# New hand planes?



## BearTricks

I know a lot of people tend to lean towards buying old planes and fixing them up rather than buying new but are there any new planes worth buying? 

I have a woodie for general flattening and an old Stanley 4 1/2 (that I bought second hand but did minimal work on as it had apparently been bought new over half a century ago and sat in a cupboard since) for smoothing and they get me through 90% of what I need to do. The woodie is a bit temperamental however and I wouldn't mind getting something new that works more or less out of the box to speed up planing the ridiculous amount of sapele taking up the front room. 

I can't exactly justify spending money on a Lie Nielsen or Veritas that isn't on sale so I've been eyeing up an Axminster Rider. Are there any others worth considering? 

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## adidat

Quangsheng from workshop heaven are pretty decent! 

Adidat


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

I've only got one new plane (and I have a lot of planes), it is a QS block plane from WH. It is a very well made tool and if I were buying new planes I would not hesitate to buy QS. I don't really see how LN or LV could be much better. I suppose if I won the lottery (unlikely as I don't enter) I would buy clifton because they're UK made


----------



## Mr_P

Only one new plane here and its a Rider block plane, no complaints and happy to recomend with caveats.

Its heavy, I'm a big chap and I like that. Mine was perfect from the box, heard some aren't.

Think Peter Seftons Woodriver range is similar to the Quangsheng range from Matthew.

http://woodworkersworkshop.co.uk/epages ... /WoodRiver


----------



## iNewbie

BearTricks":2ocyt0ga said:


> I can't exactly justify spending money on a Lie Nielsen or Veritas that isn't on sale so I've been eyeing up an Axminster Rider.



Buy one secondhand. Seriously.


----------



## MIGNAL

Why not fix the woodie so it's no longer 'temperamental' ?


----------



## ED65

BearTricks":1s9s0m4g said:


> I can't exactly justify spending money on a Lie Nielsen or Veritas that isn't on sale


To be perfectly honest I'm not sure if either of them are really worth their money anyway, not at the prices over here, so I wouldn't recommend them even if they were in your price range. 

Perhaps a better question than what brands are worth considering would be how you can fix up your existing planes so they work right, unless neither is the size you need? If you need a 6 then a 4 isn't a really decent substitute, even if it's a good one.


----------



## deema

I would either wait for the sales / promotions or buy secondhand either a Clifton a LV or a LN. They hold their value and are a delight to use on the bench. If your doing site work, have a couple of Record / Stanley planes which are circa 50 years old, not the best, but you don't loose too much sleep if they go walkies / fall from a height.


----------



## Hatherton_wood

I've yet to see a perfect Rider plane - everyone has some issue that needs work to rectify - once done they work fine. Shame the quality control is not better. Quangsheng are far better and on the block planes I much prefer their V3 adjustment mechanism to LN's which quite frankly can be rough in operation sometimes. Veritas are better than both in this repsect. On the bench planes QS are a good cheaper substitute for for LN or Veritas and nearly as good. But none of them seem to have the ability to get such nicely finished castings as the early Stanley's or Record's - maybe the casting sand used these days?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"I've yet to see a perfect Rider plane - everyone has some issue that needs work to rectify"
Cost engineering?
About the best finished casting on all my planes (old Stanley, Record, and Marples) is a Woden. The worst is a Marples.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

BearTricks":3lvemp5w said:


> I know a lot of people tend to lean towards buying old planes and fixing them up rather than buying new but are there any new planes worth buying?
> 
> I have a woodie for general flattening and an old Stanley 4 1/2 (that I bought second hand but did minimal work on as it had apparently been bought new over half a century ago and sat in a cupboard since) for smoothing and they get me through 90% of what I need to do. The woodie is a bit temperamental however and I wouldn't mind getting something new that works more or less out of the box to speed up planing the ridiculous amount of sapele taking up the front room.
> 
> I can't exactly justify spending money on a Lie Nielsen or Veritas that isn't on sale so I've been eyeing up an Axminster Rider. Are there any others worth considering?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk



Hi BT

LN and LV make high quality planes. No doubt about that. Much of the benefit lies in the better quality adjustment and fit-and-finish, and the better quality blades (requiring minimal flattening from LN and none from LV). This is important for some, but not all. A tuned vintage Stanley (albeit with more backlash) and fitted with an aftermarket blade for increased edge holding (there will be those here who will dispute this) can perform as well as the LN and LV. I have a UK-made Stanley #3 with a LV PM-V11 blade and chipbreaker which has superb performance. The question is whether Quangsheng planes have the same level of adjustment as the LN/LV or the Stanley? Others here can answer this.

What you might consider is a smaller size Stanley to your #4 1/2, such as a #3 (my preference) or a #4. The advantage of the smaller planes is less effort in honing and using. They are more nimble than the #4 1/2.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## YorkshireMartin

After spending months on and off fiddling with old stanley planes, aside from my shoulder and router planes, i've had very little luck. By the time I've messed about diagnosing the issues, fettling, sourcing parts, installing parts and so on, I might as well have bought a decent new plane. 

My personal take on this, is that I'd rather have a single high quality plane, say a 5 1/2 jack, than 3 planes which half work and that would take an amateur like me, months to fix.

If you factor all that in, a Veritas or Lie Nielsen is cheap as chips to be honest. But it does depend on how you like to spend your time.

I'm going to add this, controversially perhaps. An Axminster Rider plane, if you ever decide to sell up or change, will be worth about the price of a medium donner kebab. A lie nielsen or vertias will probably be worth 60% or more of what it cost you originally. This is often overlooked in discussion, but it's a serious consideration for me personally.

I'm a beginner so your skill level may well dictate otherwise, but in the year I've been at this, I've decided that cheap tools are false economy and I've lost literally months of creative time to pissing about with them, something I dont wish to repeat.


----------



## Steve1066

I was only reading this th other day 
stanley-62-sweetheart-la-jack-plane-t67083.html


----------



## bugbear

BearTricks":nzspuo79 said:


> I know a lot of people tend to lean towards buying old planes and fixing them up rather than buying new but are there any new planes worth buying?
> 
> I have a woodie for general flattening and an old Stanley 4 1/2 (that I bought second hand but did minimal work on as it had apparently been bought new over half a century ago and sat in a cupboard since) for smoothing and they get me through 90% of what I need to do. The woodie is a bit temperamental however and I wouldn't mind getting something new that works more or less out of the box to speed up planing the ridiculous amount of sapele taking up the front room.
> 
> I can't exactly justify spending money on a Lie Nielsen or Veritas that isn't on sale so I've been eyeing up an Axminster Rider. Are there any others worth considering?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk



If you own a woodie jack, it'll do serious/bulk stock planing with more ease than ANY metallic plane.

A sharp, tuned, waxed wooden jack is a thing of true joy. (*)

BugBear

(*) and mine's a Preston


----------



## undergroundhunter

bugbear":3evsx7uk said:


> BearTricks":3evsx7uk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of people tend to lean towards buying old planes and fixing them up rather than buying new but are there any new planes worth buying?
> 
> I have a woodie for general flattening and an old Stanley 4 1/2 (that I bought second hand but did minimal work on as it had apparently been bought new over half a century ago and sat in a cupboard since) for smoothing and they get me through 90% of what I need to do. The woodie is a bit temperamental however and I wouldn't mind getting something new that works more or less out of the box to speed up planing the ridiculous amount of sapele taking up the front room.
> 
> I can't exactly justify spending money on a Lie Nielsen or Veritas that isn't on sale so I've been eyeing up an Axminster Rider. Are there any others worth considering?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you own a woodie jack, it'll do serious/bulk stock planing with more ease than ANY metallic plane.
> 
> A sharp, tuned, waxed wooden jack is a thing of true joy. (*)
> 
> BugBear
> 
> (*) and mine's a Preston
Click to expand...


+1,

I only use wooden planes now the exception to the rule is my type 11 no4 witch I use for end grain, this is only because the adjustment is quicker. Wood on wood is just magic, metal planes take some serious lubrication (wax, oil, whatever) to keep up with a plain old woodie.

What about the wooden jack is causing you problems?

Matt


----------



## custard

Do you have a method for _grinding_ the iron (that's grinding, not honing, i.e. removing relatively large quantities of metal to establish an initial 25 degree angle)? That would ideally be a powered grindstone or a powered linisher.

If you don't then stick with bailey style planes (like your 4 1/2) and their relatively thin irons. Stay well clear of thick irons and avoid any fancy alloys like A2 like the plague. Grinding stuff like that by hand, even with an ultra coarse grit diamond stone, is just a marathon dispiriting slog that will take at least 30 minutes of constant hard work and possibly much much longer if you have a badly abused old woodie or a cryogenically hardened A2 iron.

By the way, did you get the Swiss Pear Wood that I sent you?


----------



## worn thumbs

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> BearTricks":20iedy6j said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of people tend to lean towards buying old planes and fixing them up rather than buying new but are there any new planes worth buying?
> 
> I have a woodie for general flattening and an old Stanley 4 1/2 (that I bought second hand but did minimal work on as it had apparently been bought new over half a century ago and sat in a cupboard since) for smoothing and they get me through 90% of what I need to do. The woodie is a bit temperamental however and I wouldn't mind getting something new that works more or less out of the box to speed up planing the ridiculous amount of sapele taking up the front room.
> 
> I can't exactly justify spending money on a Lie Nielsen or Veritas that isn't on sale so I've been eyeing up an Axminster Rider. Are there any others worth considering?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi BT
> 
> LN and LV make high quality planes. No doubt about that. Much of the benefit lies in the better quality adjustment and fit-and-finish, and the better quality blades (requiring minimal flattening from LN and none from LV). This is important for some, but not all. A tuned vintage Stanley (albeit with more backlash) and fitted with an aftermarket blade for increased edge holding (there will be those here who will dispute this) can perform as well as the LN and LV. I have a UK-made Stanley #3 with a LV PM-V11 blade and chipbreaker which has superb performance. The question is whether Quangsheng planes have the same level of adjustment as the LN/LV or the Stanley? Others here can answer this.
> 
> What you might consider is a smaller size Stanley to your #4 1/2, such as a #3 (my preference) or a #4. The advantage of the smaller planes is less effort in honing and using. They are more nimble than the #4 1/2.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek
Click to expand...


I agree with the points about a good wooden jack and the #3.The problem is that few people have tried a good wooden jack and the planes themselves are becoming scarcer.I must have been one of the last to have used a wooden jack in our woodwork lessons (in the 60's) and it was absolutely fine if you picked a good one.A bad one was a different matter altogether and if a modern day amateur picks up a blunt,distorted or dry plane he is likely to struggle or to buy one of the "approved by amateurs" modern types.Where a wooden plane does have a weakness,it is dealing with man made boards and I would never plane the edge of plywood with one for fear of wearing a hollow.

It really is a worthwhile project to pick up a sound wooden plane and learn more about it.For one thing they are remarkably cheap and the quality of the irons is the equal of anything I have ever used.You need to be sure that the sole is flat and that the iron is truly sharp,apply a drop of linseed oil and learn the ways of adjusting with a small hammer.On two occasions I have been given virtually unused wooden jacks and it amazed me just how much oil they soaked up;the weight increased markedly and they became a pleasure to use.My first wooden jack had a broad arrow stamped on it and came from a government surplus shop.It remains a pleasure to use and holds a fine edge.

Modern quality planes are excellent and almost never used by professionals.Just as you find few earning a living on the £2,000 Scandinavian benches,you see most woodworkers using Stanley or Record of the #4 or #5 variety.There are ,of course a few exceptions and they tend to be based in a workshop at all times and not having to work on a sheet of ply perched on two oil drums with the rain blowing across the end of the ply.So much of the advice given to hobby woodworkers seems to come from hobbyists writing for the magazines and favourably reviewing the high priced hardware-and curiously enough the same hardware features prominently in the advertising space of the magazines.The attitude seems to be infectious;I know of one fellow trying to make a living in woodwork without a lot in the way of training and he wouldn't buy a Stanley iron because it wasn't made from cryogenically treated A2 steel.He was stumped when I asked what made it so necessary,but he had read in a magazine that it was a good idea.I suppose it would have made setting up his honing guide a less frequent operation and those of us who work with wood for a living often struggle to suppress a wry grin when we see one of those appear.

I have a couple of other bugbears about planes.One is why anybody would want a 4 1/2 or 5 1/2;have you ever seen anybody who could take four or five full width shavings with one?Hence my appreciation of the lighter #3.The other dislike is corrugated soles;they might have less contact surface with the wood,but if you plane across a knot and break out a small piece it is likely to roll along the groove and leave a line in the surface.

There is almost no plane that can't be made to work well and it is important to distinguish between tasks that make the plane work and tasks that make the plane pretty.The worst plane I ever made usable was of foreign origin and a neighbour bought it at a market.After struggling with it for a while he asked me to have a look at it-the sole was twisted and after half an hour with some emery paper and a piece of glass it was flat and required just a bit of frog adjustment and sharpening.Not bad for an outlay of a tenner for the plane.In summary you can pay a little or a lot for a plane,just make sure it is flat and sharp and it will work.


----------



## BearTricks

custard":1ba1nkg5 said:


> Do you have a method for _grinding_ the iron (that's grinding, not honing, i.e. removing relatively large quantities of metal to establish an initial 25 degree angle)? That would ideally be a powered grindstone or a powered linisher.
> 
> If you don't then stick with bailey style planes (like your 4 1/2) and their relatively thin irons. Stay well clear of thick irons and avoid any fancy alloys like A2 like the plague. Grinding stuff like that by hand, even with an ultra coarse grit diamond stone, is just a marathon dispiriting slog that will take at least 30 minutes of constant hard work and possibly much much longer if you have a badly abused old woodie or a cryogenically hardened A2 iron.
> 
> By the way, did you get the Swiss Pear Wood that I sent you?


I have the bench grinder that I use for sharpening turning tools. There's another wheel on it that I use for primary bevels on various things. 

I've been through the 30 minute (more like an hour) slog doing the bevel by hand too in the past. The iron is as sharp as it will ever be. 

I will have an attempt at flatteningi the sole too. 

And yes I received the pear. I sent you a PM via Tapatalk but it seems like the majority of my messages aren't going through. I've only uses a small piece of it to make a bottle opener handle that got some use on Christmas day. It's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks again. 

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## sploo

worn thumbs":1wogngu0 said:


> I have a couple of other bugbears about planes.One is why anybody would want a 4 1/2 or 5 1/2;have you ever seen anybody who could take four or five full width shavings with one?Hence my appreciation of the lighter #3.


???

As a complete novice with planes I may be misunderstanding something, but after cleaning up and sharpening a 1960s vintage Stanley #4 1/2 it'll easily take full width shavings with little effort.

The 5 1/2 and 3 (or 4) are different tools for different purposes though, so it's not just that a #3 is a small #5 (physically yes, functionally no).


----------



## Hatherton_wood

The #4-1/2 is a great smoother I would not be without - it easily takes full width fine shavings for hours on end if need be - it is the one I would choose first myself.. The #3 and #4 I like too - just use the most suitable one for the job in hand.


----------



## Graham Orm

I have 1 new and numerous old. My fave is a Stanley #5 with plastic handles, followed by my #6 Quang Sheng. I've had several #5 Stanleys and have worked hard to get them all fettled. Only this one is as good as I would like. The QS was second hand and the seller said he'd done extensive work to flatten the sole, so not perfect from the box. However it cuts beautifully now. Come to think of it, I probably like the QS as much as the Stanley, but the Stanley has character ;-)


----------



## deema

A decent set of bench planes that IMO covering what ever you need is a 41/2, 51/3 and a 6. They all have the same sized iron so have interchangeable parts. If you need a different pitch of Frog it fits all planes assuming you have purchased all the same make / vintage.
A No4 is what I carry when on site fitting stuff, the reason, it's light and since I'm fitting rather than making it does everything I could possibly want. 

I would always recommend anyone new or beginning woodwork to buy as their first plane either a Clifton, Lie Neilson or a Lie Valley plane probably a 51/2 as their first plane. The reason for this is that you will know for certain that it it is properly tuned and setup, anything that's not going right when your planing is therefore down to technique. This allows you to learn how to use a plane safe in the knowledge that there is nothing wrong with the tool. Once you have mastered the plane, you can should you wish then buy vintage and be able to compare a secondhand plane with your 'reference plane' this enables you to know how good or bad a vintage plane is and also to compare it to something as you tune it up. All in all IMO one top class plane is a really good investment.


----------



## David C

The notion that a 4 1/2 or 5 1/2 is hard to push seems missguided.

Who says the shavings must be full width?

Camber is a very useful technique, particularly for squaring edges, setting and avoiding tracks.

My experience is that a tuned up 5 1/2 can both straighten and smooth, it makes a wonderful first plane.

David Charlesworth


----------



## sploo

deema":1ages1jg said:


> I would always recommend anyone new or beginning woodwork to buy as their first plane either a Clifton, Lie Neilson or a Lie Valley plane probably a 51/2 as their first plane. The reason for this is that you will know for certain that it it is properly tuned and setup, anything that's not going right when your planing is therefore down to technique. This allows you to learn how to use a plane safe in the knowledge that there is nothing wrong with the tool. Once you have mastered the plane, you can should you wish then buy vintage and be able to compare a secondhand plane with your 'reference plane' this enables you to know how good or bad a vintage plane is and also to compare it to something as you tune it up. All in all IMO one top class plane is a really good investment.


I must admit that was my intention, but I've just ended up buying old ones from fleaBay. At one tenth of the price of a Clifton it's been worth the punt, but I must admit I'd love to justify the expense.

Paul Sellers' videos and writings on setting up a plane are very useful BTW.


----------



## G S Haydon

It sounds like you are preparing the wood by hand? If that is the case buying heavy metal planes with thick non laminated tool steel irons will be of little use. Stick with the wooden jack, try and find a good wooden try plane and stick with a Stanley smoother in stock trim.

I've bought an AX Rider 4 1/2 and will do a review shortly. Just as a heads up I'm personally not convinced by the direction they've taken the Rider bench planes. Other things such as the small router plane and the 3 in 1 shoulder plane still interest me.

The modern heavy metal planes could be of use as a panel plane or a really nice smoother only but the reality is they wont give a surface better than a Bailey with a stock iron.


----------



## worn thumbs

David C said:


> The notion that a 4 1/2 or 5 1/2 is hard to push seems missguided.
> 
> Who says the shavings must be full width?
> 
> Camber is a very useful technique, particularly for squaring edges, setting and avoiding tracks.
> 
> My experience is that a tuned up 5 1/2 can both straighten and smooth, it makes a wonderful first plane.
> 
> David Charlesworth[/quote
> 
> 
> There seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that the shavings are unlikely to be full width.So why would you drag the extra weight around?If you don't need a wide shaving,its easier to use a narrower plane and less tiring.Camber on a jack plane is the accepted practice,less so on a smoother.For solely bench work,a 5 1/2 may make sense.For an only plane I would take a No 4 any time.


----------



## custard

David C":34poapq9 said:


> My experience is that a tuned up 5 1/2 can both straighten and smooth, it makes a wonderful first plane.



It makes a pretty good _last_ plane as well!


----------



## custard

worn thumbs":3mfx666m said:


> There seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that the shavings are unlikely to be full width.So why would you drag the extra weight around?If you don't need a wide shaving,its easier to use a narrower plane and less tiring.Camber on a jack plane is the accepted practice,less so on a smoother.For solely bench work,a 5 1/2 may make sense.For an only plane I would take a No 4 any time.



The shavings width on a smoother will be as wide as you get them on whatever plane you have, consistent with achieving a feathered edge to minimise any planing tracks on the workpiece. 

With a shaving thickness of only 1-1.5 thou there's not much effort involved in pushing a smoother. Consequently I've always found the extra width of a 4 1/2 or 5 1/2 to be an advantage on a smoother as it results in fewer strokes being needed to cover the workpiece and fewer planing tracks. However, we're all responsible for our own furniture making, so if a 04 smoother suits you and your work then that's pretty much the end of the matter!


----------



## Jelly

custard":1rye5d0w said:


> worn thumbs":1rye5d0w said:
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that the shavings are unlikely to be full width.So why would you drag the extra weight around?If you don't need a wide shaving,its easier to use a narrower plane and less tiring.Camber on a jack plane is the accepted practice,less so on a smoother.For solely bench work,a 5 1/2 may make sense.For an only plane I would take a No 4 any time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The shavings width on a smoother will be as wide as you get them on whatever plane you have, consistent with achieving a feathered edge to minimise any planing tracks on the workpiece.
> 
> With a shaving thickness of only 1-1.5 thou there's not much effort involved in pushing a smoother. Consequently I've always found the extra width of a 4 1/2 or 5 1/2 to be an advantage on a smoother as it results in fewer strokes being needed to cover the workpiece and fewer planing tracks. However, we're all responsible for our own furniture making, so if a 04 smoother suits you and your work then that's pretty much the end of the matter!
Click to expand...


I think you may have hit the nail on the head there...

I don't expect or want to get a full width, full length shaving from my Smoother, if I am either I've already smoothed it as well as that plane will allow or I'm taking material off and a fine set Jack or panel plane would be better.

The only time I find it desirable to get a full width shaving from my (coffin) smoother is taking a fine shaving off a component to tidy up after morticing or remove pencil marks just prior to assembly.


----------



## shed9

In regards to the original question of whether there were decent new planes available. There are the obvious LN clones from;

http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... lanes.html
http://www.rutlands.co.uk/pp+woodworkin ... nes+b09000
http://woodworkersworkshop.co.uk/epages ... /WoodRiver

and similar fare from;

https://www.dictum.com/en/tools/woodwor ... ick-planes

and of course DS is another source;

http://www.fine-tools.com/hobel.html

I'm a fairly recent plane convert and have a good range of Vintage Stanleys (mostly Type 9, 10 and 11's), A fair few LN's and LV's and several QS's (LN's win hands down IMO for what it's worth).

My £0.02 in buying a new one? I can see the difference in tools comparative to cost; you simply get more tool the more money you lay down - I appreciate this is not a universal opinion but it's mine based on my real world experience. 

Buy the best you can afford and enjoy it.


----------



## Shrubby

Ulmia still sell planes -I like the Reform smoother enough to have bought a second for work. My 1930s model now has an easier life at home
Matt


----------



## sploo

shed9":y41bqcgp said:


> and similar fare from;
> 
> https://www.dictum.com/en/tools/woodwor ... ick-planes


Right, let's get out your DICK. Start with a No 4; I know it's only a little DICK.

Now swipe your DICK over your wood several times. If you're having trouble getting a straight edge... you might need a bigger DICK.

Ahem. Sorry. I couldn't resist.




shed9":y41bqcgp said:


> My £0.02 in buying a new one? I can see the difference in tools comparative to cost; you simply get more tool the more money you lay down - I appreciate this is not a universal opinion but it's mine based on my real world experience.
> 
> Buy the best you can afford and enjoy it.


Can you quantify the more tool for your money comment? Better build quality, better feel, better finish (on workpieces)?


----------



## shed9

sploo":39h01npc said:


> shed9":39h01npc said:
> 
> 
> 
> My £0.02 in buying a new one? I can see the difference in tools comparative to cost; you simply get more tool the more money you lay down - I appreciate this is not a universal opinion but it's mine based on my real world experience.
> 
> Buy the best you can afford and enjoy it.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you quantify the more tool for your money comment? Better build quality, better feel, better finish (on workpieces)?
Click to expand...


In my opinion, a Lie Nielsen is far better engineered and feels better to handle comparative to the QS's of this world. A LN will work out of the box and if it has any rough edges (which is highly unlikely) a new one will be exchanged without question.

I will generally grab an LN when there is one to hand because they just feel better.


----------



## Hatherton_wood

Even so LN's too can have their faults - the yokes on the bench planes in particularly are often roughly finished. Woodriver versions from QS are not that far away really. What I find strange is the use of a wheel for tightening down the cap on the block planes by LN and Veritas - that was used on Stanley's cheapest planes and a fiddle to get the same pressure each time.. Its nice to see Woodriver/QS bring back the knuckle jointed lever cap - always my favorite on Record block planes.


----------



## G S Haydon

sploo":2ibj0cxb said:


> shed9":2ibj0cxb said:
> 
> 
> 
> and similar fare from;
> 
> https://www.dictum.com/en/tools/woodwor ... ick-planes
> 
> 
> 
> Right, let's get out your DICK. Start with a No 4; I know it's only a little DICK.
> 
> Now swipe your DICK over your wood several times. If you're having trouble getting a straight edge... you might need a bigger DICK.
> 
> Ahem. Sorry. I couldn't resist.
Click to expand...


I find my dick hard to get into a sock? Any other storage tips? :ho2


----------



## Jelly

G S Haydon":2379rffb said:


> sploo":2379rffb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shed9":2379rffb said:
> 
> 
> 
> and similar fare from;
> 
> https://www.dictum.com/en/tools/woodwor ... ick-planes
> 
> 
> 
> Right, let's get out your DICK. Start with a No 4; I know it's only a little DICK.
> 
> Now swipe your DICK over your wood several times. If you're having trouble getting a straight edge... you might need a bigger DICK.
> 
> Ahem. Sorry. I couldn't resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find my dick hard to get into a sock? Any other storage tips? :ho2
Click to expand...


Whilst we're on off colour puns...


----------



## sploo

G S Haydon":29rxvq8c said:


> I find my dick hard to get into a sock? Any other storage tips? :ho2


Ah. You need to wax your DICK.




Jelly":29rxvq8c said:


> Whilst we're on off colour puns...


