# Record & Stanley, Laminated Plane Irons



## custard (29 Jul 2017)

A few months ago there was a thread about laminated versus non laminated plane irons, I've been meaning to pick through my plane irons and see if I could add anything to the discussion. 

I'm no tool historian, so take this as a series of data points for the more knowledgeable people here to reflect upon.

The most common Record plane irons generally look something like this, with slightly rounded tops,







The only foolproof way that I know to check if you have a laminated iron is to grind the _entire_ cutting edge at a 25 degree angle. Once you hone a bevel the lamination line becomes very difficult to detect, in fact it becomes easy to kid yourself that you have a laminated iron when it's actually not. Grinding the entire cutting edge on the previous Record iron reveals no trace of a lamination line,






However, this American Stanley Sweetheart iron has much more angular top, comprised of straight lines with crisp corners,






And when the cutting edge is fully ground you can see the lamination line (marked with the red arrow), if you tilt the iron back and forth you can see this line runs the full width of the blade,






Here's an English made Stanley iron with the same angular top, on this iron there is what looks like a lamination line on the face. In my experience (which is only based on a few dozen irons so is far from definitive), the lamination line on the face is not a reliable indicator, I've seen laminated irons where there's no face line, and I've seen non laminated irons where there's a convincing looking line in the right area. 






As I said, the only accurate test I know is a full grind. When this English Stanley iron is ground back you can clearly see it is indeed laminated,






I'll need to continue in a follow up post as there's a limit as to how many photos can go in one post.


----------



## custard (29 Jul 2017)

Here's a Record iron with the same angular top,






And when ground back you can see the lamination line,






Here are the three laminated irons, you can see that despite having very different (claimed) origins they all share that same angular top design,






Here the iron on the left is laminated, the other two aren't, you can see the subtle differences in top design, the slightest evidence of curves or rounded corners in the tops means it's not laminated. At least that's the case based on my limited (twenty or thirty irons) experience.






I don't like fully grinding back irons as you lose the camber and risk bluing the edge. So I'm not going to do any more here and now. But over time I've found this pattern is consistent across the couple of dozen Record and Stanley irons that I own. A sharp angular top design means a laminated iron, no matter what manufacturer or country of origin is stamped on the iron. Which makes me wonder if all the laminated irons were originally made by one manufacturer then sold to different plane makers in different countries for finishing? Just a guess.

I've also heard of astonishing attributes being accorded to laminated irons, sublime sharpness and extended endurance between honings. I may not be much of a tool historian but I'm a fair hand at using a bench plane, yet I've never been able to detect much difference between vintage laminated irons and later chrome vanadium irons! In my experience they're all pretty good.


----------



## iNewbie (29 Jul 2017)

Sellers had a small blog on laminated. Theres two comments lower down about Stanley and Tasmania.

From June 4th
https://paulsellers.com/2015/05/laminat ... ns-n-more/

Theres also a mention on here of a Sheffield Mill

http://galootopia.com/old_tools/planes/ ... dish-iron/


----------



## nabs (29 Jul 2017)

I will have to take a closer look at the corners of mine when I get a chance. I have found previously when de-rusting old irons with Shield rust remover that the backing stains a dark black in comparison to the steel bit welded on to form the cutting edge, and then it is very easy to spot the join.

It is interesting to look at Stanley's 4 reasons in their ad (2nd link in post above) for continuing to laminate irons into the early 20th century, but surely only the 4th (time saved in sharpening) make sense. Given the savings in effort are reduced the thinner the irons get, it is possible that part of their rationale was that it would appeal to the preferences of older tradesman who no doubt had perfectly good reasons for preferring the ( thick) laminated blades in their wooden planes.

Having said that, the fact that other manufacturers carried on with the same practice without apparently feeling the need to bang on about why indicates that there might be more to the explanation...


----------



## D_W (29 Jul 2017)

Notice anything in regard to hardness? i noticed that the stanley irons that are turn of the century tend to be a fair bit harder than the record laminated irons I got. I posed that question (I think I was the one who started that topic) because once I got one record and saw that it was laminated, I went on a binge but wanted to make sure the rest of my purchases would be laminated -and they were. 

The record laminated seem to be about the same late-early, or early-mid century US stanley non-laminated irons. Plenty fine enough for work, of course. I do like the very old stanley laminated quite a bit, though. All of them are fine until the 70s or so stanley irons that were curved on top - they're a bit soft, but even them, you can work with if you have to. You just won't choose them to put in a metal smoother intended only for very fine shavings.


----------



## bugbear (30 Jul 2017)

The grinding and/or chemicals show the line because the two steels react differently. Harder steels abrades less than softer steels, so there's a colour/texture change to define the boundary.

