existing patent to a new art.

BugBear


----------



## JimB (11 Jun 2015)

bugbear":3q2uh473 said:


> I don't think it's advertising; the problem is that, at any point in time, there are many innovations, and it's not always easy to tell which are the good ones, the ones which will last.
> 
> I am reminded of this most saturday mornings, when a radio 2 show plays most of the music from the 1950's and 60's.
> 
> ...


I always found tool selection to be easy back then - you stuck to Stanley or Record for planes and as for other stuff, we were told made in England is good, British made probably isn't and Empire made is rubbish.  
My mother complained about the music being vacuous but I pointed out that she grew up with such lyrics as, 'when my sugar walks down the street, all the little birdies go tweet, tweet tweet'. :roll:


----------