Old but still genius. Sadly it misses the final warning: do not apply to p****.


----------



## G S Haydon

Well I use baby oil to hone, a splash or two of that on my............


----------



## Carl P

This may have been covered in other posts, but which do you find enhances your experience the most, a cap set right to the tip, or a nice tight mouth?

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## sploo

Carl P":1gffcr8y said:


> This may have been covered in other posts, but which do you find enhances your experience the most, a cap set right to the tip, or a nice tight mouth?
> 
> Cheerio,
> 
> Carl


Assuming that's not another DICK gag...

IRC Sellers indicates cap set around 1/32" from iron tip, and adjusting the mouth for different woods (e.g. small mouth for difficult grain). I guess you'd have the cap further back for a convex ground blade being used in a scrub plane (and a large mouth opening too), but that's beyond my level of experience.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I suspect it was another Dick gag.


----------



## sploo

phil.p":33cvz49e said:


> I suspect it was another Dick gag.


It did occur to me, but I was being unusually mature :wink:


----------



## shed9

phil.p":1jrbm12s said:


> I suspect it was another Dick gag.



Yup, I suspect that was very much another gag. I avoided the initial start of this as I knew the caliber would not get any better and would spiral quite quickly - that said, respect to those who took the mantle.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Graham - my nephew and niece are Kiwis - I'll never forget my wife's face when she was invited to see 3 y. o. Jono's big dick.  We used to sit on the dick to have our fush'n chups. Odd vowel shifts. They actually have trouble teaching children to spell because of it.


----------



## John15

Of the new planes, WoodRiver are worth considering. I used their No.5 1/2 while on a short course at Peter Seften's school. It planed beautifully.

John


----------



## condeesteso

Seeing the arrival of the Rider planes (had to look them up), and we have the QS / Wood River, the Faithfulls, the Stanley Sweetheart... Next time someone decides to make yet another Bailey why not do something interesting and smart - delete the frog (delete 'Bailey' in fact). There are 2 things wrong with a Bailey: the frog (it's existence) and the pitch. The majority of what we all do to get the most out of them is to work around those compromises. One solid cast body incorporating the iron bed, 50 pitch. For those who like to faff with mouths sell them an adjustable toe variant.


----------



## D_W

I can't imagine that anything made in the last hundred years is a functional improvement over the bailey design for anyone other than the possible exception of beginners. 45 degrees makes for a better plane in the full range of coarse to fine planing tasks. 

I remember reading all of the supposed fixes to Stanley planes in the primus range, but buying one quickly showed why I could get an unused primus plane for 1/3rd the cost of new.


----------



## Rhyolith

The debate of what is the "best" plane make went on for ages at the wooden boatbuilding yard I used to be in. There was someone with at least one of every kind of plane imaginable too so real comparisons could be made. 

This is all *my* opinion based on that experience. 

First off, the only modern budget planes worth bothering with at all are the Quangsheng and new Stanley Premium Sweetheart and neither have anything on the older Record planes (the old records tend to be better then the Stanley's, unless the Stanley is really old). So I would personally go to a car boot or eBay over buying those. 

*Lie Nielsen:* is the best hands down for quality across the board, closely followed by Veritas. If your buying a large plane new (No.5 or larger) , just get a Lie Nielsen. I got their No.8 plane after saving a considerable amount cash and have never looked back; its perfect which is what is needed from a big jointer plane (they are utterly useless with even the slightest flaws). Another thing worth Noting is that Lie Nielsen planes hold their value extremely well, with second hand ones on eBay going for barely under the cost of a new plane. 

*Clifton:* Clifton's little planes are great, good design and pretty. I would highly recommend there shoulder and bull noses. However there larger planes (No.5 and up) are... unpredictable. It seems to be something of a roulette to whether you get and perfect plane or one with a sole resembling a double helix! I would not even think about getting a clifton any larger than a No.4, particularly when another £50 or so will get you a Lie Nielsen that will be perfect. Something else worth noting is that Clifton sell off there sub-standard planes (Rated "B") at considerable lower prices, I have a "B" rated small shoulder plane that works fine. 

*Veritas:* Not many people I knew had these, the few I saw looked pretty good. If you don't want a Lie Nielsen, this is the alternative. 

To sum up, if your on a budget, get a second hand plane. If you have a generous amount of cash to spend on your planes get a Lie Nielsen. 

Thats my Opinion.


----------



## G S Haydon

It's a dreadful comparison to make but the Bailey is a bit like an AK-47. There is normally a good reason why something gets made by the thousand, or million in terms of the AK. Normally because it excels in real world use and it's normally affordable to Joe Bloggs. Douglas I can imagine the very high standards you work to but I think 98%of the time for 98% of people the Bailey is tough to beat.

Strangely I wish Axminster, Stanley etc would literally just made a good Bailey, 1960's style would be fine. Ductile iron is fine but if it adds to much to the cost don't worry about it, perhaps a solid yoke and a fabricated lateral adjustment lever rather than the pressed. Beyond that it was truly proven design.


----------



## Rhyolith

G S Haydon":2898npy7 said:


> Strangely I wish Axminster, Stanley etc literally just made a good Bailey, 1960's style would be fine. Ductile iron is fine but if it adds to much to the cost don't worry about it, perhaps a solid yoke and a fabricated lateral adjustment lever rather than the pressed. Beyond that it was truly proven design.


I am not entirely sure these sort of planes were cheap. Its easy to think that now they are littering many car boot going for between £1-10 a piece, but several old boys I have spoken with say they cost not much less than a Lie Nielsen does today (relative) at the time they were being sold new.

In sort can a good plane be made cheaply? (genuine question)


----------



## CStanford

_"I remember reading all of the supposed fixes to Stanley planes in the primus range, but buying one quickly showed why I could get an unused primus plane for 1/3rd the cost of new."_

If anybody has a Primus plane in good shape (or unused) that they want to sell at 1/3rd of retail I'm a buyer for every one I can lay my hands on.


----------



## shed9

Rhyolith":twtpvmxl said:


> The debate of what is the "best" plane make went on for ages at the wooden boatbuilding yard I used to be in. There was someone with at least one of every kind of plane imaginable too so real comparisons could be made...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................To sum up, if your on a budget, get a second hand plane. If you have a generous amount of cash to spend on your planes get a Lie Nielsen.
> 
> Thats my Opinion.



Totally agree with all of Rhyolith's post.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Rhyolith":313spm6r said:


> G S Haydon":313spm6r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strangely I wish Axminster, Stanley etc literally just made a good Bailey, 1960's style would be fine. Ductile iron is fine but if it adds to much to the cost don't worry about it, perhaps a solid yoke and a fabricated lateral adjustment lever rather than the pressed. Beyond that it was truly proven design.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not entirely sure these sort of planes were cheap. Its easy to think that now they are littering many car boot going for between £1-10 a piece, but several old boys I have spoken with say they cost not much less than a Lie Nielsen does today (relative) at the time they were being sold new.
> 
> In sort can a good plane be made cheaply? (genuine question)
Click to expand...



I asked a similar question in this thread comparison-of-tool-prices-over-time-t91056.html. Conclusion if I remember rightly was that very roughly old stanleys and records cost about the same as Quangshengs or woodrivers do today (in comparison to earnings).


----------



## Rhyolith

Paddy Roxburgh":325hwhdn said:


> Rhyolith":325hwhdn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G S Haydon":325hwhdn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strangely I wish Axminster, Stanley etc literally just made a good Bailey, 1960's style would be fine. Ductile iron is fine but if it adds to much to the cost don't worry about it, perhaps a solid yoke and a fabricated lateral adjustment lever rather than the pressed. Beyond that it was truly proven design.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not entirely sure these sort of planes were cheap. Its easy to think that now they are littering many car boot going for between £1-10 a piece, but several old boys I have spoken with say they cost not much less than a Lie Nielsen does today (relative) at the time they were being sold new.
> 
> In sort can a good plane be made cheaply? (genuine question)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a similar question in this thread comparison-of-tool-prices-over-time-t91056.html. Conclusion if I remember rightly was that very roughly old stanleys and records cost about the same as Quangshengs or woodrivers do today (in comparison to earnings).
Click to expand...

Thats useful, thanks  

So thats about £100 in todays money for an No.4? Which is not what I would call cheap (obviously relative), therefore it seems like it is probably not possible to produce a good metal soled plane cheaply.


----------



## deema

The Record and Stanley planes that are at least circa 50 years old are good pieces of kit. However, over the years many have suffered abuse, neglect and alteration by 'expert' fetlers which can make them very difficult to buy secondhand unless you either know the person your buying it off, or indeed know what a good plane should look like and feel like. I was gifted my fathers planes which were all excellent Record and Stanley's, however, they had had their plane blades renewed as he was a cabinet maker / joiner and used his tools daily. The replacement irons were OK for their day, however since they were not the older cast steel blades, and the rather more modern versions they let down significantly the performance of the plane compared to a well setup plane with a decent plane iron. (In my fathers hands they could do anything, and suggested that my skills were inadequate not the tool.....he was absolutely right.....and I compensate with better tools!)

I decided to buy a replacement plane iron to see why improvement I could make, and selected the LV drop in replacement for the Stanley / Bailey planes and added one of their Caps as well. This was a few years ago when I had to order directly from the USA (now available from Axi). The plane worked beautifully, however I'd added circa £90+ of value to a plane that would sell for circa £10. The math simply did not add up. For the other planes, rather than upgrade I started to buy Lie Nielson as funds allowed, and then changed to Lie Valley. The cost of the planes was high, but this time I could buy a plane that in a few years I was confident I could should I wish sell for the same price as I paid for it. A much better bet in the long run, I therefore sold virtually all of my father planes as I got a replacement.

Why did I change from LN compared to LV? Well I started off with LN because it was familiar, it looked and felt like a Stanley / Bailey. It also had a No8 in its range which I wanted. However, in the last few years the price I could buy a LV for from Europe meant that I could buy two LV to one LN. I had to give it a try. I bought a No 6 and found that I actually preferred the feel of the plane, the tote fits my hand better and my fingers have room to spare without fighting for room with the adjuster. I also like the Norris style blade adjuster with the two grub screws guiding the plane iron near the mouth. The support near the mouth significantly reduces the number of times the blade is knocked aside by a hard knott requiring the blade to be reset. I also find the blade depth adjustment to have far less backlash than the LN, and once you've git used to it its as easy to adjust on the fly. 

The LV planes are about the same price as the Quangsseng and the Ryder if you shop around, haggle, and look out for promotions which occur regularly. Axi will match any price you find (except eBay) and are birth I have found very helpful, and resolve any problems I've had quickly.


----------



## bugbear

condeesteso":1bryhpey said:


> One solid cast body incorporating the iron bed, 50 pitch.



That would probably increase the difficulty (and hence cost) of manufacture; the separate frog means that the main
sole casting is a nice, simple, fairly uniform shape, which reduces stresses and bending during (and after) the casting process, whilst the frog
is a nice simple blob.

Most of the early (non Bailey) metal planes had separate frogs for this reason.

BugBear


----------



## G S Haydon

Rhyolith, totally get your point. My angle was "Joe Bloggs". £100.00 for an excellent Bailey #4? Seems fair, I think it could be done for around £80.00. For those that want an Clifton or similar can spend £250.

Also, I'll support the quality of the WoodRiver via Peter Sefton and the QS range from Matthew at WSH. The trump card for those two planes is the use of T10 plane irons and good value. If I were to buy an LN I'd need to spend an extra to replace the A2 iron.


----------



## D_W

CStanford":2eomvkz8 said:


> _"I remember reading all of the supposed fixes to Stanley planes in the primus range, but buying one quickly showed why I could get an unused primus plane for 1/3rd the cost of new."_
> 
> If anybody has a Primus plane in good shape (or unused) that they want to sell at 1/3rd of retail I'm a buyer for every one I can lay my hands on.



I put mine in the listings of the woodworking forums for a while at $75, it didn't sell, and I had to list it on ebay where it ultimately found a foreign buyer. It was one of the better older types with lignum sole and beech top parts, whoever had it before me had not gotten the factory grind off of the iron yet over a couple of decades and it was spotless. 

Worth a try. I've bought other things I didn't like for a lot more than $75.


----------



## ED65

custard":24nf7oqa said:


> Grinding stuff like that by hand, even with an ultra coarse grit diamond stone, is just a marathon dispiriting slog that will take at least 30 minutes of constant hard work


Can I just check, are you talking about if you have to reshape the edge or create a new bevel because of a chip?


----------



## condeesteso

D_W":tlgx7bfw said:


> I can't imagine that anything made in the last hundred years is a functional improvement over the bailey design for anyone other than the possible exception of beginners. 45 degrees makes for a better plane in the full range of coarse to fine planing tasks.



May I check please - functional improvement meaning works better? I can. And is it your opinion that 45 degrees makes for a better plane in the full range of coarse to fine planing tasks. I don't think that is a fact. That would render virtually all woodies, infills and others inferior. And what are the beginner planes you refer to please?

I accept what BB says re production process and cost driving the engineering design. But I would never accept that the separate frog improves the fundamental functionality - at very best it might just about not get worse. Re pitch, before the Bailey, 45 was not 'common pitch'. If you take away all planes designed for end grain, planes for face work are 48 - 55 degrees. I believe the 45 is a compromise. We should remind ourselves that mass-produced Baileys are just one type of plane, there are others and the Bailey does not define the category. It is no more than a decent mass-produced compromise.


----------



## D_W

I'd imagine the frog is a manufacturing artifact. But if it improves the chance of having a good functioning plane, then that's a positive. 

Most of the planes over here after single iron planes went nearly extinct are common pitch. They're that pitch for a reason, because it is more effective with a double iron than is 50 or 55 degrees, but you can still use it as a single iron if you like. It works a much wider range. 

The shame of it is that nobody is building a stanley bailey type plane that is similar in spec to a stanley bailey type plane built 100 years ago (including the good fine grained and not overhard iron). 

I've bought a lot of vintage woodies with double irons, and some with single irons, the double iron planes are much more capable and except for two smoothers I had (one was craftsman made and senselessly bedded at 55 degrees with a double iron, the other was a modern sorby plane bedded at 50), the rest have been common pitch, including a bunch of other smoothers, but all of the try and jack planes have been common pitch. My lone remaining single iron jointer of good quality (as opposed to a later budget option - it's an early 1800s plane) is bedded at 50. It's unfortunate, as pretty as the plane is itself, it's out of its league (by a wide margin) vs. a common pitch double iron plane in every single planing task - except if a user doesn't know how to set a cap iron. 

I brought up the emmerich planes because some of the people retailing them in the US have some goofy list of all of the "improvements" that they make over the stanley type, but they neglect to mention that the blade is crappy steel and the attachment for the primus adjuster is a pain in the pee pee, especially if it grabs tight on the end of the rod that retains it. 

I can't comment on most of the very modern stuff (;like 55 degree frogs from lie nielsen), though I have used a 50 degree frog on a friend's plane before learning to use a cap iron, and in comparing our two identical planes planing hard maple (mine common pitch) we weren't very happy with the extra effort that we could notice trying to take a heavy shaving. Fortunately for him, building things in straight lines combined with a sander and a spiral headed planer has pretty much eliminated his use of planes. 

The bailey design is exceptional. Modern low-cost versions of it are not.


----------



## JohnCee

Rhyolith":i6ofyrw9 said:


> *Clifton:* I would not even think about getting a clifton any larger than a No.4, particularly when another £50 or so will get you a Lie Nielsen that will be perfect. .



The relative LN/Clifton pricing seems to have reversed recently. Just been pricing up 4-1'2's and Axminster do LN for around £250, whereas a Clifton is over £300.


----------



## Rhyolith

D_W":1m9nceav said:


> The bailey design is exceptional. Modern low-cost versions of it are not.


Comes back to what I was saying earlier, it costs to make a decent plane (just think for a second of all the design effort and materials needed). So if its cheap, then there will be a reason: i.e. it will be rubbish (most commonly bad steel these days). Its easy to say "just make a bailey well and that will fix everything" but thats not cheap, in fact I believe thats exactly what Lie Nielsen do... 

Find what BB said interesting, about the frogs; it makes sense over a design purpose enhancing the functionality of the tool. One thing I find interesting about the new Stanley Sweetheart Planes is that their smoother is all one casting: image off google if your not familiar with this tool: http://assets.rockler.com/media/catalog ... 5-1000.jpg


----------



## Rhyolith

JohnCee":1au481g7 said:


> Rhyolith":1au481g7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Clifton:* I would not even think about getting a clifton any larger than a No.4, particularly when another £50 or so will get you a Lie Nielsen that will be perfect. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The relative LN/Clifton pricing seems to have reversed recently. Just been pricing up 4-1'2's and Axminster do LN for around £250, whereas a Clifton is over £300.
Click to expand...

I was speaking from experience about 2 years ago... I really was appalled by the quality control standards at clifton so went for Lie Neilsen for my big jointer. Their smaller planes do appear much better to be fair, but that might just be because the out of true soles matter less on small planes... everyone seems happy with their Clifton should planes (all of them) including myself, so i would recommend those.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"The bailey design is exceptional. Modern low-cost versions of it are not." - D_W
I have a new No.4 (I picked it out of the scrap metal skip at the dump) - out of curiosity I measured the width of the mouth. It was exactly half as wide again as the mouth of my old No.6. - not really ideal.


----------



## D_W

Rhyolith":2d1n0d7c said:


> D_W":2d1n0d7c said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bailey design is exceptional. Modern low-cost versions of it are not.
> 
> 
> 
> Comes back to what I was saying earlier, it costs to make a decent plane (just think for a second of all the design effort and materials needed). So if its cheap, then there will be a reason: i.e. it will be rubbish (most commonly bad steel these days). Its easy to say "just make a bailey well and that will fix everything" but thats not cheap, in fact I believe thats exactly what Lie Nielsen do...
> 
> Find what BB said interesting, about the frogs; it makes sense over a design purpose enhancing the functionality of the tool. One thing I find interesting about the new Stanley Sweetheart Planes is that their smoother is all one casting: image off google if your not familiar with this tool: http://assets.rockler.com/media/catalog ... 5-1000.jpg
Click to expand...


I figure 2/3rds of the ln cost is probably what it would cost to build a spec Stanley, but what would the market be?

The notion is to instead make the ln type and claim it's drastically better, which appeals to the types who believe the ideal iron is infinitely thick and slightly harder than pure carbide.


----------



## Corneel

condeesteso":3rsnjq2f said:


> D_W":3rsnjq2f said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine that anything made in the last hundred years is a functional improvement over the bailey design for anyone other than the possible exception of beginners. 45 degrees makes for a better plane in the full range of coarse to fine planing tasks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I check please - functional improvement meaning works better? I can. And is it your opinion that 45 degrees makes for a better plane in the full range of coarse to fine planing tasks. I don't think that is a fact. That would render virtually all woodies, infills and others inferior. And what are the beginner planes you refer to please?
> 
> I accept what BB says re production process and cost driving the engineering design. But I would never accept that the separate frog improves the fundamental functionality - at very best it might just about not get worse. Re pitch, before the Bailey, 45 was not 'common pitch'. If you take away all planes designed for end grain, planes for face work are 48 - 55 degrees. I believe the 45 is a compromise. We should remind ourselves that mass-produced Baileys are just one type of plane, there are others and the Bailey does not define the category. It is no more than a decent mass-produced compromise.
Click to expand...


Talking about facts, where did you get the "fact" that all planes were 48 to 55 degrees before Bailey? That is before 1870? Most any wooden plane after the invention of the double iron (about 1760 or so) was a 45 degree plane. Before 1760 it is going to be very hard to find any hard facts about bench planes. Some roman ones were very high pitch, others were 45. The Germans made some wooden smoothers at 49 degrees. Dutch single iron planes can be found at 50 degrees. But double iron planes were almost uniformly in the range of 45 to 47 1/2 degrees (Seaton chest for example). Infill planes, almost all of them double iron at 45 to 47 1/2 degreees.


----------



## Rhyolith

Corneel":2jxponmx said:


> Infill planes, almost all of them double iron at 45 to 47 1/2 degreees.


I think my Norris 17" jointer is 50 degrees and thats a post war plane.


----------



## BearTricks

Okay, so while we're at it: British made or American made? All patriotism and nostalgia aside. 

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## CStanford

Thought the majority of Norris were at 48*... they seemed to have known a little bit about plane making.


----------



## iNewbie

BearTricks":u6pa3sbc said:


> Okay, so while we're at it: British made or American made? All patriotism and nostalgia aside.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk



Clifton without a shadow of a doubt - my LN went bye byes...


----------



## Rhyolith

BearTricks":3nscqpre said:


> Okay, so while we're at it: British made or American made? All patriotism and nostalgia aside.


Old planes = British 
Modern Planes = America (Apart from Clifton shoulder planes)


iNewbie":3nscqpre said:


> Clifton without a shadow of a doubt - my LN went bye byes...


What happened to your LN? Because I strongly disagree, clifton only matches Lie Nielsen in the shoulder plane department. Otherwise Lie Nielsen's are better in every functional capacity... though I will say that the Lie Nielsen Bronze planes are dum as hell (a LN salesman even told me they are just to "look pretty"), they brake so easily... the iron ones are though as anything though. I have been told that they bounce if you drop them on something hard rather than smash like Cliftons (and every other cast plane), evidently I don't want to test this with £400 of Jointer plane :? 



CStanford":3nscqpre said:


> Thought the majority of Norris were at 48*... they seemed to have known a little bit about plane making.


Mine probably is, I have not measured it accurately. Personally I feel as a working plane its beaten by the Lie Nielsen No.8, which leaves a much better finish (I assume the No.8 is at 45); that might be more to do with the mouth dimensions though. The Norris is defiantly the nicest plane ergonomically.


----------



## sploo

Rhyolith":1kbphhvo said:


> JohnCee":1kbphhvo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rhyolith":1kbphhvo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Clifton:* I would not even think about getting a clifton any larger than a No.4, particularly when another £50 or so will get you a Lie Nielsen that will be perfect. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The relative LN/Clifton pricing seems to have reversed recently. Just been pricing up 4-1'2's and Axminster do LN for around £250, whereas a Clifton is over £300.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was speaking from experience about 2 years ago... I really was appalled by the quality control standards at clifton so went for Lie Neilsen for my big jointer. Their smaller planes do appear much better to be fair, but that might just be because the out of true soles matter less on small planes... everyone seems happy with their Clifton should planes (all of them) including myself, so i would recommend those.
Click to expand...

Based on recent reading (no personal experience) Clifton may have improved in this area.

The thing I can't get my head round is: how would a LV, LN or Clifton be better in actual use. A fettled old Stanley cuts well for me, and feels good to use. Any problems are likely my lack of skill. So, other than looking better, and probably having a nicer finish to the plane, do they do the job "better"?


----------



## Rhyolith

spool":2ooas5u8 said:


> The thing I can't get my head round is: how would a LV, LN or Clifton be better in actual use. A fettled old Stanley cuts well for me, and feels good to use. Any problems are likely my lack of skill. So, other than looking better, and probably having a nicer finish to the plane, do they do the job "better"?


Well in the case of LN they leave a substantially better finish on the wood and will perform better when your working with difficult wood/grain. A friend kept stealing my No.8 in the boatyard to use it on very large knotted oak keels, which no other plane (and he had access to plenty) would do neatly. Though my old Record No.4 very nearly matches it for finish quality, it does not fair as well in the rough grain situation (due to the thin blade I think). They are also easier to set up (all the adjustments are smoother and easier to use), though this is not true for the LN block plane, which is a nightmare to set up (but works great when it is).




spool":2ooas5u8 said:


> Based on recent reading (no personal experience) Clifton may have improved in this area.


Good, its about time.


----------



## D_W

BearTricks":1j8ilec2 said:


> Okay, so while we're at it: British made or American made? All patriotism and nostalgia aside.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk



English vintage wooden planes. American vintage metal planes.


----------



## Jelly

Rhyolith":2clue1i1 said:


> D_W":2clue1i1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bailey design is exceptional. Modern low-cost versions of it are not.
> 
> 
> 
> Comes back to what I was saying earlier, it costs to make a decent plane (just think for a second of all the design effort and materials needed). So if its cheap, then there will be a reason: i.e. it will be rubbish (most commonly bad steel these days). Its easy to say "just make a bailey well and that will fix everything" but thats not cheap, in fact I believe thats exactly what Lie Nielsen do...
Click to expand...


I actually suspect the true issue is volume these days.

With modern understanding and modeling of casting stresses, the improvement in "near net shape" casting of increasingly large, complex items and CNC machining centres where you can actually get the machine to insert and remove the workpiece as well as, slot, mill and surface grind on one machine as a continuous sequence of operations it would be quite possible to create a production line which manufactured really excellent planes, at a low unit cost... only problem being there aren't enough users to buy them to support the scale of operation needed to make the product cheap.

Consider this example:

_Jellies Ficticious Handplane Co._ can make 300 planes a day for £8/each in materials and £10000/day fixed costs, giving a cost price of £42 per plane, which after £5 transport and a 33% margin split between _JFHC_ and the retailer are covered comes to a very reasonable £70 each at Axi...

But _JFHC_ can only sell 50 planes each day, so their cost price still has to cover the fixed costs forcing them to charge £208 per plane to make ends meet, the transport cost remains fixed, but the margin is now much greater in cash terms too (indeed that 33% margin is now more than the original price of the plane) so the price is now £322 per plane.