(this is also why harder steels typically come out sharper when honed on the same grit size as softer steels).

BugBear


----------



## custard (30 Jul 2017)

nabs":3p1qhvsr said:


> surely only the 4th (time saved in sharpening) make sense.



That's an interesting point, blindingly obvious really but still I'd never thought of it before. 

 

I power grind bench plane irons very frequently in order to speed up the hand honing process, there's a dedicated sharpening station in my workshop with a linisher set at 25 degrees so it becomes second nature and the work of seconds to never let the honed angle extend back by more than about a mill. I'll try on some laminated irons honing the full thickness of the iron to see what that's like.


----------



## custard (30 Jul 2017)

D_W":2ij3ehq8 said:


> Notice anything in regard to hardness?



I think there are differences, but I'm hesitant to express them because there's every chance they're just the noise of sample variability rather than the signal of an essential property.


----------



## custard (30 Jul 2017)

bugbear":2vuz76io said:


> The grinding and/or chemicals show the line because the two steels react differently. Harder steels abrades less than softer steels, so there's a colour/texture change to define the boundary.
> 
> (this is also why harder steels typically come out sharper when honed on the same grit size as softer steels).
> 
> BugBear



That's a very sophisticated observation. 

=D> 

But I feel myself slipping into the sharpening rabbit hole, which is no place for a simple furniture maker!


----------



## nabs (30 Jul 2017)

custard":13ukj8dd said:


> I power grind bench plane irons very frequently in order to speed up the hand honing process.



I suppose that any time saved will be noticed more by people who prefer to just use stones, but I wonder if it would really be a noticeable improvement in day-to-day sharpening given it does not take long with a thin iron in any case. Perhaps if you were grinding out a nick then the time saved would be more apparent, but you'd imagine that most professionals would resort to a power grinder in those circumstances, even if they chose not to use them for regular sharpening.

That's why I say that the fact laminated thin irons continued for a while may be more to do with tradition than tangible benefits.

The only other explanation I can think of is that there was something in the manufacturing process that made it easier to use a harder/less wear resistant steel bit and weld it on than using the same steel for the whole blade (e.g if the latter was more prone to quality issues like cracking or deforming when being heat treated?). 

If this was correct then it might mean this was the cheaper way to make long lasting blades, despite the extra step in manufacturing (I am assuming - but do not know for sure - that the difference in raw material costs are not significant for these thin irons), and it might also explain DW's observation about hardness,

I have no idea, but it may have been what Stanley were getting at in the first couple of points in their advert for laminated irons


----------



## swb58 (31 Jul 2017)

Seeing as this post is about laminated and non laminated, can I make an observation as regards the two.

My small collection of planes all have laminated irons and I was going to use a fairly worn laminated iron in a #5 that I'm making from parts and giving to my daughter in law. Sadly that iron was more worn than I thought and was useless so I replaced that with a round topped iron that I acquired recently. 

It's been an eye opener, the plane works brilliantly. The smoothest finish I've achieved which can undoubtedly be put down to sharpness. I used my usual sharpening regime on it and I seem to have arrived at a much sharper edge for a similar amount of effort. In all honesty I will say that I rarely get a laminated iron sparkling sharp so this has prompted me to look at my system more closely.


----------



## D_W (31 Jul 2017)

To be clear (for those of us sometimes confused about round top / square top, etc), are you saying that you have gotten a better edge with the non-laminated iron and that you rarely get an edge that good with the laminated irons?


----------



## D_W (31 Jul 2017)

custard":3hdrquy8 said:


> D_W":3hdrquy8 said:
> 
> 
> > Notice anything in regard to hardness?
> ...



I'll really speculate  I've had maybe half a dozen record irons (maybe more than that) and 50 stanley irons (maybe more than that), but I have settled into using fewer of them as time goes on. 

I'd guess that the record laminated irons are like 57-58 hardness, maybe. Maybe a touch softer than that here and there, but they seem very consistent - very. The stanley laminated irons feel more 60-ish, and the stanley pre-war non-laminated irons are just between the two (the gap really isn't that large), perhaps they are closer to the record, but the gap is so small that it's hard to tell. 

I only have a pretty good feel for hardness because a friend had access to a versitron at one point and we had all kinds of things tested - not by him, but by the machine room tech who was responsible for using it. I understand that "A random guy walking up to a versitron" and using it is not a recipe for reliable results.

I also learned enough from that to be able to get a good idea about hardness based on the way the washita cuts. If it's pretty much out of gas, 62+. If it cuts really easily, well below 60. If it leaves a good edge and is sort of middling between cut and polish, 59-60.