_JFHC_ could reduce the margin at this point but due to decreased volumes, they're actually only making ⅔ what they were previously making when the sold more planes at a lower price.

Eventually _JFHC_ gives up making planes as being a silly idea and puts their investment in a high-tech foundry and machine shop to use making parts for Rolls Royce to sell to the Chinese to sell to the Japanese to re-establish the nuclear industry in the UK, so the French can run it.


_JFHC_ does much better now they've secured contracts to make in demand goods of high value.

Somewhere on the internet their exit from the hand-plane sphere is bemoaned, but then someone else chimes in to say they were never any good anyway, as his friends, aunts, llama once bought one and it didn't jump out of the box to do a song and dance routine.

As you can see there is no real attraction for the companies that could do so to bring all the advances in technology to bear in order to supply cheap, good handplanes... The market for hand-planes is too small, and the market for their services in producing complicated castings, machined to close tolerances is tentatively still growing and supports a much larger cost price per item.


----------



## D_W

I'm sure you're right, and I think most folks would be worn out by selling to an uneducated clientele, which is what the premium makers have to do these days. 

It's not like there's a great big supply of new apprentices jumping at the bit to buy a basic set of metal planes. But there's a huge array of middle-aged white collar workers who are looking for a hobby and who will pay for a plane that's ready to work as soon as they learn to sharpen. 

Near as I can tell, Stanley's planes cost about half a day's labor in the early 1900s, maybe closer to a day for an apprentice. that could easily be done these days if there was any volume, minus the rosewood handles, maybe. 

The place where Lie Nielsen falls short in looks is the handles and the adjuster knob. Stanley's segmented hollow adjuster knob looked infinitely better, but I get what LN is doing with their knobs (and I bought my share of them, and eventually sold them - having been the typical white collar person looking for a head start in a hobby). 

Lie Nielsen builds a nice plane, but there are still parts of them that they don't have a very good handle on, like considering their chipbreakers an improvement based on their thickness, and considering a high angle frog to be an enhancement (something stanley sure would've done if there was a real use for it).


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhyolith":2t4cd2yd said:


> iNewbie":2t4cd2yd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clifton without a shadow of a doubt - my LN went bye byes...
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to your LN? Because I strongly disagree, clifton only matches Lie Nielsen in the shoulder plane department. Otherwise Lie Nielsen's are better in every functional capacity... though I will say that the Lie Nielsen Bronze planes are dum as hell (a LN salesman even told me they are just to "look pretty"), they brake so easily... the iron ones are though as anything though. I have been told that they bounce if you drop them on something hard rather than smash like Cliftons (and every other cast plane), evidently I don't want to test this with £400 of Jointer plane :?
Click to expand...


Just for the record, there's a factual inaccuracy in this statement.

Both Lie-Nielsen and Clifton overcome the tendency of thin castings to distort after machining by annealing the raw castings. They do this by heating the castings to about red heat, then allow them to cool very slowly without any restraint on how they can move. That has two effects. Firstly, it relieves the stresses in the raw casting locked into it as the casting solidified, then contracted as it cooled, but was restrained from moving where it wanted by the mould. The other effect is to toughen the iron, changing it from grey cast iron (which is indeed brittle) to ductile iron (which, as the name suggests, isn't). 

The older Stanley and Record plane castings were not heat treated, but were left for a period of time to 'season' (allow the internal stresses to relieve themselves over time). About twelve months is the time period commonly quoted. Later plane castings were not seasoned or annealed, and thus have something of a reputation for distortion.

If you dropped a Clifton bench plane on the floor, it would bounce, not shatter.


----------



## custard

D_W":2xl7w9mm said:


> I'm sure you're right, and I think most folks would be worn out by selling to an uneducated clientele, which is what the premium makers have to do these days.
> 
> It's not like there's a great big supply of new apprentices jumping at the bit to buy a basic set of metal planes. But there's a huge array of middle-aged white collar workers who are looking for a hobby and who will pay for a plane that's ready to work as soon as they learn to sharpen.
> 
> Near as I can tell, Stanley's planes cost about half a day's labor in the early 1900s, maybe closer to a day for an apprentice. that could easily be done these days if there was any volume, minus the rosewood handles, maybe.



Some well considered points there.

Apprentices in the UK are only entitled to a nugatory wage. The legal minimum wage for anyone over 21 in this country is £6.70 an hour, £5.30 for anyone aged 18-20, £3.87 for anyone under 18, but only £3.30 an hour for apprentices aged under 18 or indeed apprentices of any age during their first year. That's barely enough to keep body and soul together. You can guess what the result has been, a rush to classify many jobs as "apprenticeships" and 12 month employment contracts for those aged over 18. This has led to the nonsensical situation where you can serve a year long apprenticeship as a coffee brewing barista or a shelf stacker in a supermarket.

Apprenticeships still do exist in the woodworking trades, although they're few and far between. I've met many of them and indeed worked alongside several of them. They generally have almost superhuman levels of dedication and enthusiasm, which is reflected in the UK's outstanding achievements in the World Skills championships...the Olympic Games for young cabinet makers,

http://www.chichester.ac.uk/News/Archiv ... rldSkills/

But despite having bags of commitment they don't have pots of money. So the typical furniture making apprentice, despite lusting after a Lie Nielsen, will often have an old Record or Stanley. However, with experienced men at their shoulder to patiently guide (rather than the bedlam of conflicting advice on the internet) they can usually fettle most planes into performing to the level they need. And having sunk many hours into getting a tool sorted, and having experienced that specific tool delivering excellent results on demanding real-life projects, they're often then in no rush to "upgrade" it to a fancier tool when funds allow. 

The other thing is that they quickly realise that professional furniture making, even in a heavily craft based workshop with extremely high levels of traditional handwork, doesn't actually require that many handtools. The difference between making something a la Fine Woodworking and making the same item in a commercial environment, is that in a professional workshop (even a bespoke designer/maker workshop) much more of the work is done with basic machinery and power tools _in conjunction with a vast number of simple, user made but task dedicated jigs_. So they quickly realise that excellent layout tools plus say a really good router is where their limited funds need to go if they're to pursue their ambition of running their own workshop.

All this means that it's very common in the UK to meet truly exceptional craftsmen and craftswomen with only a very basic hand tool collection, typically older Stanley or Record tools with perhaps one or two more expensive replacements sprinkled in, say a block plane or a shoulder plane. The difference is that _every_ tool they own will actually be performing properly, and they'll have the knowledge and ingenuity to stretch the application of those tools to extraordinary lengths. 

So you're right, LN, Veritas, Bridge City, Clifton, and all the rest is primarily about hobbyist use. Which brings about the paradox that some of the finest handtools ever made are only actually used for rudimentary coffee tables and simple garden planters. What a funny old world we live in!


----------



## worn thumbs

phil.p":14f94ixu said:


> "The bailey design is exceptional. Modern low-cost versions of it are not." - D_W
> I have a new No.4 (I picked it out of the scrap metal skip at the dump) - out of curiosity I measured the width of the mouth. It was exactly half as wide again as the mouth of my old No.6. - not really ideal.



If you adjust the frog,you can have just about any effective cutting width you want.A bit of air behind the ground bevel won't make any difference.Maybe if the original owner of the plane in the skip had known this and how to sharpen the plane,it wouldn't have been dumped.


----------



## G S Haydon

Custard, you have the reality of the situation very neatly summed up!


----------



## Phil Pascoe

worn thumbs":1rc5sirm said:


> phil.p":1rc5sirm said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The bailey design is exceptional. Modern low-cost versions of it are not." - D_W
> I have a new No.4 (I picked it out of the scrap metal skip at the dump) - out of curiosity I measured the width of the mouth. It was exactly half as wide again as the mouth of my old No.6. - not really ideal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you adjust the frog,you can have just about any effective cutting width you want.A bit of air behind the ground bevel won't make any difference.Maybe if the original owner of the plane in the skip had known this and how to sharpen the plane,it wouldn't have been dumped.
Click to expand...

Certainly - but if the thing was decently machined in the first place it would be unnecessary.


----------



## condeesteso

Rhyolith":17xtbmsa said:


> One thing I find interesting about the new Stanley Sweetheart Planes is that their smoother is all one casting: image off google if your not familiar with this tool: http://assets.rockler.com/media/catalog ... 5-1000.jpg



Interesting indeed, I must pay more attention to new tools (maybe). Seems they have deleted the frog as a separate component, but also added mouth adjustment the way we know on block/low-angles. I don't feel like rushing out to buy one just to play with, but it makes a lot of sense to me and I respect their willingness to make changes.

Regarding the 45 'common' pitch, my point is that if you take away Bailey planes it is not common at all. All my woodies and infills are more around 48. The makers who have real free choice about pitch don't make 45. They all go in a range higher - frequently 52.5 and up. I mean Sauer, Anderson, Philly, etc etc. So if you go out and look at a lot of planes what I say is apart from Baileys you will seriously struggle to find any plane as low as 45.
And here's a weird thing - a small wooden smoother pitched 52.5 with double iron (2 mistakes then), mix of face and end-grain. This plane absolutely beats the very best Baileys I have (LN etc) every single time


----------



## Corneel

There are very good reasons why you might want a lower angle. You don't need to push as hard, and the edge wears in a more favorite manner at a lower cutiing angle. Disadvantage is tearout, but that's why the capiron was invented.

I haven't ever found an old woody plane at anything other then dead on 45 degrees, but I know angles up to 47 1/2 were quite common. In real practice the difference bewteen the two is negligable.

I have been digging a bit deeper, because it is an intersting subject. What was the standard bedding angle before the double iron plane?

I looke in one of these early 18th century German dictionaries. They mention that the normal bench planes are bedded at "Halben Winckel", half angle in English. That is a pretty good description of a 45 degree angle. Later in the text some special planes for ornery wood are described to have 65 degrees or "Halb steil".

Roubo has a nice picture (fig 6). This shows the usual angles, 45, 50 and 60 degrees. The jointer on this plate is 50 degrees.






And have a look at the plane from Melancholia from Duerer. Certainly doesn't look like a very steep pitch.






I would say, pitch between 45 and 50 was the norm for normal bench planes before the double iron planes. Higher angles only for very specific planes. Since the double iron they could get away with lower angles and indeed they did.


----------



## CStanford

This may only apply tangentially but one can go back not all that many years on any U.S. woodworking forum and read gushing statements of tear out free performance on any species from Clark & Williams single iron smoothers pitched at 50* with tight mouths. Whether this was just internet hyperbole, purchasers justifying purchases, etc. one can never know but of course the same applies to the stuff you're reading today, doesn't it?


----------



## sploo

Rhyolith":2jvydm9c said:


> Well in the case of LN they leave a substantially better finish on the wood and will perform better when your working with difficult wood/grain. A friend kept stealing my No.8 in the boatyard to use it on very large knotted oak keels, which no other plane (and he had access to plenty) would do neatly. Though my old Record No.4 very nearly matches it for finish quality, it does not fair as well in the rough grain situation (due to the thin blade I think). They are also easier to set up (all the adjustments are smoother and easier to use), though this is not true for the LN block plane, which is a nightmare to set up (but works great when it is).


Interesting thanks.



Jelly":2jvydm9c said:


> Eventually _JFHC_ gives up making planes as being a silly idea and puts their investment in a high-tech foundry and machine shop to use making parts for Rolls Royce to sell to the Chinese to sell to the Japanese to re-establish the nuclear industry in the UK, so the French can run it.


Harsh. Fair. But harsh :wink: 




D_W":2jvydm9c said:


> Near as I can tell, Stanley's planes cost about half a day's labor in the early 1900s, maybe closer to a day for an apprentice. that could easily be done these days if there was any volume, minus the rosewood handles, maybe.


Sellers has mentioned a number of times that (in the mid 60s as an apprentice) his Stanley No 4 cost him a weeks' wages. Could just be an anecdote/exaggeration of course (I don't have any data).




custard":2jvydm9c said:


> So you're right, LN, Veritas, Bridge City, Clifton, and all the rest is primarily about hobbyist use. Which brings about the paradox that some of the finest handtools ever made are only actually used for rudimentary coffee tables and simple garden planters. What a funny old world we live in!


I think that's so true for so many fields - professionals (i.e. those earning a living from their craft) use the tools they have, and amateurs (from the French "lover of") lust after, and spend, big money on boutique products.


----------



## CStanford

I've never read of one halfway well-known professional woodworker who claims to get 100% tear out free performance from any plane at all times, places, and species. If somebody can point me to one, I'd be most appreciative. Edit, perhaps Graham Blackburn is the lone exception. Are there others?

Amazing that it seems to be only amateurs routinely achieving this level of performance.


----------



## sploo

CStanford":2yfusun4 said:


> I've never read of one halfway well-known professional woodworker who claims to get 100% tear out free performance from any plane at all times, places, and species. If somebody can point me to one, I'd be most appreciative. Edit, perhaps Graham Blackburn is the lone exception. Are there others?
> 
> Amazing that it seems to be only amateurs routinely achieving this level of performance.


Indeed. That's what a cabinet scraper's for, innit?


----------



## CStanford

Yes.


----------



## D_W

CStanford":1kp7vcbz said:


> I've never read of one halfway well-known professional woodworker who claims to get 100% tear out free performance from any plane at all times, places, and species. If somebody can point me to one, I'd be most appreciative. Edit, perhaps Graham Blackburn is the lone exception. Are there others?
> 
> Amazing that it seems to be only amateurs routinely achieving this level of performance.



Only amateurs? Sounds like Warren and Blackburn are my guys, they're actually making a living woodworking, too.


----------



## CStanford

I don't think Blackburn is a full-time professional maker now. I could be wrong. 

I'd be happy to know more about Warren.

Can anybody think of other names we might recognize or if we don't know, should know?

What about those who swore or swear by their Clark & Williams smoothers? Any pros in this group using them day in and day out?


----------



## D_W

CStanford":3lemki60 said:


> I'd be happy to know more about Warren.



Me, too. I've found his advice accurate, but don't know much about it past that. 

https://thechristiantoolcabinet.wordpre ... odturning/

The bits and pieces at the bottom of this blog, and some gushing about Warren from Adam Cherubini are about as close as you'll get to seeing his work. (the turnings look nice, and the comment about them is something that would cause people to choke just like the double iron - turning without sandpaper for 27 years).

Not related to the thread, but I recall warren suggesting that carbon steel tools provide better results for turning and subsequently getting shouted down for suggesting that you can finish off of the tool. 

I'm assuming Blackburn did at one time work for a living, either making or restoring. Don't know. I enjoyed the few videos I saw of him, it was no BS just work the wood into what you want it to be.


----------



## CStanford

What church?


----------



## D_W

CStanford":g3duyi26 said:


> What church?



You'll have to ask him. Presumably somewhere near Ephrata/Denver, PA.


----------



## CStanford

Rather surprised it didn't somehow come up in the course of your conversations with him.


----------



## D_W

sploo":3t9owze7 said:


> Sellers has mentioned a number of times that (in the mid 60s as an apprentice) his Stanley No 4 cost him a weeks' wages. Could just be an anecdote/exaggeration of course (I don't have any data).



That's a bummer in terms of work, but if his apprenticeship included lodging and food, probably not so bad.

What I could find a while ago (and I haven't looked it up to make sure I'm being precise) is that early 1900s large metal planes were about $5 US, and the 4/5 size planes were half that or a little more. That was about the wage for skilled labor (for the jointer) or half of a day's wage for small planes. There probably weren't many real apprenticeships left by then in the US. Shortly after, it was the Ford wage for unskilled labor (which before the adjustment was about half of that)...as in the market for unskilled labor was about $2.50 for industry - 1915 or so. 

It gets harder to compare prices and wages of things in the US if anything is in the 1920s or after because of significant inflation.


----------



## D_W

CStanford":n08q2oul said:


> Rather surprised it didn't somehow come up in the course of your conversations with him.



It was on an open forum, and was a response to a question I didn't ask. You are fascinated with him enough that you could probably put on your big boy pants and ask on your own. 

Recall when you heckled cosman when he wasn't around, asking about his portfolio, and he popped onto the SMC forum one day and I challenged him to ask where his portfolio was. You were still there but as soon as Rob showed up, you were nowhere to be found. This is kind of like that. I notice when Warren is actually present, your tone is different.


----------



## D_W

Charlie, what comes to mind is that I've seen exceedingly little of your work, and most of your advice has not helped me much (the opposite is true for Warren's advice). Why are you so intent on leveraging other peoples' work, showing yours rarely and then heckling people who are still actually making a living at cabinetmaking or restoration?

Today, I am very close to Ephrata, but aside from paying attention to Warren's advice on planing and sawing and things of the sort, I don't know him too well, so I wouldn't exactly invite my way to his shop. He's probably working on a paying job, anyway, as I notice he doesn't have too much interest in what you or I might be doing. 

That's different than being local to George, who I actually talk to and have learned more from (just not double iron plane, George wasn't allowed to use them at CW and his work interests outside of CW don't include cabinetmaking, anyway). I don't see finding George's work to be much of a problem, though, and he doesn't heckle professionals - just people attempting to be seen as professionals without being one. I've never noticed him to be fascinated with Warren, either, or question what he says - perhaps because he's interested in craft and not in building himself up by trying to tear someone else down.

Each time you're intent on questioning someone else, you should put your effort into showing something that you've actually done. If not, you should see someone who can help change the way you think so you could get to that point.


----------



## CStanford

I don't understand why you take questions about Warren so personally. You invoke him as an expert and a personal mentor, shoehorning him into every thread you can, and then arch your back if anyone dares to ask for more information.

It's not logical.

_"The bits and pieces at the bottom of this blog, and some gushing about Warren from Adam Cherubini are about as close as you'll get to seeing his work."_


----------



## Sgian Dubh

sploo":2ay4iks8 said:


> Sellers has mentioned a number of times that (in the mid 60s as an apprentice) his Stanley No 4 cost him a weeks' wages. Could just be an anecdote/exaggeration of course (I don't have any data).


He may not be too far out sploo. I don't recall precise figures, but I do remember my first week's wage packet as a trainee cabinetmaker/ joiner in the 70s contained about £7 after tax and National Insurance deductions. The cost of a plane is hazier, but in my mind, something like a brand new Record No 4 (with a stained beech handle [prior to plastic, anyway]) was in the region of £4- £5. Don't quote me on the plane cost - and that really quite large spread between £4 and £5 surely indicates how unreliable my memory might be on this occasion, ha, ha. Slainte.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

In the mid '60s my father had labourers that worked 7 days a week to take home £10 - and for Cornwall, they were not badly paid.


----------



## Mr_P

Paddy already pointed you all to his thread earlier that clearly shows a bog standard number 4 cost about a days wages

comparison-of-tool-prices-over-time-t91056.html


----------



## CStanford

From that thread:

If the assertion being made is that the L-N is the equivalent in price to Stanley Bailey at a particular point in time, and we acknowledge the fact that workers very commonly owned Stanley Bailey, then I guess we need to reconcile the perception (fact?) that Lie-Nielsen is an 'aspirational' brand (Derek's very lovely term) and they are perceived to be a boutique firm (which they are and Stanley certainly was not) with boutique-like prices to match (which seems to be the general consensus).

Otherwise, sump'n don't gee-haw.

One must also reconcile all the Bailey copyists. I think we counted a couple-dozen or more in a past thread and I'm sure a few were left out. Can you imagine two dozen plus Norris copyists? It's absurd. The market could never have absorbed this many copyists of a plane that is being asserted was as premium as Lie-Nielsen is today (Bailey, that is).

If the assertion is that Stanley Bailey was as premium a brand then (with prices to match), as Lie-Nielsen appears to be today, then it's difficult to reconcile this assertion with Stanley's production and sales numbers. One cannot sell and the market cannot absorb as many Rolls Royce cars as Pintos.

I'm sure L-N would love to understand the market mechanics behind Stanley selling orders of magnitudes more planes if the brand perception and pricing schemes were essentially identical. Even allowing for the mechanization of woodworking there's a huge difference.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Charles, we went through all that months ago. The overall conclusion was that the woodriver or QS planes are, in the UK, ROUGHLY the equivalent price, compared to UK wages, as a Stanley bailey was 50 years ago. A lot cheaper than a LN, but considerably more than a modern stanley. Anyone interested can read the old thread, surely we don't need to repeat it all here.
Paddy

PS here in England nothing goes Gee-haw


----------



## Bedrock

Going back a page or two, as to who actually buys Clifton, LN or LV, I go to the Edward Barnsley workshop open days, near here, every year or so, for the chat, the buzz from their design/making quality, but also to look at what tools their apprentices are using. From recollection, there seems to be a fair cross section of planes, from revamped older Stanleys and Records, usually with thicker replacement blades, LNs, LVs and the odd Clifton. 
Whether you like Arts and Crafts or not, I doubt that there is a better training scheme, and it seems to me that their young apprentices are not having to limit themselves to older revamped planes, nor that only hobbyists are willing/able to buy the more expensive equipment.


----------



## CStanford

Of course not but in no way could Lie-Nielsen survive on sales to professional furnituremakers in shops like Barnsley. At least not with the line they have now. Lee Valley sells lots of other things so perhaps they could. Otherwise, both need the hobbyist market as it must account for the majority of sales. And the fact that apprentices at Barnsley can be seen using older Stanley and Record, at all, is telling. Assuming that there is a standard of craftsmanship, and surely it is high, these old planes must be able to meet it.

A mouse killed by an older model trap isn't any less dead.

Isn't Clifton now out of business?


----------



## Mr_P

Charles ???

You commented on the recently launched new Clifton block plane page 

first-impressions-of-the-clifton-block-plane-t91140.html


----------



## CStanford

What a happy refreshing of memory!


----------



## Peter Sefton

Clifton are very much alive and re investing. 

The Barnsley workshop have a good selection of planes in use including QS and WoodRiver. They are happy to use good quality old planes because they have the experience within the workshop to teach them how to fettle them and get them working to their best ability. 

The apprentices have usually done at minimum of a 1 year course if not 3 years at college/uni prior to being selected. They will also have different budgets for tools as we all do and had various Birthday and Christmas presents to assist. I am sure they are advised to buy the best they can afford and build a tool kit from there.

Cheers Peter


----------



## Cheshirechappie

CStanford":2un06gck said:


> Isn't Clifton now out of business?



No.

Earlier this year, Clifton's parent company, Clico Tools, went into liquidation. Their main business was the making of tooling for the aircraft industry, but they had a sideline making woodworking boring tools (mainly tooling for woodworking machinery, but some hand-tool bits), and the plane-making. Before the company failed, the plane-making business was sold to Thomas Flinn and Co, who continue to manufacture Clifton planes.

http://www.flinn-garlick-saws.co.uk/


----------



## CStanford

Yes, that sounds familiar now. Thank you.


----------



## D_W

Sgian Dubh":15mb2st8 said:


> sploo":15mb2st8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sellers has mentioned a number of times that (in the mid 60s as an apprentice) his Stanley No 4 cost him a weeks' wages. Could just be an anecdote/exaggeration of course (I don't have any data).
> 
> 
> 
> He may not be too far out sploo. I don't recall precise figures, but I do remember my first week's wage packet as a trainee cabinetmaker/ joiner in the 70s contained about £7 after tax and National Insurance deductions. The cost of a plane is hazier, but in my mind, something like a brand new Record No 4 (with a stained beech handle [prior to plastic, anyway]) was in the region of £4- £5. Don't quote me on the plane cost - and that really quite large spread between £4 and £5 surely indicates how unreliable my memory might be on this occasion, ha, ha. Slainte.
Click to expand...


There's a hidden part there in the states, too, though it may not be quite so severe as the fees you're talking about. 

If the skilled labor wage was about $5 a day in 1915, I'd imagine the worker got to keep a pretty fair bit of that. It's true still for low paid in the US that credits and such things make their burden low, but move up from that a bit and the effective tax rate makes it so that the worker would have to work some more in a day.


----------



## D_W

If stanley still made planes in volume these days, i doubt they'd cost more than about $150 at their quality level to be made in the US and provide good service. Maybe less. Lie nielsen's operation and LV's operations look clean and neat, but I doubt their output is remotely close per hour of labor (adjusted for CNC type stuff if necessary) to match what stanley would've been doing 100 years ago. No part of a stanley plane from 100 years ago is low quality, though the bloggers and such might make it out as if they were.

At any rate, I find the quangsheng, et al, to be a bit of a slap in the face price-wise given where they're made. That's separate from the discussion of the quality, I'm sure they make a workable plane, but the price that they're sold for makes no sense to me.


----------



## Graham Orm

D_W":3uf7pvhs said:


> If stanley still made planes in volume these days, i doubt they'd cost more than about $150 at their quality level to be made in the US and provide good service. Maybe less. Lie nielsen's operation and LV's operations look clean and neat, but I doubt their output is remotely close per hour of labor (adjusted for CNC type stuff if necessary) to match what stanley would've been doing 100 years ago. No part of a stanley plane from 100 years ago is low quality, though the bloggers and such might make it out as if they were.
> 
> At any rate, I find the quangsheng, et al, to be a bit of a slap in the face price-wise given where they're made. That's separate from the discussion of the quality, I'm sure they make a workable plane, but the price that they're sold for makes no sense to me.



I have a 1900 Stanley #7. The as well as being tissue thin, the casting on one side is visibly thinner than the other, I doubt if that would get past quality control anywhere these days. My #6 QS in comparison is like a Rolls Royce. The Stanley is a novelty for my shelf. It cuts.......OK, but it's way too far from flat to even attempt to sort it out.


----------



## D_W

Graham Orm":zup5br2b said:


> D_W":zup5br2b said:
> 
> 
> 
> If stanley still made planes in volume these days, i doubt they'd cost more than about $150 at their quality level to be made in the US and provide good service. Maybe less. Lie nielsen's operation and LV's operations look clean and neat, but I doubt their output is remotely close per hour of labor (adjusted for CNC type stuff if necessary) to match what stanley would've been doing 100 years ago. No part of a stanley plane from 100 years ago is low quality, though the bloggers and such might make it out as if they were.
> 
> At any rate, I find the quangsheng, et al, to be a bit of a slap in the face price-wise given where they're made. That's separate from the discussion of the quality, I'm sure they make a workable plane, but the price that they're sold for makes no sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a 1900 Stanley #7. The as well as being tissue thin, the casting on one side is visibly thinner than the other, I doubt if that would get past quality control anywhere these days. My #6 QS in comparison is like a Rolls Royce. The Stanley is a novelty for my shelf. It cuts.......OK, but it's way too far from flat to even attempt to sort it out.
Click to expand...


What's tissue thin? Does it affect the plane from being used? I guess in the context of weight of the plane, that's probably what I'd be concerned with. when I started building planes, I noticed a lot of the jointers that are intended to be #7 sized, wood or not, are about 7 to 7.5 pounds. 

Well, except wood river (quangsheng) 7s are quoted at 9.5 or 9.8 pounds. I guess they couldn't be bothered to find out what weight professionals actually wanted their planes to be, and instead just wanted to make a plane heavier because amateur users who do not use a plane very much don't notice the weight. 

I would very quickly prefer your stanley over your woodriver plane in less than a half hour planing session. 

I've had my share of stanley planes, probably 50. I guess I still have 7 of them, and of all of those, one had the casting that was wider on one side than the other, but the plane worked fine. I guess at the time, stanley may have been making planes with subpar labor due to war time, I'm not sure. After type 10 or so, they're all the same to me, war time or not. I've not had any planes during that time that I can remember not working well, and that includes the modern type of frog that is coarsely belt sanded. Some have required some lapping due to a mouth being high, but who knows if that occurred over many years (it probably did, but I'm not metal expert). 

I guess what i'm getting toward is I wouldn't trade a stanley jointer or smoother in the shop these days for anything from a premium maker. I've tried both. I especially don't find much favor for the overweight chinese planes, and one of the reasons I never got the urge to search for a used clifton is because of the weights they quote. 

I do find it unsurprising that stanley's 7 and the old long planes (the longer versions of a try plane but short of jointer length) are somewhere in the same weight range, I don't think that's by accident, but the users in those days would've been quite a bit more critical about how well their planes worked with them over a full work day. Thick irons and heavy castings wouldn't have been acceptable.

Cosmetic pluses and spec sheet improvements (how many thousandths of flatness) have been confused with making a plane that's more capable or more accurate in work.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Heavier plane = thicker castings = less flexible.

Lighter plane = thinner castings = more flexible.

If there's one plane you don't want to be too flexible, it's the one you want a dimensionally accurate finish on the workpiece from.

But that's life, isn't it? There's no such thing as the 'perfect' plane, they're all a compromise to some degree. Some come close to perfection in some circumstances, and fail in others. Some are not perfect at anything, but do a generally good all-round job most of the time. Pays yer money, takes yer choice.


----------



## D_W

I guess I've used probably 6 stanley 7s, 3 stanley 8s, a lie nielsen 7 and 8 (both of those long gone, as well as all of the stanleys), and now I have one metal jointer remaining (a millers falls), and they ran the whole range of thicknesses, including a prelateral 7. I never noticed any of them to flex enough to actually affect work. Those are the kinds of things that are sold to woodworkers now as being a situation that we have to be aware of, just as the 1.5 thousandth flatness standard is sold. The problem with that flatness standard is one that it's probably just there because that's what the machines are capable of, but two, because a plane biased three times that in favor of the mouth being low is far better to use than one where the mouth is high at spec. I had a LN 8 that the mouth was high exactly spec limit - 1.5 thousandths according to starrett and feeler. With a fine shaving, it mildly crowned a board - a real pain. Same thing with old jointers that I've lapped (I was afraid to lap the LN because who wants to buy a spotless LN plane that's had the sole lapped - most of the buyers of LN planes would rather have a plane untouched than one functioning a little better, and I sold it). 

I lap my woodies to final fit them to make the mouth a hair low. Over time, they'll get more that way I'd imagine, but who knows? I don't know how low they are, but by eye I'd say half a hundredth? They match plane wonderfully that way. 

Those things, though, that have to do with weight, time sharpening, easy setting of an iron - those really have a big effect. 

(the other plane that comes to mind with the ends being below the mouth was a bedrock 607, and a lap leaving the toe and heel low just a couple of thousandths still made the plane want to start on a flat edge and then interrupt the cut for a second when the tail got onto the board. Horribly annoying, and the castings on 607s aren't generally heavier than a #7 that I could tell, but it still had plenty of rigidity for that to be a nuisance).


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

DW, how come you have had so many planes? What are you searching for? This is not a criticism, I am genuinely baffled. I've got two benches, one at the dry dock where I work and one in my shed at home (I have no machines at home, at the dock I do). In each I have a couple of record jacks (5s), a no.4 (stanley at work, marples at home) and a couple a wooden jointers. I also have a 4 1/2 that I take from one place to the other that I use for final smoothing. They all work. They needed some attention when I got them (my local saw doctors flattened them for me £5 a plane). I have some other wooden planes that I've not had time to get properly accustomed to, one day I would like to. I have some other planes (rebate, block, moulding, ploughs etc.), all of them work, some needed a bit of work and getting used to. The most I ever spent on a bench plane was £20 on the 41/2. Most were a tenner or less (my stanley 4 was £1). I did buy a new QS block plane and very nice it is. If I had money to burn I would buy QS or even a Clifton or LN bench planes and they too would work, maybe they would need some work, maybe I would need to get used to them. They may be heavier or lighter than what I have, I would learn to adjust. 
My point is they all work, one plane might be heavier than another, but they all work. Why would you keep buying and selling planes? For me if there is a problem it is either that I need to work on the plane or work on my technique. I've noticed you have the same tendency with sharpening stuff, you've had every different type of stone and the watisha is your current favourite. For me, like the planes, they all work, the best one is the one you have. I dunno, do as you like, but I think my time is better spent learning to use what I've got rather than trying a whole bunch of different stuff to find what works for me, I prefer to think that I need to adjust to the tool and not try to but myself out of trouble. From what I am reading in your above post you have had at least 12 long metal planes!! I can't imagine ever needing more than one (well two, one at work, one at home), I have wooden ones as they were cheap and they work. If I had a metal one I would make that work.
Please don't get me wrong, do whatever you wish, but you seem to have got through so much equipment, what are you hoping for? How many edges have you jointed with all the long planes you've had? I can't quite believe that it could be enough in your leisure time to have given 12 long planes, not counting the probably large number of wooden jointers you've had (and made?) to have given them all a fair shot. 
You may disagree, but rather than looking for the perfect tool, chopping and changing all the time, glued to ebay and gumtree (do you have gumtree in the US?), I'd rather spend my time trying to get perfect results from the tools I have.
Paddy


----------



## BearTricks

custard":2m7nhez0 said:


> D_W":2m7nhez0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're right, and I think most folks would be worn out by selling to an uneducated clientele, which is what the premium makers have to do these days.
> 
> It's not like there's a great big supply of new apprentices jumping at the bit to buy a basic set of metal planes. But there's a huge array of middle-aged white collar workers who are looking for a hobby and who will pay for a plane that's ready to work as soon as they learn to sharpen.
> 
> Near as I can tell, Stanley's planes cost about half a day's labor in the early 1900s, maybe closer to a day for an apprentice. that could easily be done these days if there was any volume, minus the rosewood handles, maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some well considered points there.
> 
> Apprentices in the UK are only entitled to a nugatory wage. The legal minimum wage for anyone over 21 in this country is £6.70 an hour, £5.30 for anyone aged 18-20, £3.87 for anyone under 18, but only £3.30 an hour for apprentices aged under 18 or indeed apprentices of any age during their first year. That's barely enough to keep body and soul together. You can guess what the result has been, a rush to classify many jobs as "apprenticeships" and 12 month employment contracts for those aged over 18. This has led to the nonsensical situation where you can serve a year long apprenticeship as a coffee brewing barista or a shelf stacker in a supermarket.
Click to expand...


I've noticed this while looking for jobs recently. When I got out of school maybe 11 years ago, without trying to pass too much judgement, some jobs along the lines of shelf stacking and working in a warehouse were filled by people using them as a stop gap until something better came along, or by people who didn't have the qualifications and skills to do something else.

If you do an apprenticeship in plumbing that should be a statement of intention that you're going to be a plumber. Most of the apprenticeships that pop up on my job feed are jobs that I'd have got when I was 16 by wandering in to the place with a CV. Only then I'd have got minimum wage for it and the freedom to leave whenever as it was generally understood that they were high turnover jobs. Instead everyone is expected to pretend that an apprenticeship as a barista in a high street coffee chain isn't a ridiculous idea. It used to be something that anyone could do with a couple of days training. Now we're all acting like it's a career. 

Anyway, this is probably for another thread. 

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## sploo

The thing I've learned from reading this thread (and indeed many others on this, and other, websites) is that:


Stanleys made after the 1990s are junk (but earlier ones are good)
Stanleys made after the 1960s are junk (but earlier ones are good)
Stanleys made during WW2 are junk (but other ones are good)
Stanleys with plastic handles are junk
Stanleys with plastic handles are fine
An old fettled Stanley (or Record, or Woden) is easily a match for a modern boutique (LN/LV/Clifton) plane
A LN/LV/Clifton is simply better than any of the old Stanley/Record/Woden planes
A Clifton is much better than a LN
A LN is much better than a Clifton
Old thin irons chatter and new thicker irons are much better
New thick irons are a pain to sharpen and no properly set up plane with a thin iron chatters
Super heavy modern planes (usually with a Bedrock frog) are much better than lighter old planes - in fact, the weight is a selling point
Heavy planes are totally unnecessary and just become unpleasant to use over a long period

I can't possibly think why plane noobs such as myself are confused :wink:


----------



## profchris

Sploo, I feel your pain. If it helps, here are my experiences with various planes as a comparatively inexperienced plane user - it might be relevant that it's the same user each time, so gives a realistic comparison.

Veritas low angle apron block plane - a pleasure to use when the iron is sharp but it needs sharpening very frequently. Easy to adjust.

Stanley No 3 (uncertain age, 60s?) - huge slack in both lateral and forward/back adjusters, so finicky, but once set it planes really nicely and keeps an edge pretty well.

Quangsheng no 1 - not only really pretty (my wife wanted to steal it for display) but planes beautifully, holds its edge for ever. I make ukuleles, but others probably wouldn't find much use for one. Adjust laterally with a plastic hammer, really very easy.

Quangsheng low angle jack - planes really nicely when sharp but doesn't hold an edge for long. Harder to adjust than the Veritas, not much difference between no cut and too much.

Wooden coffin smoother - works nicely if adjusted right, but I haven't invested the time to learn how to do that, so it gets less use than it deserves.

Ebay £7 tiny rosewood and brass bevel down plane, about 3 ins long - probably my most reliable plane! Again, not much use for other than tiny things, but is great for bindings etc on ukes. 

All these work well if sharp. Some keep an edge better than others. The Stanley is finicky with age, the woodie finicky because I haven't learnt it. All are good enough tools to produce good results.


----------



## sploo

profchris":fazwsglq said:


> Sploo, I feel your pain. If it helps, here are my experiences with various planes as a comparatively inexperienced plane user - it might be relevant that it's the same user each time, so gives a realistic comparison....


Thanks Chris. I was posting somewhat tongue-in-cheek (though everything I wrote I have read at various times).

My limited experience comes from the following:


A plastic-handled Stanley No 4 of probably late 1990s vintage (it was a gift). Turns out the sole was a bit twisted (now flattened) but it seems to cut fine
An eBay purchased Stanley No 4 1/2, probably 1960s, but with the pressed two part fork. Having been cleaned and fettled it cuts really well
Another eBay Stanley No 5 1/2. Looks to be the same vintage as the No 4 1/2. Only just purchased so not fettled yet, but as it had a sharp blade I gave it a test this evening and it seems good
A Quangsheng Luban No. 102 Bronze Apron Plane. Nice little item, and great for chamfers

I've got other types (#44, #78, Veritas Router) but I've never used any of the QS/LN/LV/Clifton bench planes.


----------



## D_W

Paddy Roxburgh":12a1tk31 said:


> DW, how come you have had so many planes? What are you searching for? This is not a criticism, I am genuinely baffled. I've got two benches, one at the dry dock where I work and one in my shed at home (I have no machines at home, at the dock I do). In each I have a couple of record jacks (5s), a no.4 (stanley at work, marples at home) and a couple a wooden jointers. I also have a 4 1/2 that I take from one place to the other that I use for final smoothing. They all work. They needed some attention when I got them (my local saw doctors flattened them for me £5 a plane). I have some other wooden planes that I've not had time to get properly accustomed to, one day I would like to. I have some other planes (rebate, block, moulding, ploughs etc.), all of them work, some needed a bit of work and getting used to. The most I ever spent on a bench plane was £20 on the 41/2. Most were a tenner or less (my stanley 4 was £1). I did buy a new QS block plane and very nice it is. If I had money to burn I would buy QS or even a Clifton or LN bench planes and they too would work, maybe they would need some work, maybe I would need to get used to them. They may be heavier or lighter than what I have, I would learn to adjust.
> My point is they all work, one plane might be heavier than another, but they all work. Why would you keep buying and selling planes? For me if there is a problem it is either that I need to work on the plane or work on my technique. I've noticed you have the same tendency with sharpening stuff, you've had every different type of stone and the watisha is your current favourite. For me, like the planes, they all work, the best one is the one you have. I dunno, do as you like, but I think my time is better spent learning to use what I've got rather than trying a whole bunch of different stuff to find what works for me, I prefer to think that I need to adjust to the tool and not try to but myself out of trouble. From what I am reading in your above post you have had at least 12 long metal planes!! I can't imagine ever needing more than one (well two, one at work, one at home), I have wooden ones as they were cheap and they work. If I had a metal one I would make that work.
> Please don't get me wrong, do whatever you wish, but you seem to have got through so much equipment, what are you hoping for? How many edges have you jointed with all the long planes you've had? I can't quite believe that it could be enough in your leisure time to have given 12 long planes, not counting the probably large number of wooden jointers you've had (and made?) to have given them all a fair shot.
> You may disagree, but rather than looking for the perfect tool, chopping and changing all the time, glued to ebay and gumtree (do you have gumtree in the US?), I'd rather spend my time trying to get perfect results from the tools I have.
> Paddy



I wasn't ever really looking for the perfect tool, it was just play. I tried everything for play because I'm interested in tool design. Same reason I make wooden planes. I wouldn't need to, it's just play.


----------



## G S Haydon

You forgot about the Dicks!


----------



## D_W

G S Haydon":3kf8lwh8 said:


> You forgot about the Dicks!



I'd like to make clear that I've had a dozen long metal planes, probably made nearly a dozen long wooden planes, bought another dozen long wooden planes.....but to be clear, I have had *zero* dicks. (hammer)


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Hey DW, Fair enough, enjoy
Paddy


----------



## Corneel

Making a heavy thick casting is much easier then the more delicate thin walled old Stanley ones. And then it is now sold as a "virtue". 

The Victorians were masters in making very intricate castings.


----------



## Jelly

Corneel":qgvr4sd3 said:


> Making a heavy thick casting is much easier then the more delicate thin walled old Stanley ones. And then it is now sold as a "virtue".
> 
> The Victorians were masters in making very intricate castings.



Indeed, but in Victorian times the labour of skilled man such as a patternmaker or moulder was much less than the cost of a good quality steel or iron, nor was it easy to generate and contain sufficient energy to prepare big secondary melts of metal for casting.

Fast forward to 2015 and we've got very good at concentrating energy and producing uniform metals... But with less and less foundrymen, moulders and patternmakers left, their labour is at a premium if not in cost (times are hard in the foundries and pattern shops of Great Britain, not as bad as other parts of the steel industry, but still a bit tight) certainly in availablity.


----------



## Corneel

Just a quick comparison.

Stanley #604: 3.625lbs
Lie Nielsen #4: 4 lbs
Woodriver #4: 5 lbs

So, the LN certainly isn't too bad. The Chinese woodriver though, ooch!
Weights above are from the sellers websites and from the Stanley blood and gore webpage. I didn't check them myself.


----------



## D_W

Corneel":36dqn89j said:


> Just a quick comparison.
> 
> Stanley #604: 3.625lbs
> Lie Nielsen #4: 4 lbs
> Woodriver #4: 5 lbs
> 
> So, the LN certainly isn't too bad. The Chinese woodriver though, ooch!
> Weights above are from the sellers websites and from the Stanley blood and gore webpage. I didn't check them myself.



I believe the stanley bailey #4 is right around 3 pounds. I remember weighing a couple. They do vary a little, of course. 

5 pounds is about the weight of a 604 1/2 that I have, and I regarded that one as a heavy plane for its width. My steep pitch 4" infill is only 5 1/2 pounds. I've always referred to that as "wood show" weight. If you're at a wood show and you only push a plane three times on a prepared board, the weight makes the plane seem really smooth (but then you use one in the context of work on a half dozen panels and the weight doesn't seem so great).


----------



## Mr_P

But Neanderthal man he say HEAVY is GOOD

Modern man knows how to spin it either way.



> At 4lbs 6oz (2kg) the Clifton No 4 is nearly half a pound heavier than its North American rivals. 9-1/2" long with a 2" cryogenic cutting iron it feels sturdy and capable from the moment you first pick it up.



Not much of an issue for the hobbysit and it might be the only exercise they get.

So I'm off to order Woodriver no.3 and an old bedrock 608.


----------



## JohnCee

Are the Dick planes from the same source as QS and WR?
They are quite a bit cheaper. 
Anyone have any experience with them? (titter ye not)


----------



## Jacob

Corneel":1kv62ww0 said:


> Making a heavy thick casting is much easier then the more delicate thin walled old Stanley ones. And then it is now sold as a "virtue".
> 
> The Victorians were masters in making very intricate castings.


They also promote "ductile" as a virtue but all it means (as far as we are concerned) is "soft" i.e. will scratch easily.
This dawned on me when I used a Clifton 4 and hit a nail; big deep scratch across the sole! 
Wouldn't happen with any of my older planes - which also seem to have less frictional resistance - this is somewhat subjective but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a simple fact.

So you get a heavy plane to make work harder, soft steel to take scratches, thick blades to make sharpening more difficult and increase the weight, norris style adjusters which don't work. Nice brass knobs and bubinga handles though!


----------



## D_W

Mr_P":12pou44x said:


> But Neanderthal man he say HEAVY is GOOD
> 
> Modern man knows how to spin it either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 4lbs 6oz (2kg) the Clifton No 4 is nearly half a pound heavier than its North American rivals. 9-1/2" long with a 2" cryogenic cutting iron it feels sturdy and capable from the moment you first pick it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not much of an issue for the hobbysit and it might be the only exercise they get.
> 
> So I'm off to order Woodriver no.3 and an old bedrock 608.
Click to expand...


Professional man in the day of competitive professionals is probably always the best place to find ideal. 

Certainly, there are plenty of people who will order their wood river and other planes of similar name (quansheng, dick, whatever the steel chinese planes are sold under) and not push them around enough to worry about the weight. 

When I thought premium planes were the way to go, i bought about half new and half used. I don't think any of lie nielsen's I bought used had the primary grind removed. They had been honed a couple of times, but not enough to remove the primary. Two were unused but several years old.


----------



## Mr_P

Sorry D_W I was only jesting when I said I off to order them, I realised long ago that I had too many planes allready but find it hard to resist bargains on ebay. I'd pay good money to see a wealthy amateur with his his Holtey go up against Graham with his £12 Silverline. I know who I'd bet on.

JohnCee, 

Peter Sefton said,



> The Dick plane is not the same as a WoodRiver and a Quangsheng is different again. I have the latter two in my kit and you can see the Dick is a different design from those seen in the UK.



buying-a-dick-woodworking-plane-from-dictum-t89598.html

Blimey they are cheap 114 Euros delivered = £84, they would have to be mmm brown

https://www.dictum.com/en/tools/woodwor ... plane-no-4


----------



## D_W

It's strange that the wood river and quansheng are described to be different. It must be a spec difference, because early on when the wood river planes were just started, they showed up on a site called "quansheng tool". After they got established at woodcraft, that site disappeared. 

Woodcraft had problems with their second version because some of the elements were the same as LN instead of the same as bedrock, and I get the sense that they changed those back to bedrock in the third version to avoid problems with lie nielsen. 

Maybe the quansheng planes didn't have to make those changes because they're not sold under the brand in the US, but I'm pretty sure they came from the same place originally. 

The chinese quansheng site also showed some knockoffs of Veritas tools that japan woodworkers and others sold without any shame.


----------



## D_W

Mr_P":3t8tnx0v said:


> Sorry D_W I was only jesting when I said I off to order them...



Ahh...I don't always recognize the water taking yet as I haven't got a good idea of what everyone likes here. 

At any rate, the quangsheng 5 pound #4 could probably make a good doorstop. Or perhaps something to throw at an intruder. Since you guys can't keep pistols in your nightstand there, maybe you could put a QS #4 on them - or a couple.


----------



## Jelly

Jacob":2slaovym said:


> Corneel":2slaovym said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making a heavy thick casting is much easier then the more delicate thin walled old Stanley ones. And then it is now sold as a "virtue".
> 
> The Victorians were masters in making very intricate castings.
> 
> 
> 
> They also promote "ductile" as a virtue but all it means (as far as we are concerned) is "soft" i.e. will scratch easily.
> This dawned on me when I used a Clifton 4 and hit a nail; big deep scratch across the sole!
> Wouldn't happen with any of my older planes - which also seem to have less frictional resistance - this is somewhat subjective but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a simple fact.
> 
> So you get a heavy plane to make work harder, soft steel to take scratches, thick blades to make sharpening more difficult and increase the weight, norris style adjusters which don't work. Nice brass knobs and bubinga handles though!
Click to expand...


Ductile does mean the plane is tougher...but toughness and hardness tend to be inversely proportional.

I can't help wondering if moving from cast iron to cast steel would be an actual advance... Traditionally steel is rather harder to cast and machine, so iron was preferred if at all possible... But as we've got rather better at casting in the past 150 years...

A cast steel plane could be case hardened or nitrided to give resistance to gouging, whilst remaining less susceptible to cracking due to impact than iron die to grain structure, you can also get better strength and rigidity for a given wall section with steel, so the plane can also get lighter...

IIRC from reading blood and gore, Stanley briefly did this and the planes were regarded as being no better or worse than the iron ones, just less likely to break when subject to abuse, however they never quite took off due to price...


----------



## Mr_P

Didn't Patrick also say Bedrocks are over rated and British infills are better.

Never tried a proper Bedrock new or old so I can't comment.

Edit he said over-hyped Bed Rock series and



> save your lunch money for a few months more, and buy a real killer smoothing plane, an English infill. You'll never regret it as they far out-perform any Bed Rock plane



http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan15.htm


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Mr_P":3i9656yt said:


> Didn't Patrick also say Bedrocks are over rated and British infills are better.
> 
> Never tried a proper Bedrock new or old so I can't comment.
> 
> Edit he said over-hyped Bed Rock series and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> save your lunch money for a few months more, and buy a real killer smoothing plane, an English infill. You'll never regret it as they far out-perform any Bed Rock plane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan15.htm
Click to expand...


But....but......but.....infills are HEAVY! :shock: 

I know. I'll start making infill planes from aluminium and balsa. I'll make a fortune!


----------



## Jelly

Cheshirechappie":1bsefemc said:


> I know. I'll start making infill planes from aluminium and balsa. I'll make a fortune!



You're going to want to wait for a dry spell before lapping those soles... At least you dont want to go full on weight-weanie and use Magnesium, then you'd really have fun!


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jelly":3d57tgz1 said:


> Cheshirechappie":3d57tgz1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. I'll start making infill planes from aluminium and balsa. I'll make a fortune!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to want to wait for a dry spell before lapping those soles... At least you dont want to go full on weight-weanie and use Magnesium, then you'd really have fun!
Click to expand...


It would solve the problem of working in an unheated shop over winter. Save a few bob not needing flourescent lights, too. I wonder if I could flog magnesium oxide as a strop dressing powder?

Maybe magnesium might have it's drawbacks. How easy is it to cast beryllium?


----------



## D_W

Cheshirechappie":oecu0dax said:


> But....but......but.....infills are HEAVY! :shock:
> 
> I know. I'll start making infill planes from aluminium and balsa. I'll make a fortune!



I gather most infills are about as heavy as the heavy casting bedrocks. I've got three of them (the infills). It goes back to heavy being an asset if you're not using a plane much (like if you only smooth, which may be the case for most cabinetmakers in the last 150 years). Even so, if you have to remove chatter from 40 square feet of panels and rails for a chest, the weight becomes a nuisance. 

Presume stanley planes outsold infills by a mile even while infills were popular. Amateur resurgence made fairly low quality infills popular again (at least in the states), even when they are clearly in need of wood refitting. There was a while where infills were being bought over there in volume and brought back here to sell, because the popular mantra was that they would plane more difficult woods, something only correct if a stanley plane user is relatively incompetent. 

If you want to get rich selling planes, you'll have to promise people happiness by selling some kind of poo like Paul Sellers does. He's a "lifestyle" woodworker, and he promises when you pass him (i saw him say it on his log) that you're envious of him if you sit in a desk chair. If you really want to make money as a woodworker, you have to sell a lifestyle, make videos and teach white collar workers to make dovetails. That's the model here in the states, at least.


----------



## sploo

D_W":2oyffd7w said:


> ...Or perhaps something to throw at an intruder. Since you guys can't keep pistols in your nightstand there, maybe you could put a QS #4 on them - or a couple.


But... but... what if I've only got a #4 and a guy breaks into my house packing a #8? :mrgreen:

(waiting for someone to make a "you can pry my infill out of my cold dead hands" type gag :wink


----------



## D_W

sploo":1zlnnywo said:


> D_W":1zlnnywo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Or perhaps something to throw at an intruder. Since you guys can't keep pistols in your nightstand there, maybe you could put a QS #4 on them - or a couple.
> 
> 
> 
> But... but... what if I've only got a #4 and a guy breaks into my house packing a #8? :mrgreen:
> 
> (waiting for someone to make a "you can pry my infill out of my cold dead hands" type gag :wink
Click to expand...


Rubber band gun loaded with chisels! Anyone ever fletch a parer?


----------



## Mr_P

> But....but......but.....infills are HEAVY! :shock:



Depends on the infill I guess.

No Bedrocks here as mentioned but a few others I've just weighed.

Record 03 = 23cm, 1.44kg
Record 04 = 24cm, 1.68
Record 04.5 = 26cm, 2.14

Spiers dovetailed open handled = 1.78kg
52.5 Iron, Sole length = 195mm

Scottish ish casting closed handle = 1.72kg
55 Iron, Sole length = 205mm


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Mr_P":32fo74py said:


> But....but......but.....infills are HEAVY! :shock:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the infill I guess.
> 
> No Bedrocks here as mentioned but a few others I've just weighed.
> 
> Record 03 = 23cm, 1.44kg
> Record 04 = 24cm, 1.68
> Record 04.5 = 26cm, 2.14
> 
> Spiers dovetailed open handled = 1.78kg
> 52.5 Iron, Sole length = 195mm
> 
> Scottish ish casting closed handle = 1.72kg
> 55 Iron, Sole length = 205mm
Click to expand...


I wasn't having a pop at you, Mr P. I'm sorry if the tone of the post gave that impression - not the intention at all.

It does sometimes seem that some people present their opinions (which they're perfectly entitled to hold) as an Established Fact. It was to that I was reacting. 

In the case of plane weights, some like 'em light. Some like 'em heavier, feeling that they power through the cut better. Some like horses for courses, and some don't mind as long as does what's needed. Some just use what they've got, neither knowing nor caring whether a lighter or heavier plane would be better or worse. Fortunately, we've got the choice - and not just with weight, but with bed angle, blade steel, adjuster type and many other things. 

I entirely understand why a planing noob can end up confused - especially given the depth and intensity of discussion about the various options - but in the end, the simple rule that you get what you pay for (generally) is as good a guide as any. It's true that the budget end of the new plane market (including Stanley and Record, these days, sadly) is often junk out of the box, but even most of those can be made into a pretty fair plane with some fettling. It's also true that at the higher end, there may be 'features' that some people regard as unnecessary, but they'll all plane wood, which is the purpose of the exercise for most people. In the end, it's the user's willingness to spend some time at the bench learning about wood and how to plane it that will count for more than almost anything else.

Edit to add - Having done a bit of rummaging about the interwebs, I think to buy a metal-bodied plane of No 4 size new, you need to spend over £100 to be sure of one that'll work well out of the box (subject to sharpening the iron and fitting the cap-iron). That's a VERY rough giude. The lower the price below that, the more fettling you'll have to do to make a decent plane of it. Above that, they should work and work well, and it's a matter for the purchaser how much they're prepared to spend for extra features and build quality. That puts (in no particular order) Silverline, Anant, Faithfull, Record and standard Stanley below the line, and Stanley Sweetheart, WoodRiver, Quangsheng, Veritas, Lie-Nielsen and Clifton above it. I'm sure I'll have missed some, though!


----------



## Mr_P

Thought you were having a minor pop at Mr B n G not me. I used to prefer heavier planes but not sure whether its old age or experience but my no.3 is getting a lot more use these days. Maybe it is just the joys of middle age and I've decided my bench is def too low.


----------



## Rhyolith

Sorry this responds to a post 4-5 pages back (and there are just to many posts to read everything in-between; have skimmed). 


Cheshirechappie":2v9dev5v said:


> Rhyolith":2v9dev5v said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iNewbie":2v9dev5v said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clifton without a shadow of a doubt - my LN went bye byes...
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to your LN? Because I strongly disagree, clifton only matches Lie Nielsen in the shoulder plane department. Otherwise Lie Nielsen's are better in every functional capacity... though I will say that the Lie Nielsen Bronze planes are dum as hell (a LN salesman even told me they are just to "look pretty"), they brake so easily... the iron ones are though as anything though. I have been told that they bounce if you drop them on something hard rather than smash like Cliftons (and every other cast plane), evidently I don't want to test this with £400 of Jointer plane :?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for the record, there's a factual inaccuracy in this statement.
> 
> Both Lie-Nielsen and Clifton overcome the tendency of thin castings to distort after machining by annealing the raw castings. They do this by heating the castings to about red heat, then allow them to cool very slowly without any restraint on how they can move. That has two effects. Firstly, it relieves the stresses in the raw casting locked into it as the casting solidified, then contracted as it cooled, but was restrained from moving where it wanted by the mould. The other effect is to toughen the iron, changing it from grey cast iron (which is indeed brittle) to ductile iron (which, as the name suggests, isn't).
> 
> The older Stanley and Record plane castings were not heat treated, but were left for a period of time to 'season' (allow the internal stresses to relieve themselves over time). About twelve months is the time period commonly quoted. Later plane castings were not seasoned or annealed, and thus have something of a reputation for distortion.
> 
> If you dropped a Clifton bench plane on the floor, it would bounce, not shatter.
Click to expand...

Do you have opposing evidence? Becasue the "facts" in this statement were based off the experiences of myself and work colleges during my year at a boatyard. Meaning they were true for those planes; I did spell this out at the start of the statement. 

Some of my work colleagues dropped Clifton's (by accident) and they smashed, so either they have changed something about the annealing in the last 2 years or more likely the quality varies from plane to plane. What I have not confirmed first hand is whether Lie Nielsen's don't smash, but enough people seem to be convinced they bounce for me to believe that.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Mr_P":30vc79a4 said:


> Thought you were having a minor pop at Mr B n G not me. I used to prefer heavier planes but not sure whether its old age or experience but my no.3 is getting a lot more use these days. Maybe it is just the joys of middle age and I've decided my bench is def too low.



Ah yes - the joys of middle age, when the growth of wisdom and experience is slightly offset by creaks, groans, aches and pains. Just tell yourself that Age and Low Cunning will always overcome Youth and Skill. I keep telling myslf that - and one of these days, I might even believe myself....


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Reply to Rhyolith.

Yes - a magazine review some years ago. The writer of the review visited Clifton's factory, and reported what he saw, including the annealing process. There was a photograph of the annealing furnace, with the sole castings in it. The writer also recounted how the factory manager had explained what the annealing did, and demonstrated it by taking a random casting from the scrap bin, walking up a flight of stairs, and dropping it from about ten feet onto a concrete floor. It didn't shatter, which clearly impressed the writer. I can't imagine a firm of Clifton's integrity staging something like that with a 'planted' casting.

Did your workmates contact Clifton about the shattered planes (and those with twisted soles), and if so, what was Clifton's response?


----------



## Rhyolith

Cheshirechappie":gycpkt5z said:


> Reply to Rhyolith.
> 
> Yes - a magazine review some years ago. The writer of the review visited Clifton's factory, and reported what he saw, including the annealing process. There was a photograph of the annealing furnace, with the sole castings in it. The writer also recounted how the factory manager had explained what the annealing did, and demonstrated it by taking a random casting from the scrap bin, walking up a flight of stairs, and dropping it from about ten feet onto a concrete floor. It didn't shatter, which clearly impressed the writer. I can't imagine a firm of Clifton's integrity staging something like that with a 'planted' casting.
> 
> Did your workmates contact Clifton about the shattered planes (and those with twisted soles), and if so, what was Clifton's response?


It does not seem to be common knowledge that Clifton's are annealed (and thus shouldn't smash) so he probably did not think to contact them after dropping one due to embarrassment if nothing else. As for the twisted soles, I think Clifton was contacted but I never heard what the response was.

I will be pleased to confirm they making planes to the same standard as Lie Nielsen, as Clifton's are certainly pretty and its fantastic to have things like that made in Britain; But I will need some more convincing due to my distrust of the media and the weight of experience with Clifton's quality control issues.


----------



## MIGNAL

Well I knew that Clifton annealed the castings years ago and I've never owned a Clifton plane. Not that I know anything about metallurgy but I understood that the LN ductile iron and Clifton's annealed grey iron aren't the same thing - at least that is what someone told me.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

MIGNAL":2lcl6n2w said:


> Well I knew that Clifton annealed the castings years ago and I've never owned a Clifton plane. Not that I know anything about metallurgy but I understood that the LN ductile iron and Clifton's annealed grey iron aren't the same thing - at least that is what someone told me.



As I understand it, that's quite correct. The LN heat treatment process does result in the material known as 'ductile iron' (used extensively in this country for water pipes, but that's by-the-by), the Clifton process isn't quite the 'ductile iron' process. I think in both cases, the main aim is to stabilise (or 'stress relieve') the casting, and any reduction in brittleness is an incidental advantage. The demonstration drop from first floor onto concrete not breaking the casting was, however, something that stuck in the mind.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhyolith":2m2qwjzo said:


> Cheshirechappie":2m2qwjzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reply to Rhyolith.
> 
> Yes - a magazine review some years ago. The writer of the review visited Clifton's factory, and reported what he saw, including the annealing process. There was a photograph of the annealing furnace, with the sole castings in it. The writer also recounted how the factory manager had explained what the annealing did, and demonstrated it by taking a random casting from the scrap bin, walking up a flight of stairs, and dropping it from about ten feet onto a concrete floor. It didn't shatter, which clearly impressed the writer. I can't imagine a firm of Clifton's integrity staging something like that with a 'planted' casting.
> 
> Did your workmates contact Clifton about the shattered planes (and those with twisted soles), and if so, what was Clifton's response?
> 
> 
> 
> It does not seem to be common knowledge that Clifton's are annealed (and thus shouldn't smash) so he probably did not think to contact them after dropping one due to embarrassment if nothing else. As for the twisted soles, I think Clifton was contacted but I never heard what the response was.
> 
> I will be pleased to confirm they making planes to the same standard as Lie Nielsen, as Clifton's are certainly pretty and its fantastic to have things like that made in Britain; But I will need some more convincing due to my distrust of the media and the weight of experience with Clifton's quality control issues.
Click to expand...


I can think of no particular reason why the writer of an article in a woodworking magazine would fabricate (with photograh of the annealing furnace) something of that nature, and I therefore choose to believe it. Should you choose not to believe me, that is, of course, entirely your business. Likewise, I could, if I wished, choose not to believe you.


----------



## Peter Sefton

I had Mick Hudson (from Clifton) join me in the workshop last year, here is one of the videos taken at that time. This one covers the annealing process that Clifton planes go through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DL2oj9dKtA 

Cheers Peter


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":2gz28jfb said:


> ... how the factory manager had explained what the annealing did, and demonstrated it by taking a random casting from the scrap bin, walking up a flight of stairs, and dropping it from about ten feet onto a concrete floor. It didn't shatter, which clearly impressed the writer. ....


Personally I choose never to drop my planes from 10 ft onto concrete. 
But I do use them in the normal way and the steel - annealed or not (whatever that means) - is soft and prone to scratches


----------



## Hatherton_wood

Apart from the softer metal I've also found recent high quality planes are much more prone to rust than the old Stanley's. You have to be so careful to keep them protected at all times (unless bronze of course!).


----------



## Rhyolith

Cheshirechappie":3kzg8x5h said:


> I can think of no particular reason why the writer of an article in a woodworking magazine would fabricate (with photograh of the annealing furnace) something of that nature, and I therefore choose to believe it. Should you choose not to believe me, that is, of course, entirely your business. Likewise, I could, if I wished, choose not to believe you.


Of course we are all entitled to our opinions; on a side note I apologise if I appear blunt or dis-respectful, it is simply the way I write and not intended as derogatory. 

*Media Rant:* I have a dis-trust of the media as they write to make money and entertain over anything else. This does not need to be a outright fabrication such as taking a photograph over something other than the Clifton factory to represent said factory. Simply missing out a few bits of information or exaggerate a few others here and there add up to a decidedly large amount of mis-information very quickly... not saying they did, but that fact they could with relative ease to a benefit for themselves is enough to make me see it as unreliable information; firmly below "fact" level in other words. At best something like a magazine or news paper provides only a tiny window into a world such as tool making. I mean, for example there might over 1000 ways of annealing for all we know (I obviously have no idea how many there are) and other numerous variations of the method that effect the metal differently. Simply knowing Clifton does an annealing process really tells us very little if we are not metallurgists. The defined test is more convincing, the Plane dropping ten feet onto hard concrete and still being functional (to a measurable capacity? i.e. flat sole) afterwards, but unless it was done meeting scientific standards (which is unlikely) its still questionable evidence. 

Honestly I feel tools can only be understood fully if you handle them in real life (and see the production in real life). Understanding the theory alone and thinking your understand the tool, that is as ludicrous thinking you can gain an complete understanding of a 1000 page novel from only the first page. 

So to be clear, my opinion of Clifton is that their should plans (one of which I do actually own) are great, and I am on the fence regarding their larger planes (No.4+) as all the evidence I have seen thus far is subjective. 



Hatherton_wood":3kzg8x5h said:


> Apart from the softer metal I've also found recent high quality planes are much more prone to rust than the old Stanley's. You have to be so careful to keep them protected at all times (unless bronze of course!).


I have defiantly found this with my Lie Nielsens, though I often think its because the older planes have that grey layer of oxidation (I don't actual know what it is) that protects them. Freshly polished or sanded soles on the old planes do seem more prone to rust just like the new planes; as they then also lack the grey layer.


----------



## D_W

Hatherton_wood":1fd8bo3p said:


> Apart from the softer metal I've also found recent high quality planes are much more prone to rust than the old Stanley's. You have to be so careful to keep them protected at all times (unless bronze of course!).



One of the bummers of premium planes or freshly surface ground vantage planes.


----------



## sploo

Rhyolith":1lfjfrij said:


> *Media Rant:* I have a dis-trust of the media as they write to make money and entertain over anything else. This does not need to be a outright fabrication such as taking a photograph over something other than the Clifton factory to represent said factory. Simply missing out a few bits of information or exaggerate a few others here and there add up to a decidedly large amount of mis-information very quickly... not saying they did, but that fact they could with relative ease to a benefit for themselves is enough to make me see it as unreliable information; firmly below "fact" level in other words. At best something like a magazine or news paper provides only a tiny window into a world such as tool making. I mean, for example there might over 1000 ways of annealing for all we know (I obviously have no idea how many there are) and other numerous variations of the method that effect the metal differently. Simply knowing Clifton does an annealing process really tells us very little if we are not metallurgists. The defined test is more convincing, the Plane dropping ten feet onto hard concrete and still being functional (to a measurable capacity? i.e. flat sole) afterwards, but unless it was done meeting scientific standards (which is unlikely) its still questionable evidence.
> 
> Honestly I feel tools can only be understood fully if you handle them in real life (and see the production in real life). Understanding the theory alone and thinking your understand the tool, that is as ludicrous thinking you can gain an complete understanding of a 1000 page novel from only the first page.


(Roughly) on that topic - statistical significance is also a big issue. If I owned 5 items from a manufacturer (that produced thousands) and all were better/worse than 5 items from another manufacturer (that produces thousands) I'd probably feel pretty confident in my opinion of the two brand's relative merits. Unfortunately, I suspect that my sample would be statistically insignificant, and not enough to draw a wider conclusion.

That's always the problem with anecdotal evidence from individual users - unless that is there's a clear pattern that emerges from many reports.


----------



## D_W

Mr_P":1r32mzaz said:


> But....but......but.....infills are HEAVY! :shock:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the infill I guess.
> 
> No Bedrocks here as mentioned but a few others I've just weighed.
> 
> Record 03 = 23cm, 1.44kg
> Record 04 = 24cm, 1.68
> Record 04.5 = 26cm, 2.14
> 
> Spiers dovetailed open handled = 1.78kg
> 52.5 Iron, Sole length = 195mm
> 
> Scottish ish casting closed handle = 1.72kg
> 55 Iron, Sole length = 205mm
Click to expand...


Open handled are a bit slight in terms of weight. Here are my data points:

Karl Holtey's A13 - 6 pounds with a 2 1/4" cutter
Norris A5 -5 pounds with 2 1/4" cutter
Spiers copy (brass and steel dovetail) 18" panel plane - 8 pounds 8 ounces with 2 1/2" cutter - cocobolo infill (this one I have)
Copy of Holtey's A13, but with single iron instead of double and no adjuster - 2" iron - 5.5 pounds (this one I have)

I have had four 4 1/2s (that are now gone, I never weighed them - like I said, stanley is easy to come by here, and pass along when desired)
two #10 millers falls (not sure of weight)
one 604 1/2 (the only one I still have). 

I believe the 604 1/2 is about 5 pounds or slightly heavier, it is heavier than the bailey's while my 605 is not. the MF 10s were closer to the bailey's in weight, but those are heavy planes (the 4 1/2s) of the stanley line that they (if patrick is to be believed) released in response to the infill planes in GB. 

I don't have any of the slighter open handled infills, mostly for fear of what would happen even with a slight drop or bump from elsewhere. 

It'd be interesting if those with infills, especially of the original type ( dovetailed and with rosewood ) had any info on their weight. 

As an aside, I have an exceptionally heavy casting 6, I can't remember the weight (i put it in a picture on SMC, but since resigning my handle there, can't even see my own pictures). Stanley made a type for a while with a rubber cover on the adjuster, and they seem to have exceptionally heavy castings, though still short of the equivalent sized spiers copy (and there's nothing outsized about the spiers copy, it's got 3/16" thick bottom and 1/8" thick sides - dovetailed. Some american custom made infills have ridiculous steel parts, I believe teh loopy plane may have been close to 8 pounds for a smoother, though that's nothing to do with historical accuracy). The norris and spiers reproductions and originals are more interesting to me. 

I thought early on when I built my smoother and the spiers panel plane kit that I had really found the ultimate, until I started to use them heavily.


----------



## ED65

Cheshirechappie":3unomt4n said:


> Edit to add - Having done a bit of rummaging about the interwebs, I think to buy a metal-bodied plane of No 4 size new, you need to spend over £100 to be sure of one that'll work well out of the box (subject to sharpening the iron and fitting the cap-iron). That's a VERY rough giude. The lower the price below that, the more fettling you'll have to do to make a decent plane of it. Above that, they should work and work well, and it's a matter for the purchaser how much they're prepared to spend for extra features and build quality.


I'm not sure this is as widely acknowledged as it should be but luck is a factor here. 

On the cheaper planes where you expect dodgy QC obviously there are going to be some very bad ones, we've all heard the stories of woe. But equally this means there are going to be some gooder ones where the sole is flat from the factory. Which means buying "below the line" you could get a plane that requires the same amount of fettling as one ten times costlier.


----------



## ED65

Hatherton_wood":3sn6e3xk said:


> Apart from the softer metal I've also found recent high quality planes are much more prone to rust than the old Stanley's. You have to be so careful to keep them protected at all times (unless bronze of course!).


There is a universal principle you might not be aware of: older metal will naturally rust less quickly than new. 

That is unless you remove the surface during fettling or getting rust off and expose fresh steel/iron, in which case the older metal will rust just as easily as new. After electrolysis or a soak in citric acid for example even a 100 year old plane will be just just as prone to flash-rusting as one made in 2015. This is for both the steel and the cast iron components.


----------



## MIGNAL

I'll have to weigh my Stanley SW (premium?) . The newer type. It's _very_ heavy, which is why it sees so little use.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

ED65":1k7v8nc5 said:


> Cheshirechappie":1k7v8nc5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edit to add - Having done a bit of rummaging about the interwebs, I think to buy a metal-bodied plane of No 4 size new, you need to spend over £100 to be sure of one that'll work well out of the box (subject to sharpening the iron and fitting the cap-iron). That's a VERY rough giude. The lower the price below that, the more fettling you'll have to do to make a decent plane of it. Above that, they should work and work well, and it's a matter for the purchaser how much they're prepared to spend for extra features and build quality.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure this is as widely acknowledged as it should be but luck is a factor here.
> 
> On the cheaper planes where you expect dodgy QC obviously there are going to be some very bad ones, we've all heard the stories of woe. But equally this means there are going to be some gooder ones where the sole is flat from the factory. Which means buying "below the line" you could get a plane that requires the same amount of fettling as one ten times costlier.
Click to expand...


That's fair comment, I think. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that to be 99% sure of getting a metal-bodied plane of number 4 size that works out of the box, and a no-quibble replacement if it doesn't, you'd have to spend about £100 or more, but there's a chance that you might get a decent plane if you spent less. The less you spend, the less the chance of a decent one.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhyolith":2yufdteu said:


> Cheshirechappie":2yufdteu said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can think of no particular reason why the writer of an article in a woodworking magazine would fabricate (with photograh of the annealing furnace) something of that nature, and I therefore choose to believe it. Should you choose not to believe me, that is, of course, entirely your business. Likewise, I could, if I wished, choose not to believe you.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we are all entitled to our opinions; on a side note I apologise if I appear blunt or dis-respectful, it is simply the way I write and not intended as derogatory.
> 
> *Media Rant:* I have a dis-trust of the media as they write to make money and entertain over anything else. This does not need to be a outright fabrication such as taking a photograph over something other than the Clifton factory to represent said factory. Simply missing out a few bits of information or exaggerate a few others here and there add up to a decidedly large amount of mis-information very quickly... not saying they did, but that fact they could with relative ease to a benefit for themselves is enough to make me see it as unreliable information; firmly below "fact" level in other words. At best something like a magazine or news paper provides only a tiny window into a world such as tool making. I mean, for example there might over 1000 ways of annealing for all we know (I obviously have no idea how many there are) and other numerous variations of the method that effect the metal differently. Simply knowing Clifton does an annealing process really tells us very little if we are not metallurgists. The defined test is more convincing, the Plane dropping ten feet onto hard concrete and still being functional (to a measurable capacity? i.e. flat sole) afterwards, but unless it was done meeting scientific standards (which is unlikely) its still questionable evidence.
> 
> Honestly I feel tools can only be understood fully if you handle them in real life (and see the production in real life). Understanding the theory alone and thinking your understand the tool, that is as ludicrous thinking you can gain an complete understanding of a 1000 page novel from only the first page.
> 
> So to be clear, my opinion of Clifton is that their should plans (one of which I do actually own) are great, and I am on the fence regarding their larger planes (No.4+) as all the evidence I have seen thus far is subjective.
Click to expand...


A correction, if I may. The magazine article stated that a scrap casting, annealed and machined, but rejected, was dropped at the Clifton factory. It did not claim that a complete plane was dropped, nor did it claim that the plane remained functional after the drop. It did claim that the dropped casting did not shatter. No claim was made as to it's dimensional accuracy or condition after dropping, except that it remained in one piece.

On tool use. I've been fiddling with tools since I was old enough to stand up, about 50 years ago. Model-making as a kiddie, then as part of my professional training as a mechanical engineer (which gave me some understanding of metal processing including heat treatments). In a volunteer capacity, about 25 years involved in the overhaul and restoration of full-size steam locomotives, including the hands-on manufacture of quite significant components (my mate and myself made and fitted the brake gear for BR Standard 4 tank 80072, for example), and in a strictly bumbling amateur capacity, about 30 years working wood at home, including with several planes. That has resulted in a number of successful projects, and some failures (and you've never worked either wood or metal if you don't have some of those). Forgive me sir, but I rather resent your implication that I know nothing about the hands-on use of tools.

Annealing is a commonly-used process in metal processing and general metalworking. The details vary from metal to metal, but the process described by the magazine article, and by Mick Hudson in the video posted by Peter Sefton, is the one used for many grades of cast iron. The effects of that process are well known in the metal-processing industry, and have been for many years. See, for example, 'Engineering Metallurgy' volume 1 by R.A.Higgins, or talk to an iron-founder.

You've clearly decided not to believe me (or to believe the video Peter Sefton posted). Fine - that's your right, if you choose. However, I think there's enough engineering and iron-founding knowledge and experience out there, both 'theoretical' and practical, to suggest that the claims made in the magazine article are reasonable and factual, and are not in this instance 'media fabrications'.


----------



## sploo

ED65":2m9c9dpx said:


> On the cheaper planes where you expect dodgy QC obviously there are going to be some very bad ones, we've all heard the stories of woe. But equally this means there are going to be some gooder ones where the sole is flat from the factory. Which means buying "below the line" you could get a plane that requires the same amount of fettling as one ten times costlier.


That's pesky statistics working again. Look at reports of the Axminster TS200 table saw: dirt cheap (for what it is) and some real lemons out there, some perfectly good with a little fettling.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

My friend Wizard (late of this parish ) has a Silverline that he measured to be the most accurately machined plane that he has, which would seem to verify the above comments.


----------



## andy king

> A correction, if I may. The magazine article stated that a scrap casting, annealed and machined, but rejected, was dropped at the Clifton factory. It did not claim that a complete plane was dropped, nor did it claim that the plane remained functional after the drop. It did claim that the dropped casting did not shatter. No claim was made as to it's dimensional accuracy or condition after dropping, except that it remained in one piece.


Hi Cheshirechappie,
The reasoning behind this part of the article was that I made comment regarding the durability of a Clifton casting compared to the LN and Veritas ductile castings should they fall to a hard surface in a previous review and that Cliftons use of grey iron (as was being advertised at that time) would be more prone to impact damage and could crack.
Mick Hudson and Alan Reid were keen to dismiss my comments by showing me practical demonstrations - first off with an in house video where one was lobbed a considerable distance from height and then by doing as I indicated in the article by picking a random one up from the rejected castings bin (and if you saw the rejected ones you would question why as they looked pretty well flawless!) and dropping from height as I said.
With regards to one of Rhyoliths comments, this was simply an impact durablity test, not to show anything untowards in deviation that could or could not manifest itself from said impact - anything subjected to high impact could suffer accordingly unless designed to do so and no plane manufacturer makes claim to that as far as I am aware.
Hope that clarifies. 

Andy


----------



## iNewbie

I think that old Swartz review did some online slaughtering for Clifton. He's had a new view but its rarely\if ever mentioned.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodw ... handplanes


----------



## D_W

iNewbie":1vvtuzil said:


> I think that old Swartz review did some online slaughtering for Clifton. He's had a new view but its rarely\if ever mentioned.
> 
> http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodw ... handplanes



If he's right about the cap iron moving that much when it's set, that'd be a deal breaker for me. The weight of the plane already is, though, here in the land of $40 and $85 605s.


----------



## David C

I think he meant that the front part was sloppy relative to the fixed , back part. Thus making it difficult to set very close with certainty.

This slop occurred at the slot. 

I saw this slop frequently and recently proposed a fix with a center punch marks near the edge of the slot.

This works very well.

David Charlesworth


----------



## D_W

David C":2z7r45e0 said:


> I think he meant that the front part was sloppy relative to the fixed , back part. Thus making it difficult to set very close with certainty.
> 
> This slop occurred at the slot.
> 
> I saw this slop frequently and recently proposed a fix with a center punch marks near the edge of the slot.
> 
> This works very well.
> 
> David Charlesworth



That is what I gathered that he meant, too, that there is some slop in the connection. I'm sure that slop helps manufacturing, but your fix is a very sensible and practical one.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

andy king":mxahuskd said:


> A correction, if I may. The magazine article stated that a scrap casting, annealed and machined, but rejected, was dropped at the Clifton factory. It did not claim that a complete plane was dropped, nor did it claim that the plane remained functional after the drop. It did claim that the dropped casting did not shatter. No claim was made as to it's dimensional accuracy or condition after dropping, except that it remained in one piece.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Cheshirechappie,
> The reasoning behind this part of the article was that I made comment regarding the durability of a Clifton casting compared to the LN and Veritas ductile castings should they fall to a hard surface in a previous review and that Cliftons use of grey iron (as was being advertised at that time) would be more prone to impact damage and could crack.
> Mick Hudson and Alan Reid were keen to dismiss my comments by showing me practical demonstrations - first off with an in house video where one was lobbed a considerable distance from height and then by doing as I indicated in the article by picking a random one up from the rejected castings bin (and if you saw the rejected ones you would question why as they looked pretty well flawless!) and dropping from height as I said.
> With regards to one of Rhyoliths comments, this was simply an impact durablity test, not to show anything untowards in deviation that could or could not manifest itself from said impact - anything subjected to high impact could suffer accordingly unless designed to do so and no plane manufacturer makes claim to that as far as I am aware.
> Hope that clarifies.
> 
> Andy
Click to expand...


Hi Andy,

That does indeed clarify - and thanks for confirming that my memory was about right! It must have been quite a memorable visit, what with people chucking plane castings about and all! A great shame that Clico failed, but let us hope that Clifton do well under Flinn's wing.

CC.


----------



## Hatherton_wood

Clifton's big problem at the moment must be the current price difference with LN and Veritas. Maybe they need to do more to justify the difference. Who is going to be first to produce a chamfer plane that we saw an LN prototype of? How about a circular plane?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

How about a circular plane? A suicide pill for any manufacturer.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

It's true that the multi-plane does seem to have quietly left the Clifton catalogue. Given the number of near-perfect vintage Stanley and Record examples about, the near £1000 price tag for the Clifton plane and extra cutters must have made it a very slow seller.

One thing that Clifton do have that the other makers don't is their cryogenically-treated O1 irons. I've not yet seen any comparison between them and the fashionable A2 and PMV-11 offerings, but I seem to recall Peter Sefton mentioning that there was a significant difference between irons when he undertook a pre-production blind testing between standard and cryo-treated examples. He didn't know which were which, but as Clifton now supply cryo-treated irons as standard, I think we can infer that they were the better performers than the non-cryo examples.

If it does emerge that adding cryogenics to the heat-treatment regime of O1 steel gives noticable improvements in edge life, it won't be long before everyone is at it, though.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Cheshirechappie":101d000c said:


> .... One thing that Clifton do have that the other makers don't is their cryogenically-treated O1 irons. I've not yet seen any comparison between them and the fashionable A2 and PMV-11 offerings, but I seem to recall Peter Sefton mentioning that there was a significant difference between irons when he undertook a pre-production blind testing between standard and cryo-treated examples. He didn't know which were which, but as Clifton now supply cryo-treated irons as standard, I think we can infer that they were the better performers than the non-cryo examples.
> 
> If it does emerge that adding cryogenics to the heat-treatment regime of O1 steel gives noticable improvements in edge life, it won't be long before everyone is at it, though.



Hi CC

I did some testing not too long ago with the older Clifton blades, however I am not sure exactly how these relate to general planing since the tests were completed on shooting boards (i.e. more about impact rather than abrasion resistance). 

Comparisons were made between A2 and PM-V11 (25 degrees) - all BU on the Veritas Shooting Plane - and O1 (Clifton at 30 degrees), Smoothcut (Japanese laminated, 30 degrees), A2 (25- and 30 degrees, LN) and PM-V11 (25- and 30 degrees) - all BD on the LN #51.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... Plane.html

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... lades.html

The Clifton lagged woefully behind all the other blades. The difficulty O1 has in coping with impact was the same as the testing I have done chopping with bench chisels.

More subjectively, I have been using a Clifton blade (again original version) in my LN #3. 







It certainly hones easily - I am used to much tougher steels - and takes sweet shavings, but it last a fraction of the time I get from A2 (which will also take excellent shavings when sharpened on appropriate media).

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Hi Derek,

You're talking there about the 'old' Clifton irons - the multiple-strike forged ones. Flinn's are now fitting something different, no longer forged, but cryogenically treated. So far as I'm aware, you've not tested those, and apart from the blind trial of pre-production irons that Peter Sefton reported, I'm not aware that anybody else has either.

http://www.flinn-garlick-saws.co.uk/aca ... ml#SID=454

Seperate blades seem to be about half the price of the old forged ones, too.

CC

(My Clifton iron - actually a 'Victor', which were the first commercial offerings through Axminster Power Tool Centre back in the late 1990s - sits happily in my Record 07, and is still doing good work for me. Mind you, I don't use many concrete woods. I'll replace the iron with a cryo one when (if) I wear it out - which might well be many years hence!)


----------



## Peter Sefton

Cheshirechappie":2s16r7ea said:


> It's true that the multi-plane does seem to have quietly left the Clifton catalogue. Given the number of near-perfect vintage Stanley and Record examples about, the near £1000 price tag for the Clifton plane and extra cutters must have made it a very slow seller.
> 
> One thing that Clifton do have that the other makers don't is their cryogenically-treated O1 irons. I've not yet seen any comparison between them and the fashionable A2 and PMV-11 offerings, but I seem to recall Peter Sefton mentioning that there was a significant difference between irons when he undertook a pre-production blind testing between standard and cryo-treated examples. He didn't know which were which, but as Clifton now supply cryo-treated irons as standard, I think we can infer that they were the better performers than the non-cryo examples.
> 
> If it does emerge that adding cryogenics to the heat-treatment regime of O1 steel gives noticable improvements in edge life, it won't be long before everyone is at it, though.



I believe I was one of three professional woodworkers asked to blind bench test three blades for Clifton (for tool development not money). I understand one of the other testers was a well known UK tool reviewer and the third was a big name in the USA. (I did suggest a maker in Australia Derek)

We were sent three blades each with no other information other than a stamped I.D number so we could reference our results against. I wrote some bench test criteria and a method for us to work on based on a range of timbers and timings and sharpening methods. I had no contact with the other testers and don't know their results.

It was not a scientific test and was not a comparison with other blades on the market.

I ground and sharpened the blades before setting them to work planing down solid timbers and then tested them taking end grain cuts. We noted surface finish and longevity of blade life.

The general outcome was one blade was very hard and took forever to grind (over an hour and half) and polish the back before eventually taking a good edge and holding it for quite some time.

The second blade ground and sharpened very quickly and was quick to get the back flat and polished (less than ten minutes) this became very sharp but was the quickest to loose its edge.

The third blade took slightly longer to grind, flatten and hone (I am taking about a 10-12 minutes in total) This blade took an excellent sharp edge and lasted longer than the second blade and was sharper than the first.

My guess was that the first blade was a very hard D2/A2 or similar. The second blade did turn out to be the old O1 hand forged Clifton and the third blade which I felt was the best is the current O1 Cryo blade that is in use in all production Clifton's.

In blade preparation comparison my experience is that Veritas blades take the least amount of time to commission from new (I always fresh grind all blades) 

LN A2 blades can take up to an hour to get flat and polished (i don't use the ruler trick unless I get bored prepping a blade)

QS and WoodRiver T10 blades usually take the same time as a Cryo Clifton around 10 minutes.

I have a real mixture of blades within my own tool kit including a Ray Iles D2 which is great for planing Cascamite when cleaning up laminating work.

I think the new Clifton Cryo blade is very competitive at 2/3 the price of the old hand forged blade, this is a very good all round blade for our European timbers.
I don't think we will ever see any more hand forged blades from Sheffield at the old price, my understanding is they were never profitable to produce. We and a few dealers do still have the hand forged blades in-stock so those who wish to stay true to the traditions of Sheffield can be satisfied. 

Cheers Peter


----------



## custard

Peter Sefton":2lr4o5w3 said:


> I have a real mixture of blades within my own tool kit including a Ray Iles D2 which is great for planing Cascamite when cleaning up laminating work.



I do exactly the same thing, a Ray Iles D2 blade in an old Record 05, exclusively for UF glue veneered/lamination work and the edges of plywood. It works so well I'm thinking of replicating the set up in a block plane.


----------



## Steve1066

Peter Sefton":bfd1zwrf said:


> Cheshirechappie":bfd1zwrf said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true that the multi-plane does seem to have quietly left the Clifton catalogue. Given the number of near-perfect vintage Stanley and Record examples about, the near £1000 price tag for the Clifton plane and extra cutters must have made it a very slow seller.
> 
> One thing that Clifton do have that the other makers don't is their cryogenically-treated O1 irons. I've not yet seen any comparison between them and the fashionable A2 and PMV-11 offerings, but I seem to recall Peter Sefton mentioning that there was a significant difference between irons when he undertook a pre-production blind testing between standard and cryo-treated examples. He didn't know which were which, but as Clifton now supply cryo-treated irons as standard, I think we can infer that they were the better performers than the non-cryo examples.
> 
> If it does emerge that adding cryogenics to the heat-treatment regime of O1 steel gives noticable improvements in edge life, it won't be long before everyone is at it, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I was one of three professional woodworkers asked to blind bench test three blades for Clifton (for tool development not money). I understand one of the other testers was a well known UK tool reviewer and the third was a big name in the USA. (I did suggest a maker in Australia Derek)
> 
> We were sent three blades each with no other information other than a stamped I.D number so we could reference our results against. I wrote some bench test criteria and a method for us to work on based on a range of timbers and timings and sharpening methods. I had no contact with the other testers and don't know their results.
> 
> It was not a scientific test and was not a comparison with other blades on the market.
> 
> I ground and sharpened the blades before setting them to work planing down solid timbers and then tested them taking end grain cuts. We noted surface finish and longevity of blade life.
> 
> The general outcome was one blade was very hard and took forever to grind (over an hour and half) and polish the back before eventually taking a good edge and holding it for quite some time.
> 
> The second blade ground and sharpened very quickly and was quick to get the back flat and polished (less than ten minutes) this became very sharp but was the quickest to loose its edge.
> 
> The third blade took slightly longer to grind, flatten and hone (I am taking about a 10-12 minutes in total) This blade took an excellent sharp edge and lasted longer than the second blade and was sharper than the first.
> 
> My guess was that the first blade was a very hard D2/A2 or similar. The second blade did turn out to be the old O1 hand forged Clifton and the third blade which I felt was the best is the current O1 Cryo blade that is in use in all production Clifton's.
> 
> In blade preparation comparison my experience is that Veritas blades take the least amount of time to commission from new (I always fresh grind all blades)
> 
> LN A2 blades can take up to an hour to get flat and polished (i don't use the ruler trick unless I get bored prepping a blade)
> 
> QS and WoodRiver T10 blades usually take the same time as a Cryo Clifton around 10 minutes.
> 
> I have a real mixture of blades within my own tool kit including a Ray Iles D2 which is great for planing Cascamite when cleaning up laminating work.
> 
> I think the new Clifton Cryo blade is very competitive at 2/3 the price of the old hand forged blade, this is a very good all round blade for our European timbers.
> I don't think we will ever see any more hand forged blades from Sheffield at the old price, my understanding is they were never profitable to produce. We and a few dealers do still have the hand forged blades in-stock so those who wish to stay true to the traditions of Sheffield can be satisfied.
> 
> Cheers Peter
Click to expand...


Hi Peter I was just wondering why you fresh grind all your blades ? 
And if any one interested I have a plane with an A2 blade that I uses for shooting in those lovey cheep door that people insist on buying from DIY store, Rips through a gun nail Like a hot knife through butter.


----------



## CStanford

If one chooses to hollow grind at all then one should grind frequently. When done correctly and on a wheel of the correct size it won't produce a burr and shouldn't produce a burr unless you need to remove a nick. Then, it's a matter of grinding straight across to a depth that removes the nick and then back at the correct grinding angle to produce the bevel and hollow. A hollow ground bevel is a built-in honing jig.

FWIW, grinding flat on a horizontal wheel or on vertically running belts grinds all the way to the edge and unnecessarily removes length and does not produce a hollow that can be utilized as a honing jig.


----------



## Steve1066

CStanford":35qbsbbl said:


> If one chooses to hollow grind at all then one should grind frequently. When done correctly and on a wheel of the correct size it won't produce a burr and shouldn't produce a burr unless you need to remove a nick. Then, it's a matter of grinding straight across to a depth that removes the nick and then back at the correct grinding angle to produce the bevel and hollow. A hollow ground bevel is a built-in honing jig.
> 
> FWIW, grinding flat on a horizontal wheel or on vertically running belts grinds all the way to the edge and unnecessarily removes length and does not produce a hollow that can be utilized as a honing jig.


 I know I should've kept my mouth shut .
I understand the principal differences between a hollow grind and a flat grind. 
I was just interested in why he feels the need to put a fresh grind on a brand new blade whether it be hollow or flat.


----------



## CStanford

1. Establish the hollow and grind one is used to working with;
2. Remove the first sixteenth or so to get to the properly annealed portion of the iron (always a good idea);
3. Look at the color of the sparks to get an idea of the composition of the metal;
4. Generally getting a feel for the steel;
5. Etc., etc.

Otherwise, sort of like wearing new underwear without putting it through the wash first.


----------



## sploo

CStanford":2ka92sdh said:


> 1. Establish the hollow and grind one is used to working with;
> 2. Remove the first sixteenth or so to get to the properly annealed portion of the iron (always a good idea);
> 3. Look at the color of the sparks to get an idea of the composition of the metal;
> 4. Generally getting a feel for the steel;
> 5. Etc., etc.
> 
> Otherwise, sort of like wearing new underwear without putting it through the wash first.


I'm pretty certain there was an article on the Narex website indicating that you won't get the "true" sharpness/hardness (can't remember the details) until you'd ground off the end of one of their chisels. Could just be specific to their steel process though so I don't know if that applies to the various types of plane iron processes (but I'm assuming that's your point #2).


----------



## Peter Sefton

Steve

I regrind all new blades for a variety of reasons.

1. I find after backing off and polishing fresh blades new students are prone to dubbing the end of the plane blade or chisel and regrinding back up to .5mm usually removes any rounding of the edge. 

2. Some new blades come with slight chips in the edge from ether manufacture or handling whist in transit.

3. Most steels just feel better .25mm back from the original mass manufacture process

4. Blades don't always come at the manufacturers stated grinding angle or square.

5. The majority of my plane blades have a camber to one degree or another.

6. I just like to know that I have started afresh to overcome any of the above issues and it ensures the students have experience the complete grind and sharpening process.

Cheers Peter


----------



## Steve1066

Peter Sefton":11rsjti2 said:


> Steve
> 
> I regrind all new blades for a variety of reasons.
> 
> 1. I find after backing off and polishing fresh blades new students are prone to dubbing the end of the plane blade or chisel and regrinding back up to .5mm usually removes any rounding of the edge.
> 
> 2. Some new blades come with slight chips in the edge from ether manufacture or handling whist in transit.
> 
> 3. Most steels just feel better .25mm back from the original mass manufacture process
> 
> 4. Blades don't always come at the manufacturers stated grinding angle or square.
> 
> 5. The majority of my plane blades have a camber to one degree or another.
> 
> 6. I just like to know that I have started afresh to overcome any of the above issues and it ensures the students have experience the complete grind and sharpening process.
> 
> Cheers Peter


Thanks Peter


----------



## Jelly

CStanford":3g1puqe4 said:


> 1. Establish the hollow and grind one is used to working with;
> 2. Remove the first sixteenth or so to get to the properly annealed portion of the iron (always a good idea);
> 3. Look at the color of the sparks to get an idea of the composition of the metal;
> 4. Generally getting a feel for the steel;
> 5. Etc., etc.
> 
> Otherwise, sort of like wearing new underwear without putting it through the wash first.



I'm curious about point 4, what can you tell from the spark colour about composition?
I get the principle of how that would work from having used AAS and OES instruments, but the faint colour change from ±0.25% of a given metal is surely to subtle to distinguish by eye.

As far as point 1 goes I usually do the exact opposite (ironically, for the same purpose) using a linisher: remove any hollow and establish a convex bevel... The beauty being that on a horizontal linishing machine I can manipulate the chisel exactly as on a sharpening stone, such that the shape I grind is matched perfectly to the motions I'll make every time I sharpen the edge up on a stone.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

CStanford":17xqfhfa said:


> Otherwise, sort of like wearing new underwear without putting it through the wash first.



Is that a thing? Never reground a new bevel either, unless I'm adding a camber


----------



## David C

Shortening a new blade by 0.5 to 1.5 mm is often a good way of mopping up faults on the back. 

Things like rounded corners, or falling away near the edge, perhaps with deep grinding marks..

These would take far too long to remove by working the back only.

I am intrigued that Peter finds RT useful for stubborn blades, but fails to see that the benefits are applicable to all blades (except chisels).

Having established flatness of width at the edge, on an 800g stone, polishing probably takes no more than 2 minutes on an 8,0000g stone.

Flattening and reducing manufacturers grinding marks is the real work. I find blades irritatingly variable. A good one might take 10 minutes and a poorly ground one 40 minutes. 

There are some which are better returned to the manufacturer.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## Jelly

David C":3mmtus76 said:


> Flattening and reducing manufacturers grinding marks is the real work. I find blades irritatingly variable. A good one might take 10 minutes and a poorly ground one 40 minutes.



David, what improvement do you see from lapping and polishing the back of the Iron, I've never really felt the need to intentionally do so and don't see any I'll effects...

I'm curious in part as I'm just about to commission a surface grinder, which gives me an opportunity to attain very high standards of flatness, and by selecting appropriately grain size and friability of wheels surface finish also; opening up the possibility of carrying out some empirical testing (admittedly I'll need to see if I can use a friend's lab if I want to take micrographs of the edges or use optical measument equipment to examine flatness).


----------



## David C

The quality of an edge is dictated by the surface with the worst finish. See electron microscope photos in Leonard Lee "Sharpening" which make this quite clear.

Polishing the back of an iron is a tradition amongst cabinetmakers.

To my mind polishing the whole back is a complete waste of time, (and difficult on waterstones), .

Why polish metal that does no cutting. I am hoping Peter Sefton will comment on this.

Flatness of width is desirable at the edge as it makes fitting the C/B easier.

The Ruler Technique, as Tom Fidgen is now calling it, creates polish just where it is needed.
The probability of edge touching stone is massively increased.
The wire edge is easily polished away and further stropping not required.
Metal is removed from the place where the wear bevel forms.

Veritas who supply ultra flat blades are doing this with lapping equipment.

One of the problems of magnetic chucks on surface grinders, is how flat was the stock before it was sucked down by the magnet?

best wishes,
David


----------



## CStanford

Jelly":1s31uzin said:


> CStanford":1s31uzin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Establish the hollow and grind one is used to working with;
> 2. Remove the first sixteenth or so to get to the properly annealed portion of the iron (always a good idea);
> 3. Look at the color of the sparks to get an idea of the composition of the metal;
> 4. Generally getting a feel for the steel;
> 5. Etc., etc.
> 
> Otherwise, sort of like wearing new underwear without putting it through the wash first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious about point 4, what can you tell from the spark colour about composition?
> I get the principle of how that would work from having used AAS and OES instruments, but the faint colour change from ±0.25% of a given metal is surely to subtle to distinguish by eye.
> 
> As far as point 1 goes I usually do the exact opposite (ironically, for the same purpose) using a linisher: remove any hollow and establish a convex bevel... The beauty being that on a horizontal linishing machine I can manipulate the chisel exactly as on a sharpening stone, such that the shape I grind is matched perfectly to the motions I'll make every time I sharpen the edge up on a stone.
Click to expand...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_testing


----------



## CStanford

Flattening and polishing the back of a plane iron... just not that hard. Here's how to go about it:

http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/106 ... ished-back

The results speak for themselves.

The author of the article is a professional craftsman:

http://www.chrisgochnour.com/

The entire back is polished to the slot simply because it's more comfortable to register that much iron on the work surface. If in the course of your career or hobby you use the blade almost all the way to the slot (presumably that would be the plan, no?) then so much the better.

If one insists on using pitted, bellied steel practically beyond redemption when investment in the rest of kit is paradoxically measured in the thousands (pounds or dollars take your pick) then one has problems best handled in a setting other than a woodworking forum.


----------



## Jelly

CStanford":29xnybzl said:


> Jelly":29xnybzl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CStanford":29xnybzl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Establish the hollow and grind one is used to working with;
> 2. Remove the first sixteenth or so to get to the properly annealed portion of the iron (always a good idea);
> 3. Look at the color of the sparks to get an idea of the composition of the metal;
> 4. Generally getting a feel for the steel;
> 5. Etc., etc.
> 
> Otherwise, sort of like wearing new underwear without putting it through the wash first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious about point 4, what can you tell from the spark colour about composition?
> I get the principle of how that would work from having used AAS and OES instruments, but the faint colour change from ±0.25% of a given metal is surely to subtle to distinguish by eye.
> 
> As far as point 1 goes I usually do the exact opposite (ironically, for the same purpose) using a linisher: remove any hollow and establish a convex bevel... The beauty being that on a horizontal linishing machine I can manipulate the chisel exactly as on a sharpening stone, such that the shape I grind is matched perfectly to the motions I'll make every time I sharpen the edge up on a stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_testing
Click to expand...


That is quite interesting... I'd never really thought about the shape and pattern of sparks before... I think I need to do some reading.


----------



## David C

His method is impeccable but there is absolutely no point in polishing all that steel, which will not cut for years!

David


----------



## D_W

CStanford":283jxjrp said:


> .. then one has problems ..



Speaking of, while browsing last week, I noticed Jim Bode has an old but barely used primus plane with lignum and beech for $85 with shipping. 

Guessing by your comment of being a buyer at $75 all day, that's another one for you. 

Of course, it's probably been there for a while. The notion of them having some special value above and beyond a stanley plane is protected only by low volume and infrequent sale.


----------



## D_W

David C":3pnvhy1z said:


> His method is impeccable but there is absolutely no point in polishing all that steel, which will not cut for years!
> 
> David



Agreed. He uses the term sharp as a razor, but razors are biased so that you are sharpening only a very small amount of metal. Most beginners who tried that would end up with a shiny backed iron that didn't have the stria from the polish stones taken all of the way to the edge. 

Guaranteed that the worked surface on 99% of planes in shops would get some rust on it before most of the polished part would ever see the edge. What a waste of time and effort.


----------



## CStanford

David C":3uxc48d7 said:


> His method is impeccable but there is absolutely no point in polishing all that steel, which will not cut for years!
> 
> David



David, as mentioned it's simply easier and a bit safer IMO to register a hefty portion of the cutter on the substrate. I've done this. It isn't more work. It's about fifteen to twenty minutes' worth in total. For an iron that will last years the time spent doesn't even rise to rounding error.

David Weaver: if a little rust shows up just hit them again. Ten swipes tops and it's gone. No big deal.


----------



## CStanford

D_W":2bfm0k34 said:


> CStanford":2bfm0k34 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .. then one has problems ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of, while browsing last week, I noticed Jim Bode has an old but barely used primus plane with lignum and beech for $85 with shipping.
> 
> Guessing by your comment of being a buyer at $75 all day, that's another one for you.
> 
> Of course, it's probably been there for a while. The notion of them having some special value above and beyond a stanley plane is protected only by low volume and infrequent sale.
Click to expand...


That's fantastic. I've done business with Bode and it appears I will again. Late Christmas gift to myself.


----------



## MIGNAL

It's at a very good price but you might soon tire of the obstacle course that is swapping the blade in and out. I know that I did. Much prefer the simple wedged version, which I subsequently bought. Still at that price you could buy it, have a play and perhaps sell it at not much of a loss.


----------



## D_W

CStanford":mfc35c5l said:


> D_W":mfc35c5l said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CStanford":mfc35c5l said:
> 
> 
> 
> .. then one has problems ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of, while browsing last week, I noticed Jim Bode has an old but barely used primus plane with lignum and beech for $85 with shipping.
> 
> Guessing by your comment of being a buyer at $75 all day, that's another one for you.
> 
> Of course, it's probably been there for a while. The notion of them having some special value above and beyond a stanley plane is protected only by low volume and infrequent sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fantastic. I've done business with Bode and it appears I will again. Late Christmas gift to myself.
Click to expand...


I don't know what the guy knows and doesn't know about them, but IIRC, there's a version with a moving mouth and one that doesn't have a moving mouth. It appears that what bode has is one without a moving mouth (I thought that ece referred to that as a jack plane, but with no real difference other than the moving mouth). He has one with a moving mouth, too, but in cherry and at a higher price. I've never been able to figure out how he prices things.


----------



## David C

As usual we have several conversations going simultaneously here.

Peter Sefton and I both run schools. Many students do not have much strength in their fingers and hands.

Peter said "A2 blades can take up to an hour to get flat and polished", something which I can confirm.

When people are clearly making virtually no progress, I am happy to take over.

David Charlesworth


----------



## CStanford

That's unfortunate. 

I suppose if the class is any other than a plane fettling class then the school might provide well lapped and polished irons to the students. I can't imagine what it must be like if students show up for class with tools in various states of fettle or so substandard that they cannot be brought to a serviceable state at all without a huge investment in time.

I had an A2 scrub plane iron and it wasn't particularly bad to polish out. Seemed flat out of the box which at that time was Lie-Nielsen's reputation. That was several years ago though.


----------



## CStanford

David Weaver:

It would be uncharacteristic of Jim to sell a Primus plane for a third of retail unless it was in pretty sorry condition. I'll check his site in a bit.


----------



## D_W

CStanford":2n9362df said:


> David Weaver:
> 
> It would be uncharacteristic of Jim to sell a Primus plane for a third of retail unless it was in pretty sorry condition. I'll check his site in a bit.



It's under "wood planes". 

I got a perfectly fine ward chisel from him not that long ago, including shipping, for $23. A strange thing (and as you say, not his normal m.o.). Since he has stopped selling on ebay, and perhaps due to a large inventory, sometimes there are things that seem priced fairly low. 

the plane I'm referring to is under his "wood plane" section a few pages deep. So, too, is the much higher priced one. Both look in good condition, but I think you'll be disappointed as I looked and the inexpensive one has a fixed mouth.


----------



## David C

Charles,

My tool tuning course is about getting the student's tools sharp and working as well as possible. Plus knowing how to use a plane to perfect 6 surfaces of a component.

(Mine already work).

David


----------



## CStanford

David C., I was referring to other classes besides your tuning courses. I don't envy you having to deal with students' tools in various states though this may not come up if you furnish them.

David W. Checking Bode momentarily. My dealings with him have been good. I found his prices reasonable but most importantly his description of condition always a little understated if anything. I bought a set of Marples straight firmers from him that I dearly love and a Stanley 55 unfortunately destroyed by fire after it came into my possession.


----------



## D_W

"Tuning" courses are a revenue generator for a local here, too. I believe there is a multi-session multi-hour course provided for students to learn to sharpen and clean up old planes. 

The local guy does, at least, suggest that folks learn to fettle tools and understand how they work, and he suggests to his students that they should stay away from woodworking information on the internet (!!) because there are always multiple answers in direct conflict with each other.

As most here would be pleased with, planes are provided as a complement to power tools where necessary, but not hand tool only woodworking or toolmaking (though there is a subset of students here who would like to learn to build planes - nobody available to teach them, though).


----------



## MIGNAL

CStanford":18g88n8f said:


> David Weaver:
> 
> It would be uncharacteristic of Jim to sell a Primus plane for a third of retail unless it was in pretty sorry condition. I'll check his site in a bit.



It looks to be the ECE 704 P. The designation 'P' indicating a Lignum sole. It does not have the adjustable mouth (no big deal IMO). The one with the adjustable mouth is the Primus 'improved' smooth plane, the 711. Both planes feature the spring tensioning mechanism. 
Neither of these would be my favourite, if only because of that tensioning mechanism and the time it takes to swap out blades. I did once own the ECE 704. I sold it and bought a used 104 S - no tensioning mechanism, simple wedge, Beech body, Hornbeam sole. I still have this plane. 
At $85 the 704 P is very reasonably priced providing it's in good condition. To put it into some perspective he has an Ulmia that is very similar to my wedged 104 for $89. Whether you get on with the 704 is another matter. I didn't and sold mine at a loss. If I'd paid $85 for it I would have made a half decent profit.


----------



## D_W

I had the same thought when I had mine. It was a plane I could've liked just fine without the adjuster or retention mechanism. I wasn't around before the last 10 years or so (in woodworking) so I hadn't seen the card of "improvements" over stanley planes, but I saw a copy of it last year (can't remember where) at a retailer in the US who used the ad copy to market their planes. I'm still trying to find a weakness in the stanley smoother aside from the fact that it's not a wooden plane (which is OK to me for the smoother). 

I liked that type enough (the continental smoother) to try it and bought a pair of mujingfang wedged continental planes, one in ebony for the princely sum of $65, and one in shungee (it was supposed to be ebony) for $5 more. They have HSS irons, which is novel, but I'd have been happier if they were carbon steel. I have the gear to sharpen them, but for practical purposes, don't find an advantage in the HSS unless one is taking fine shavings of silica. 

But I do like (and still have) the two muji planes - you can get a lot more on the smoother because of the pair of handles, and it pushes and pulls well - something that can be learned on the stanley fairly easy, but the mouth position makes the continentals better for it. 

I tracked down two continental smoothers over here with fine double irons in them, one that might be English (can't remember the maker, but the iron is buck). They get no love here in the states, and were something like $10 each. I intend to make one later this year for entertainment, perhaps with a wider iron than most come with.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

D_W":3te3f1zs said:


> The local guy does, at least, suggest that folks learn to fettle tools and understand how they work, and he suggests to his students that they should stay away from woodworking information on the internet (!!) because there are always multiple answers in direct conflict with each other.



Well, in all honesty, he's right about the multiple answers in direct conflict. No wonder some people prefer to buy new planes that work 'out of the box', needing only sharpening and fitting the capiron. After all, if your aim is to make stuff out of wood, you only need a few planes that work and work well - different if you enjoy collecting and restoring old planes, of course.

Which brings us neatly back to the original question. I still reckon that to buy a decent plane of number 3 or 4 size new that will work as delivered you need to spend about £100 or more (in the UK - the figure will obviously be different in other countries). A bit more than that for a number 5, and quite a lot more for a number 7.


----------



## Peter Sefton

David C":3botosxk said:


> Shortening a new blade by 0.5 to 1.5 mm is often a good way of mopping up faults on the back.
> 
> Things like rounded corners, or falling away near the edge, perhaps with deep grinding marks..
> 
> These would take far too long to remove by working the back only.
> 
> I am intrigued that Peter finds RT useful for stubborn blades, but fails to see that the benefits are applicable to all blades (except chisels).
> 
> Having established flatness of width at the edge, on an 800g stone, polishing probably takes no more than 2 minutes on an 8,0000g stone.
> 
> Flattening and reducing manufacturers grinding marks is the real work. I find blades irritatingly variable. A good one might take 10 minutes and a poorly ground one 40 minutes.
> 
> There are some which are better returned to the manufacturer.
> 
> Best wishes,
> David Charlesworth



The fattening and polishing of the back of the blade is a one off process in the life of an iron, so between 10 and 40 minutes for a blade that lasts years.

My feeling is this is a small investment in time to get a flat back. This is common practice with a chisel and it doesn't seem to be a major issue, although they are smaller and need to be a reference face. I use a very similar technique as the article, but I use Industrial Scary Sharp (PSA) backed stuck on glass.

http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/106 ... ished-back

I do teach students how to use oil stones, diamonds plates and water stones either as part of short sharpening courses or as the first stage in my 9 month course. I am happy for them to use any of these techniques (on their own tools) including your ruler trick which I demonstrate.

I have individual tool set box's for all the students to use, which have planes with polished blades in them that were previously worked on by past students. These blades have polished backs up to 3 micron 8000/9000 grit they only ever need maintaing with the 3 micron or at worst 9 micron.

I also teach students to fettle their own old planes and commission new ones, I guess we work on at least 100 planes a year, all different makes and qualities.

Different sharpening mediums including water stones benefit from different working methods. A2 steels are hard and water stones are soft so flattening the entire back of a plane iron may prove very hard work, making the ruler trick helpful (on that medium). I feel this is the main benefit of the ruler trick but not one I need. I feel it is easier to maintain a blade with a flat back rather than one with a 0.5 degree angle meeting the bevel side, which has to be maintained or ground out.

As has been said there are many different ways of achieving excellent results, not better just different and something that will be talked about on forums forever with no conclusion.

We try and make the non productive time spent on sharpening as painless as possible so we can spend our time making furniture and paying the bills.

Cheers Peter


----------



## CStanford

It bears mention that one can perform a very slight lift on a firm, charged strop and achieve polish right at the edge without abrading hardly any steel at all. It's easy enough to assess the results by noticing the very bright line of steel on the back, right at the edge. 

Very fine AlOx powder simply does not remove much material. It will work on chisels without spoiling flatness in the near term. Perhaps this technique can fall in between a full back flattening and polishing and the outright ruler trick on a honing stone which produces a tiny but still measurable bevel and is therefore recommended for use on plane irons only.


----------



## David C

Peter,

Thank you for your post.

In my scheme of things the very narrow o.6 degree back bevel just remains. It is maintained with every sharpening and never needs grinding out.

I have already stated the other advantages.

One thing that I notice is that sharpening results becomes more consistent. It works every time and the wire edge is cleanly honed away. This was not always the case with the traditional method which I was taught.
The probability that blade back and stone are perfectly flat, seems small, so I will continue to benefit from the Ruler Trick.

best wishes,
David


----------



## D_W

If the stone cleanly moves any wire edge back to the bevel side, then the back side is flat enough. Confirmation of that is by bare clean leather strop showing no marks, and by viewing the edge and seeing nothing at all (it will reflect light differently if stropped with abrasive as charlie suggests, or if it's not finished all the way to the edge). 

I'm sure that most people would get better initial results with the ruler trick, and whether it's needed for people with experience is up to them. There is a plauge of beginning sharpening talk on the forums, though, that makes it seem as though we can't rely on older methods, like laying the iron flat and using bare leather, despite the fact that for someone who has a plane in significant use, the results are good every single time. 

It's just a matter of whether you want to locate a strop or a ruler when you sharpen, and decide which types of stones you're using (with a washita or oilstone, no lapping is needed, which is nice).

I'd rather chase the strop, but when someone is new, I usually point them to a ruler because I don't think the subtlety of what's going on with the wire edge is something newbies grasp very well. A well honed iron (even one not sharpened to a super high polish) will shave hair easily on both sides of the bevel once it has been stropped properly. Once that is keeping some foil will shave flipped one way, but if flipped over another, it will not do so as easily.


----------



## G S Haydon

Cheshirechappie":2t7sqom6 said:


> D_W":2t7sqom6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The local guy does, at least, suggest that folks learn to fettle tools and understand how they work, and he suggests to his students that they should stay away from woodworking information on the internet (!!) because there are always multiple answers in direct conflict with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in all honesty, he's right about the multiple answers in direct conflict. No wonder some people prefer to buy new planes that work 'out of the box', needing only sharpening and fitting the capiron. After all, if your aim is to make stuff out of wood, you only need a few planes that work and work well - different if you enjoy collecting and restoring old planes, of course.
> 
> Which brings us neatly back to the original question. I still reckon that to buy a decent plane of number 3 or 4 size new that will work as delivered you need to spend about £100 or more (in the UK - the figure will obviously be different in other countries). A bit more than that for a number 5, and quite a lot more for a number 7.
Click to expand...


I would agree CC. I was interested by the Axminster Rider planes. But the smoother I bought is on the way back. Little or no better than a Faithful or Silverline. And in the case of the last two because they are so very cheap £12 > £25 it's not big problem to spend some time on them.


----------



## Hatherton_wood

Yes you need to buy QS and above I guess. Rider planes can be made to work well but you need to put a lot of effort - the quality control needs to be better that's for sure.


----------



## Jacob

Peter Sefton":1tb57uv9 said:


> .......
> The fattening and polishing of the back of the blade is a one off process in the life of an iron, so between 10 and 40 minutes for a blade that lasts years.


But all the old planes I've ever seen don't have this done, old woody or a Stanley. I've had several job lots of oldies in all conditions so I have seen a lot of them. The reason it isn't done is because it isn't necessary. Instead they all seem to have used the ruler trick without a ruler i.e. just a little flattening towards the edge.
In any case it wouldn't last for life - the face gets wear as well, not to mention rust and other accidental events


> ....This is common practice with a chisel


No it isn't - it's a recent fashion


> and it doesn't seem to be a major issue,


 It is a major issue when you read the misinformed struggles of a newby who had been desperately flattening the faces of a perfectly OK set of new chisels because of some nonsense he has picked up off the net, and spoiling them in the process - working his way through reams of ever finer wet n dry and wittering on about glass/granite plates etc. 
Sharpening a chisel is never easier than when it's brand new and should take half a minute or so.

PS the new sharpeners obsession with removing grinding marks is also pointless - any friction they cause disappears very quickly with use, or or even quicker with a quick pass over a fine stone, to take the sharpness off.


----------



## CStanford

The thing about the lift is that it never need be done on a stone. A strop works just fine, probably better for purposes of general polish and removal of the burr. To the extent you've seen what amounts to a profound back bevel which could never be produced by stropping alone, then it's my belief you were in fact looking at something intentional, just not something intentionally done for convenience in honing.

Chisels will often warp during heat treatment. If the manufacturer is on the ball, they'll produce the bevel on the convex side leaving the concave side as the flat face. This is the state my old Marples Blue Chips bought in a blister pack of five over twenty years ago were in. Same for a set of four butt chisels by Buck bought a couple of years ago at a big box home store. Lifting wasn't necessary and would have been a needless complication of the process.


----------



## David C

How can Jacob distinguish between "lifting" and the effect of a hollow stone?

I'm afraid I don't believe in this "lifting".

Something exactly repeatable is required, not variable lifting. It makes no sense.

Flat on a strop is at least repeatable.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob

David C":119bsgng said:


> .....
> Something exactly repeatable is required, .....


or just the usual ad hoc adjustments according to circumstances. I understand that people like the idea of perfect flatness, precise angles, total control, but these things aren't necessary. With freehand are impossible - doesn't prevent sharpening though, and usually quicker and easier than the "precision engineering" approach.


----------



## ED65

David C":20i7ti88 said:


> Something exactly repeatable is required, not variable lifting. It makes no sense.


Isn't this viewing the process through modern eyes and applying our standards? It's hard not to, but if repeatability of the kind we think of as necessary today was thought to be vital 100 years ago and more, then some sort of jigging would have been used (the ruler being a jig of sorts). But as we all know I'm sure freehanding was the order of the day in all aspects of sharpening. 

So I have no difficulty in believing that IF a back bevel was formed intentionally and deliberately (not arising naturally from the sharpening media) it was done by just "lifting a bit", in much the same way as whetting after grinding.


----------



## David C

The ad hoc approach gives rise to the need for tearing off wire edges in endgrain and stropping.

Accurate waterstone methods do not.

I am always astonished by the amount of time Paul Sellers spends on stropping. (Was it 50 strokes on each side?)

David


----------



## Jacob

David C":3iz6s45s said:


> The ad hoc approach gives rise to the need for tearing off wire edges in endgrain and stropping.


Does it? News to me![ I do a quick strop on my hand and sometimes on a piece of leather - it's more about polishing near the edge rather than a contribution to sharpening


> Accurate waterstone methods do not.


Waterstones aren't accurate though - unless you spend hours flattening them.


----------



## D_W

David C":2xxgig3d said:


> The ad hoc approach gives rise to the need for tearing off wire edges in endgrain and stropping.
> 
> Accurate waterstone methods do not.
> 
> I am always astonished by the amount of time Paul Sellers spends on stropping. (Was it 50 strokes on each side?)
> 
> David



Paul Sellers is honing and polishing with an abrasive stick, and not stropping. I can't see his sharpening method as being the bar to judge all by - my older books suggest "emery" on carving tool strops, but not flat irons. 

Someone using an oilstone will strop (with bare leather), because the abrasive doesn't cut as deep of grooves and the wire edge remains in a like-sharpness edge. Or in the case of something like a washita stone, the slightly coarser finish will leave a wire edge that detatches only on leather (hopefully skillfully thinned out by the sharpener). 

On a waterstone sharpened stone, you can strop the wire edge off with your palm if you choose not to do the ruler trick. 

Before declaring it the replacement of a strop, I'd flip the iron over both ways and find out if the entire foil is actually removed (if it is, the iron will shave equally well on either side of the bevel).


----------



## David C

I find that the wire edge floats off on the stone.

If it does no, something is not quite right and I repeat.

David


----------



## CStanford

I had read somewhere that leather either naturally has silica or it is introduced in the tanning process. So a natural leather strop, even 'untreated' has an abrasive quality though obviously an extraordinarily mild one. I am by no means an expert on leather, and do not use a leather strop but rather a hard rubber strop.


----------



## CStanford

David C":168fnpfy said:


> How can Jacob distinguish between "lifting" and the effect of a hollow stone?
> 
> I'm afraid I don't believe in this "lifting".
> 
> Something exactly repeatable is required, not variable lifting. It makes no sense.
> 
> Flat on a strop is at least repeatable.
> 
> David Charlesworth



That same argument could be repeated for virtually any hand process in woodworking. Where would one draw the line?


----------



## D_W

CStanford":11yi6mc7 said:


> I had read somewhere that leather either naturally has silica or it is introduced in the tanning process. So a natural leather strop, even 'untreated' has an abrasive quality though obviously an extraordinarily mild one. I am by no means an expert on leather, and do not use a leather strop but rather a hard rubber strop.



It does have silica in it, but the effect of it is dependent on type of leather, and how much it's broken in and how well it was tanned (and whether or not it's oiled, etc). 

What you're hoping for in a leather only strop (if the edge is truly ready without the wire edge being strong) is one that doesn't do too much. Something like fresh horse butt has an abrasive quality that you'll *see* for a short period of time (it will haze an edge). 

Not much of it matters for woodworking, only razoring, where you can feel the difference between the types (cordovan and horse butt - broken in - doing the least abrading of an edge and without rounding) and bovine where the leather is both soft and slow cutting (the softness is less desirable - or must've been in the past, because horse leather was always used when there used to be a ready supply - pig and bovine were lower market stuff). 

On a broken in strop, if you don't finish a hard edge that well, there's not enough abrasive power to make up for anything. Add chromium oxide, then all of the sudden that is different. 

The ruler trick or not stuff is a bit odd - assertions of this or that, or the wire edge always leaves completely. You can't see it when it's tiny, not even under an optical microscope. Which means it probably doesn't matter at all for woodworking - but part of the arguments probably hinge on assertions made about things you can't see. I always found it interesting that before learning to shave (and forgoing stropping of tools) that an iron always cut better on one side or another. No matter how fine the stone, if you honed a stroke on a very fine stone, the best cutting side always was the side facing up from the stone. If you strop with bare leather, then the difference between sides goes away (meaning that the ruler trick or honing and stropping are not the same thing).


----------



## D_W

I can't believe we have these same discussions over and over, as if each of us can't tell whether or not our tools are sharp enough to work and/or hit our marked lines.

No wonder the beginners talk about this rubbish over and over and over.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

> The ruler trick or not stuff is a bit odd - assertions of this or that, or the wire edge always leaves completely. You can't see it when it's tiny, not even under an optical microscope. Which means it probably doesn't matter at all for woodworking





D_W":1s21fvrw said:


> I can't believe we have these same discussions over and over, as if each of us can't tell whether or not our tools are sharp enough to work and/or hit our marked lines.
> 
> No wonder the beginners talk about this rubbish over and over and over.



Sharpening discussions really seem to threaten most - as if they challenge your sexuality, religion, or political views.

I do not use the RT, but have done so, and it works very well. Many of us owe David C a huge debt for teaching us enough to get started, and to develop the skills to make further decisions for ourselves. 

It does not surprise me that. the RT works so well. And it DOES work well. Flattening the back of a blade is NOT a one-time operation. Bevels wear on BOTH sides, and a wear bevel must be removed when sharpening before the edge is pronounced done. I do this well enough not to need the RT, and I assume that many others do as well. However many have not learned to do this proficiently, and they benefit from David's RT. 

Regards from Yorkshire

Derek


----------



## D_W

I don't disagree with that, i cut my teeth on the DVD, too. I've moved on, some don't, and it doesn't really matter too much either way. David's method is slower than what I do now, which is why I changed (laziness). 

It's sort of like white or red wine, except in this case there seems to be something among the instructors that involves them ending with an assertion that implies their method is best. 

As soon as we understand sharpening, we can do it just about any way - I'm curious about why we argue over it, to some extent. I nutted over all kinds of stuff, the stones, the methods, etc, got a microscope and looked at things out of curiosity only to find that all of it was not more than interesting (it was interesting, though) and that some of the definites that I took away from David's video weren't very definite, and learned later as charlie and jacob said, a lot of those older tools have the lift on purpose (my engineer friend and I assumed early on it was lack of care, but quite often I'd imagine it was skill). 

I never fully had to understand what was going on with everything until shaving with a straight razor, but those folks can go way over the edge, too, and the same argument goes on there as here (progression of 10 stones, very prescriptive methods, etc, while the people who have been shaving for decades ignore all of it and do something fairly simple - specifically, their methodology looks a lot more like what a barber would've done 100 years ago - a single stone and a strop with a linen. Another side curiosity is the resin stones being touted as something new, but they show up in droves 100 years ago in various touch up hones and bench stones, they just never unseated much while good natural stones were available for professional users).

Another aside, the ten stone progressions and specific "strokes" for newbies on the razor boards address the same thing, I guess, trying to create a guaranteed result - and then ultimately the folks who are loyal do not believe in what Warren refers to as craftsman's subtlety, and assume all prior lived in the dark ages.


----------



## Jacob

Personally I think the new sharpening is all about the jig. They barely existed 50 years ago and sharpening wasn't half as interesting and challenging as it now is! :lol:


----------



## iNewbie

Whenever these threads come up you have a jig of our own Jacob - on a blarney stone.


----------



## sploo

I can't help but feel that a lot of the "musts" (ruler/no ruler, strop/no strop etc.) are derived from a particular person's method of sharpening.

For example, looking at David's article here http://www.popularwoodworking.com/techn ... uler_trick, the first few images neatly illustrate the problem with a worn stone causing a belly on the underside of the plane iron; meaning the edge cannot be hit after the stone is flattened. But... if a person only ever used abrasive sheets on glass, or diamond plates (which I understand stay flat), would that not render this whole bellying problem irrelevant?

My point being that any particular stage in a sharpening technique isn't always required/irrelevant in isolation; it's about the whole process you use.


----------



## Jacob

sploo":r3lujdfr said:


> I can't help but feel that a lot of the "musts" (ruler/no ruler, strop/no strop etc.) are derived from a particular person's method of sharpening.
> 
> For example, looking at David's article here http://www.popularwoodworking.com/techn ... uler_trick, the first few images neatly illustrate the problem with a worn stone causing a belly on the underside of the plane iron; ....


Not really. The diagrams make no sense. "Belly" is Dave's term for an imaginary problem. In reality hollow stones are normal and not a problem. They don't get hollow across the width, only along the length. They don't need flattening (and so on :roll: ). He has a very individual approach to all this which you can follow if you want to, it will work no doubt, but there are easier methods, both quicker and cheaper, which have been in use from day one.

PS and the ruler trick produces a "belly" of it's own (albeit a little one)! There's nothing wrong with bellies. He's right about how you don't need to remove grinding marks or flatten except very near the edge itself. And you don't need a ruler for the ruler trick - it's easier without and you get a finer angle (if that's what you want).

By all means follow Dave's methods if you want to but don't take them as gospel.


----------



## sploo

Jacob":3hl5h3t8 said:


> He has a very individual approach to all this which you can follow if you want to.


I think that could be said of just about anyone that's posted on this thread, TBH. My point is less about whether certain steps are fundamentally right or wrong in isolation (that's a separate argument) but how certain steps are or aren't appropriate for different techniques and sharpening hardware.


----------



## D_W

sploo":22c5mcw3 said:


> I can't help but feel that a lot of the "musts" (ruler/no ruler, strop/no strop etc.) are derived from a particular person's method of sharpening.
> 
> For example, looking at David's article here http://www.popularwoodworking.com/techn ... uler_trick, the first few images neatly illustrate the problem with a worn stone causing a belly on the underside of the plane iron; meaning the edge cannot be hit after the stone is flattened. But... if a person only ever used abrasive sheets on glass, or diamond plates (which I understand stay flat), would that not render this whole bellying problem irrelevant?
> 
> My point being that any particular stage in a sharpening technique isn't always required/irrelevant in isolation; it's about the whole process you use.



Avoiding bellying and stone hollowing can be as simple as managing the stone while sharpening, but generally that requires freehanding. It certainly is more efficient than flattening stones every few items sharpened.


----------



## swagman

Watch this video from 10.30 min. to see how complex sharpening a plane iron needs to be; also note the top surface of the stone looks to be slightly bellied. 

http://www.rts.ch/play/tv/la-suisse-au- ... 64421#t=27

Stewie;


----------



## Jacob

swagman":37r8w2ob said:


> Watch this video from 10.30 min. to see how complex sharpening a plane iron needs to be; also note the top surface of the stone looks to be slightly bellied.
> 
> http://www.rts.ch/play/tv/la-suisse-au- ... 64421#t=27
> 
> Stewie;


Yep. Just a few seconds. No effin about! Actually I'd take a lot longer myself, say 30 seconds to a minute.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Jacob":26tn2a7a said:


> swagman":26tn2a7a said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video from 10.30 min. to see how complex sharpening a plane iron needs to be; also note the top surface of the stone looks to be slightly bellied.
> 
> http://www.rts.ch/play/tv/la-suisse-au- ... 64421#t=27
> 
> Stewie;
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Just a few seconds. No effin about! Actually I'd take a lot longer myself, say 30 seconds to a minute.
Click to expand...


I suppose we should make allowances for your more advanced years..... ( :wink:  :lol

Slightly more seriously, If you want a cambered blade, I guess a slightly dished stone is actually very handy.

Cheers, W2S


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Woody2Shoes":3dcsfdat said:


> Slightly more seriously, If you want a cambered blade, I guess a slightly dished stone is actually very handy.
> 
> Cheers, W2S



That is, indeed, a perfectly valid point of view.

Another point of view is that a stone dished across it's width is a severe impediment to to a 'straight across' edge such as that required for a rebate plane iron. Flat stones can be used to sharpen cambered blades and 'straight' ones, and are therefore more versatile.

Personally, I veer to the latter point of view; I've found by experience that it makes life easier in the end.

Each to their own, however!


----------



## sploo

D_W":24jl2um7 said:


> Avoiding bellying and stone hollowing can be as simple as managing the stone while sharpening, but generally that requires freehanding. It certainly is more efficient than flattening stones every few items sharpened.


Indeed, but, again, my point is about specific techniques for specific hardware. As an extreme example; imagine talking to a guy that had only ever sharpened using abrasive sheets on flat glass plates and had never even heard of stones - the whole "world" of flattening stones, bellies on blades etc would be entirely alien to him, and anyone discussing techniques for tackling that (bellied blade) would seem to be talking nonsense (based on his contextual understanding).

What I see in sharpening discussions is people describing (and sometimes promoting) steps as being really useful/important (and sometimes even magic bullets), but without perhaps the necessary disclaimer of "I sharpen using these steps/tools; if you're new to sharpening and you're using these other methods then some steps in what I'm describing won't be relevant to you". The problem is that noobs see a magic bullet and get confused about whether or not they need it.


----------



## Jacob

sploo":mfxhstif said:


> ..... The problem is that noobs see a magic bullet and get confused about whether or not they need it.


You don't need it! There are no magic bullets. 
The jig looks like a good one, but in fact makes sharpening more difficult and generates all these endless discussions and the vast collection of solutions to the jig problem (flatness being No 1). Good for sales though!


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Sploo, you are correct. There are many methods of sharpening (and what does it matter which one you choose as long as your edges are sharp). Experience may tell you whether a method is efficient or not. Observations, based on experience, may be offered to make it more efficient. This works as long as the observations are about THAT method, and are not a recommendation to change to another method ... which ends up as a personally taken criticism.

Regards from Yorkshire

Derek


----------



## CStanford

David C":2t7ng33e said:


> The ad hoc approach gives rise to the need for tearing off wire edges in endgrain and stropping.
> 
> Accurate waterstone methods do not.
> 
> I am always astonished by the amount of time Paul Sellers spends on stropping. (Was it 50 strokes on each side?)
> 
> David



The manner in which Sellers uses a (too heavily?) charged strop is more as a finishing stone than anything else. The overall method seems fast enough to be used in a professional or school setting however.


----------



## David C

Jacob like concavity, hollow, in the length of a new chisel, as this aids quick removal of grinding marks near the edge. We all do!

Presumably he does not like convexity, which I was taught to call belly. He advises sending these back to manufacturer. So do I.

He fails to see that identical issues apply to plane blades.

David Charlesworth


----------



## CStanford

If bellied tools are sent back to the manufacturer, leaving either flat or concave backs, then there is no real need for any sort of workaround it seems to me. Just register the back flat on the stone and polish away.


----------



## Jacob

David C":38a8t5s1 said:


> Jacob like concavity, hollow, in the length of a new chisel, as this aids quick removal of grinding marks near the edge. We all do!


yes. But over the years this gets lost and you get very slightly nearer to convex. Slightly more difficult to sharpen (lift, but not as much as "the ruler trick" etc) but otherwise matters not a jot, plane or chisel.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

I suppose it comes down to your general outlook. 

Are you the type of woodworker who regards near enough as good enough, or are you the type who tries to systematically eliminate obstacles to doing the best work you can achieve?

Also - which of those approaches is appropriate in different circumstances?


----------



## Jacob

Good enough is all you need. Anything more is a waste of time by definition.
If there was any evidence that the slight convexity of a well used chisel or plane blade was a problem, then you'd have a point. But there isn't and you don't.


----------



## D_W

sploo":2ibcqcxn said:


> D_W":2ibcqcxn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding bellying and stone hollowing can be as simple as managing the stone while sharpening, but generally that requires freehanding. It certainly is more efficient than flattening stones every few items sharpened.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, but, again, my point is about specific techniques for specific hardware. As an extreme example; imagine talking to a guy that had only ever sharpened using abrasive sheets on flat glass plates and had never even heard of stones - the whole "world" of flattening stones, bellies on blades etc would be entirely alien to him, and anyone discussing techniques for tackling that (bellied blade) would seem to be talking nonsense (based on his contextual understanding).
> 
> What I see in sharpening discussions is people describing (and sometimes promoting) steps as being really useful/important (and sometimes even magic bullets), but without perhaps the necessary disclaimer of "I sharpen using these steps/tools; if you're new to sharpening and you're using these other methods then some steps in what I'm describing won't be relevant to you". The problem is that noobs see a magic bullet and get confused about whether or not they need it.
Click to expand...


I understand what you're saying. I think, though, that there is too much talk about method and how that yields results. There are certain subtleties that you come up with on your own if you aren't pinned to following paint by numbers, and sharp just is. It's not because of method, it's because we should be able (without analyzing point by point) to look at a tool, decide what we want the profile to be and just make it sharp. 

There's a short leap when we're beginners where equipment is probably helpful. If we are going to branch out beyond flat irons and chisels, it's a real hindrance, and I can't think of much worse than getting extremely method specific about every tool instead of just visualizing what we want the tool profile to be and then don't worry so much how we get it - experience and desire for economy will get us there. 

As far as films, I think in order to stay away from bench stones, etc, someone has to do a fairly limited amount of work. Sooner or later if you start sharpening profiled irons and gouges, you will get tired of slicing films or limiting yourself to the harsh feel that glass backed films and papers have when the contact point is very small. 

There are tons of concepts that everyone wants to master - you take someone who goes out and buys submicron grit and then they read all of this stuff about removing the wire edge after they're done, and they'll have no idea what it is. It may be a waste of time for them to even think about it, but someone on the forums will get them tied up in it. It (sharpening) should be subtle, quick, successful, whatever the method.


----------



## D_W

Jacob":63pj8pwm said:


> Good enough is all you need. Anything more is a waste of time by definition.
> If there was any evidence that the slight convexity of a well used chisel or plane blade was a problem, then you'd have a point. But there isn't and you don't.



It's hard for beginners to manage subtleties, that's about all there is. It's a mistake to talk about things on a sliding scale with folks who spend most of their time teaching beginners who cannot yet think for themselves.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":bza1ggrp said:


> Good enough is all you need. Anything more is a waste of time by definition.
> If there was any evidence that the slight convexity of a well used chisel or plane blade was a problem, then you'd have a point. But there isn't and you don't.



How good is 'good enough'? What do you need to do to achieve it in different circumstances? Does someone fitting out starter homes need the same tools maintained the same way as someone making fine furniture to the highest standards? How about someone making Sussex trugs, or repairing 18th century marquetry museum pieces? Do they all need the same tools prepared and maintained the same way? I think not. 'Good enough' is different in different circumstances, that's all I'm saying.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":1uxy5qlz said:


> ..... 'Good enough' is different in different circumstances, ....


Well obviously.
NB you can achieve a very high degree of sharpness with the trad freehand methods and materials - the new sharpening doesn't do anything extra in this respect in spite of the 1000s of different technique details, the millions of words and the vast array of expensive kit.


----------



## memzey

Just a quick question here on how people test their edge tools for their "sharp enough" standard after sharpening; I would count myself as a beginner as I've only been doing woodwork as a hobby for the past year or so. I sharpen freehand on some old oil stones I bought for 50p each at boot fairs and some charged leather glued to a block of wood. With a typical plane iron this takes me about a minute or so including the strop. I then attempt to dry shave some hairs on my arm. If I'm successful without pulling any hairs I think to myself "memzey that's sharp enough" then reassemble the plane and get cracking again. Is this what most people do as well?


----------



## Woody2Shoes

I just use my fingernail/fingertip. If I started shaving my arms, Mrs W2S might start to wonder....


----------



## Cheshirechappie

memzey":1m671z40 said:


> Just a quick question here on how people test their edge tools for their "sharp enough" standard after sharpening; I would count myself as a beginner as I've only been doing woodwork as a hobby for the past year or so. I sharpen freehand on some old oil stones I bought for 50p each at boot fairs and some charged leather glued to a block of wood. With a typical plane iron this takes me about a minute or so including the strop. I then attempt to dry shave some hairs on my arm. If I'm successful without pulling any hairs I think to myself "memzey that's sharp enough" then reassemble the plane and get cracking again. Is this what most people do as well?



I have three tests. The first is to look at the edge. If you can see a line of reflected light, it's not sharp enough. If you see nothing, it probably is. Test two is the 'ball of the thumb' test - just pass the ball of the thumb (very gently!) over the edge, and if it 'catches' the skin, it's sharp enough. If it slides over the skin without catching, it isn't. Test three is to use the tool for it's intended purpose, and see how it goes - you'll soon notice if it isn't performing as it should.

Must admit, I gave up arm-shaving years ago. I'm fairly sure it's just a bit of a show-off from master to apprentice, really; nobody does it 'for real' normally. Besides, it's too much bother peeling back woolies and shirt-sleeves on a cold day!


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I used to shave my arm with an Estwing axe ...


----------



## Cheshirechappie

phil.p":1uhm36tn said:


> I used to shave my arm with an Estwing axe ...



A hatchet is easier for that tricky bit between nose and top lip, though. :lol:


----------



## sploo

memzey":2lshomfo said:


> Just a quick question here on how people test their edge tools for their "sharp enough" standard after sharpening; I would count myself as a beginner as I've only been doing woodwork as a hobby for the past year or so. I sharpen freehand on some old oil stones I bought for 50p each at boot fairs and some charged leather glued to a block of wood. With a typical plane iron this takes me about a minute or so including the strop. I then attempt to dry shave some hairs on my arm. If I'm successful without pulling any hairs I think to myself "memzey that's sharp enough" then reassemble the plane and get cracking again. Is this what most people do as well?


I push the blade into the edge of a piece of paper. If it'll just slide through the paper (cutting it in half, with essentially no effort on your part) then it must be sharp. Doesn't indicate it'll be a strong edge that lasts, but it'll have to be sharp to do that.


----------



## Graham Orm

phil.p":3osm79p2 said:


> I used to shave my arm with an Estwing axe ...



Wierdo.


----------



## custard

memzey":3jl69jcw said:


> I then attempt to dry shave some hairs on my arm. If I'm successful without pulling any hairs I think to myself "memzey that's sharp enough" then reassemble the plane and get cracking again. Is this what most people do as well?



Just get back to work, the tool will tell you soon enough if it needs more attention. If you ever did that shaving or paper slicing foolishness in a professional workshop the other craftsmen would think you had a screw loose!


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I take out the iron, take out the 1200 waterstone, give the iron half a dozen strokes (assuming it's not damaged) on the bevel and a couple on the other side. Wipe it on my trousers and use it. It's good for nearly 100% of what I do. Life is too short.


----------



## n0legs

I take my irons out. 
Move them to my hermetically sealed sharpening chamber and by the way I only do this on a Wednesday between 20:38 and 22:07.
Lock myself in. Turn off all but one of the chambers lights. 

I recite the Lords Prayer 3 times, and once whilst I'm stood on my head in the east corner facing the wall.
I open the Jack and Jill book "A day at the farm" to page 7, Jack meets a cow. Then and only then can the sharpening ritual start.

To remove the biggest knicks I have a piece of Pennant Blue stone, one owned by Lloyd George ( by the way he knew my father )
As many strokes as it takes until the knick is gone are carried out.
Next I bring to my table the Harland an Wolff 19th cut ( this is obviously 17 cuts above a 2nd cut ) keel makers file. You would not believe how smooth the cut of this file is. I ran it over the bare backside of my infant granddaughter and she only required a 4 hour skin graft operation, fine and smooth are not the words to describe this file.
I set to work with the file, again taking as long as it takes to get the edge I require.

Once this stage has been completed it is now time for the most controversial part of my regime.
If you are easily offended or work for the RSPCA or other animal charities please look away now.

I keep Brown Swiss cattle, a bit of a side line but hey ho a guy's got to eat. Right??
I take a calf, the younger the better, and peel back the hide on its left rear quarter. I add, the calf is alive. 
I strop my blade against the inside of the hide, the fat and blood mix makes a fantastic compound. I clean and repeat and then clean and repeat once more.
I patch up the calf with duct tape and a mixture of flour, salt and water putty. I've found the resale value of the calf is often affected if I don't make good the hide. You should see the ones I've had to use several times, not pretty, really not pretty.

Once this has been done I now call my blade/iron sharp. Actually I do, I say "hey sharp how you doing?". They never answer. 
Note to self,,, try same greeting in Mandarin.

I wait until 22:07, usually passing the time by inventing new names for girls alphabetically. I'm at K, if anyone was interested. 
The time lock releases the door and I enter the world once again. Armed with a sharp iron.

The test. No paper, no hairs on the back of my hand, no forearm hair, no finger or thumb nail test, no need for an electron microscope. At the bottom of the garden I have a 1956 Wolseley 4/44. On the drivers door 3 inches south of the door release lever I test the sharpness of my blades. If I can leave a horizontal 1/8" slice in the vinyl, following a 6.36 metre run up whilst wearing bedroom slippers, I consider my iron sharp.
There's no need of the fancy wet stones, diamond plates, jigs and fixtures. Follow my lead and embrace my method, I'm more than willing to take you through the finer points, and start enjoying sharp tools.


----------



## CStanford

Best post I've ever read on a woodworking forum.


----------



## Craigus

:lol:

That sums up the whole sharpening thing rather nicely. Ridiculous and comical.


----------



## matt_southward

Very droll nolegs, and spectacularly imaginative! =D>


----------



## ED65

memzey":rm6h7r74 said:


> I then attempt to dry shave some hairs on my arm. If I'm successful without pulling any hairs I think to myself "memzey that's sharp enough" then reassemble the plane and get cracking again. Is this what most people do as well?


That will usually be sharp enough. There aren't any absolutes when it comes to sharpening and all jokes aside individual standards for "sharp enough" do vary, but in general you'd want a smoother's iron sharpened as well as your kit can manage while a jack plane set up traditionally with a cambered iron can usually be used straight from a relatively coarse stone (by modern standards) for all the difference it would make to how it'll perform.


----------



## sploo

n0legs":1p4eaqkl said:


> ...I recite the Lords Prayer 3 times, and once whilst I'm stood on my head in the east corner facing the wall...


Only _3_ times? Pfffft. Amateur.








:mrgreen:


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Now I know where my sharpening regime goes adrift ... I'm an atheist.


----------



## iNewbie

Stone me...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToYt5SgGDgI


----------



## sploo

iNewbie":xczwfcj7 said:


> Stone me...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToYt5SgGDgI


Perfect. And from 2:25 it's just like a discussion on sharpening methods. It even ends with a stoning :mrgreen:


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Well ... N0legs seems to have killed this thread ... :lol: :lol:


----------



## bridger

D_W":lz8gnq9n said:


> though there is a subset of students here who would like to learn to build planes - nobody available to teach them, though




I'm in Tucson AZ. I offered a plane making class at the local woodcraft. Nobody signed up.


----------



## bridger

memzey":3j1oliyn said:


> Just a quick question here on how people test their edge tools for their "sharp enough" standard after sharpening; I would count myself as a beginner as I've only been doing woodwork as a hobby for the past year or so. I sharpen freehand on some old oil stones I bought for 50p each at boot fairs and some charged leather glued to a block of wood. With a typical plane iron this takes me about a minute or so including the strop. I then attempt to dry shave some hairs on my arm. If I'm successful without pulling any hairs I think to myself "memzey that's sharp enough" then reassemble the plane and get cracking again. Is this what most people do as well?




Essentially, yes.
I do however have a bit of a stone fetish. But if my chisel will shave my arm it's good enough for woodworking.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

phil.p":3sh3v1s4 said:


> Well ... N0legs seems to have killed this thread ... :lol: :lol:



It was a mercy killing


----------



## n0legs

phil.p":21xux3xd said:


> Well ... N0legs seems to have killed this thread ... :lol: :lol:



Ha! Left them speechless Phil 8) :lol: 




Paddy Roxburgh":21xux3xd said:


> It was a mercy killing



:lol: 
I've always fancied being a hangman.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Gallows humour?


----------



## n0legs

phil.p":1j7p42ia said:


> Gallows humour?



I'll stay off the Substance D and see what I can come up with :lol:


----------



## sploo

Well, I've found another way to test plane iron sharpness - be clumsy turning one over in your hand whilst cleaning it and slice an 8mm long / 5mm deep wedge into one of your fingers #-o 

I guess it's sharp.


----------



## Steve1066

BearTricks":11usqed0 said:


> I know a lot of people tend to lean towards buying old planes and fixing them up rather than buying new but are there any new planes worth buying?
> 
> I have a woodie for general flattening and an old Stanley 4 1/2 (that I bought second hand but did minimal work on as it had apparently been bought new over half a century ago and sat in a cupboard since) for smoothing and they get me through 90% of what I need to do. The woodie is a bit temperamental however and I wouldn't mind getting something new that works more or less out of the box to speed up planing the ridiculous amount of sapele taking up the front room.
> 
> I can't exactly justify spending money on a Lie Nielsen or Veritas that isn't on sale so I've been eyeing up an Axminster Rider. Are there any others worth considering?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk



£3.29 that's how much 




And it works straight out the box


----------



## Bedrock

Steve - What is that timber - elm? Looks seriously hard work.
BearTricks - the trouble with sapele, as you have no doubt found, is the frequent grain reversal, often within a couple of inches across the width. I was given a fair amount a year or so ago, and mainly have used it for framing. The side table I made for MOL was however finished off the plane, I think with an old no.3 with a very sharp Clifton blade, and with a self-made infill BU with a home made O1 blade, which has a fine mouth. Neither are likely to fall within your budget constraints. 
If Steve's £3.29 offering can cope with putting a fine finish on that piece of timber, then I can't see you doing any better.


----------



## Steve1066

Bedrock":2da33azr said:


> Steve - What is that timber - elm? Looks seriously hard work.
> BearTricks - the trouble with sapele, as you have no doubt found, is the frequent grain reversal, often within a couple of inches across the width. I was given a fair amount a year or so ago, and mainly have used it for framing. The side table I made for MOL was however finished off the plane, I think with an old no.3 with a very sharp Clifton blade, and with a self-made infill BU with a home made O1 blade, which has a fine mouth. Neither are likely to fall within your budget constraints.
> If Steve's £3.29 offering can cope with putting a fine finish on that piece of timber, then I can't see you doing any better.



Yes it's Elm. 
And I am shocked at the performance and value of this little plane I took the spare blade and gave it a quick rub on my sharpening stones and tried it on some oak end grain, it performed so well,if it holds it's edge it will become my go to block plane.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

That little Mujingfang mini smoother has been reported by myself, and others, over the course of at least a decade. My version does not use a cross bar but had a properly bedded wedge. The bed is 60 degrees, and the blade is 1 1/2" wide. HNT Gordon make a near-identical version that sells for many times more (is better finished but does not perform any differently). It is a superb mini smoother, but the high cutting angle will restrict its use on end grain. Flip the blade around and use it as a scraper plane.

Regards from Cornwall

Derek


----------



## Steve1066

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> That little Mujingfang mini smoother has been reported by myself, and others, over the course of at least a decade. My version does not use a cross bar but had a properly bedded wedge. The bed is 60 degrees, and the blade is 1 1/2" wide. HNT Gordon make a near-identical version that sells for many times more (is better finished but does not perform any differently). It is a superb mini smoother, but the high cutting angle will restrict its use on end grain. Flip the blade around and use it as a scraper plane.
> 
> Regards from Cornwall
> 
> Derek


Hi Derek., I had no idea, if I had known I would have got one ages ago. The performance out of the box was unbelievable.
Have you tried any other plans made by Mujijgfang. 
As for end grain I had no problems with some well seasoned quarter sawn English oak, but then again I am not a fan of low angle plane even though I have 2
Thanks Steve


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Hi Steve

Mujingfang planes really received a boost with the publication of a comparison of high end planes, where it featured so strongly: http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/haspc.shtml

It needs to be noted that this article was written by Lynn Mangiameli in 2002, a decade before chipbreakers made a re-appearance. It was then vogue to use a high cutting angle to cope with interlocked wood. Consequently, planes that had double irons but were common angled just did not get a look in. High angled planes, such as the Mujingfang featured in the comparison, scored very highly.

I have a couple, and they are superb value for money. The blades today are often tipped in HSS, take a good edge, and hold it forever. I have one in a Stanley #3. 

They are available from Lee Valley, where they are called "Hong Kong Planes". At the other end of the price range, HNT Gordon planes (in Australia) are very similar, but far better made and offered with exotic woods. I have a couple and they are high performance and very reliable.

Regards from Cornwall

Derek


----------



## ED65

Steve1066":ve2tk0pm said:


> And I am shocked at the performance and value of this little plane I took the spare blade and gave it a quick rub on my sharpening stones and tried it on some oak end grain, it performed so well,if it holds it's edge it will become my go to block plane.


Thanks for posting with that plane, I've had my eye on similar ones for a couple of years now and I might finally order this one! Could you list the seller name please?

Can I just check, did your one come with a spare blade?


----------



## Steve1066

ED65":2s6ws8wk said:


> Steve1066":2s6ws8wk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am shocked at the performance and value of this little plane I took the spare blade and gave it a quick rub on my sharpening stones and tried it on some oak end grain, it performed so well,if it holds it's edge it will become my go to block plane.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting with that plane, I've had my eye on similar ones for a couple of years now and I might finally order this one! Could you list the seller name please?
> 
> Can I just check, did your one come with a spare blade?
Click to expand...


eBay item no 321955645520
Yes it came with 2 blade but not advertised with 2


----------



## ED65

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> That little Mujingfang mini smoother has been reported by myself, and others, over the course of at least a decade. My version does not use a cross bar but had a properly bedded wedge.


If you look closely at the pics you'll see this is actually that _other _very well known brand, Mudingfang :mrgreen: 

Big fan of your site BTW Derek, have learned loads from it over the years!


----------



## ED65

Steve1066":2ydr8jcu said:


> Yes it came with 2 blade but not advertised with 2


Lucky!

TVM for the item number, I did a search with the title as in your screenshot and the blasted search didn't come up with it :roll:


----------



## Steve1066

Well spotted ED65


----------



## AndyT

I have a little Mujingfang plane that I bought from Rutlands a few years ago because it was cheap and looked different and I fancied trying a plane from a different tradition to see what it was like. It's excellent.

Rutlands don't sell them any more but Workshop Heaven have quite a choice http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Mujingfang_Planes.html.


----------



## D_W

Ditto to what Derek said on the older ones with abutments. 

I ended up going a different direction than the high angle, but the large continental smoothers that muji makes are super excellent for the money. I couldn't buy the iron or the wood (either) anywhere else for the price they ask for the plane. Mine have had some little nits here and there (bits that have chipped out on the end of the horn or the corner of the mouth where the iron has struck the sides on the way through), but overall, excellent. 

I'm not surprised they make some cross pin planes, but I'd spring for the abutment and wedge planes if they can be had.


----------