Surprisingly, below 60, hardness matters a little more than alloy for cut speed (I haven't tried anything totally ridiculous on it, like S30V or M4, but I don't have those in anything below 60, anyway).


----------



## D_W (31 Jul 2017)

nabs":3rq3g7hl said:


> custard":3rq3g7hl said:
> 
> 
> > I power grind bench plane irons very frequently in order to speed up the hand honing process.
> ...



I wonder if the laminated irons might behave better in heat treating. I have no clue, of course. I've never hardened anything other than unidentified mystery steel and O1 stock (thin old mystery steel seems to harden fine using the O1 protocols- including the oil - as long as it seems to have enough carbon to be more than medium carbon steel). 

A great deal of Record's sticking to tradition may have been because it worked. 

In the US at the time stanley planes were made, the entire population was obsessed with modernity and tradition was a lot less important here than there. My grandfather grew up in the transition between hand tools and horses/mules (he was a farmer) and power tools and tractors. Some farmers loved their horses and remembered them fondly, but he didn't. Two of his mules were "sitters", they walked the rows and sat down at the ends and you had to get them up every pass - persuasive speech, cajoling, whatever. You couldn't convince him there was anything good about tradition and slowing change. Most people here were that way, and most still are. They did value thrift as a tradition, I guess, but that's about it.


----------



## swb58 (31 Jul 2017)

D_W":34epexmc said:


> To be clear (for those of us sometimes confused about round top / square top, etc), are you saying that you have gotten a better edge with the non-laminated iron and that you rarely get an edge that good with the laminated irons?


In a word, yes. I've only recently found this, but it appears to me that a non-laminated blade is easier to sharpen. I am sure that extra effort is needed to sharpen a laminated iron but presumably edge retention will be improved.


----------



## essexalan (31 Jul 2017)

I have a few of these laminated Record blades and they are definitely better than the more modern blades. Sharpen up nicely and hold an edge well, only thing is they chip slightly which may clear with a few more sharpening cycles but seems to indicate they are possibly RC60 or higher, they also feel more chunky. Good site here showing Record blades and other stuff http://www.recordhandplanes.com/dating.html. Reckon woodworkers were dead keen on the old laminated steel blades from wooden and infill planes back in the 30's hence Record jumping aboard. If they had access to Swedish iron ore why not make them in HCS instead of messing with other alloys?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (31 Jul 2017)

One interesting comment from that site, and deviating from the OP (probably starting a war again ... although I agree with him) -

"As you will see I don't use the name Tote for the plane handle and not sure where Tote came from as I have looked in many Stanley catalogues and Record catalogues with no mention of any handle called a Tote. I also collect hardware and tool catalogues which number about 600 and no mention of Tote either. If anyone out there can let me know where Tote came from please let me know, I would love to know.
The dictionary definition of Tote is "to carry by hand" or "to make a practice of carrying". (Origin unknown)"

Other than UKW I have never heard it (used for this purpose) anywhere else.


----------



## D_W (31 Jul 2017)

George Wilson said the same thing to me about saw handles, that he'd never heard them called totes until he started reading the internet.


----------



## nabs (1 Aug 2017)

the term does turn up in old books, but apparently fell out of use in the UK. 

I (wrongly) assumed it was an 'Americanism' but as is often the case with uncommon words/spellings for the UK that are used in the US, it just looks like the term endured longer there than it did here.

Somewhere on this site is a fairly conclusive list of quotes from woodworking books of the past showing it was in common use once (AndyT?)

(edit - this comment is re. plane handles - not sure about saws!)


----------



## AndyT (1 Aug 2017)

nabs":2oje1rf5 said:


> the term does turn up in old books, but apparently fell out of use in the UK.
> 
> I (wrongly) assumed it was an 'Americanism' but as is often the case with uncommon words/spellings for the UK that are used in the US, it just looks like the term endured longer there than it did here.
> 
> ...



- You've a good memory nabs - it was here, over five years ago. Naturally, a discussion about the use and origin of words was in a thread about how to clean up an old plane!

cleaning-old-planes-t66480.html

It's hardly surprising that a specialist term, probably used more often in print than in speech, can stick out in an online discussion - a forum like this brings people together from different countries and age groups, who would otherwise never have met. (I expect that if we did meet, we would discover all sorts of other cultural differences - but when we meet to discuss woodworking, they don't matter.)


----------



## JohnPW (1 Aug 2017)

Back on topic :mrgreen: 

I had a look at a couple of irons, the line is quite faint and it's soft and fuzzy, I have thought it would be more distinct.


----------



## bugbear (1 Aug 2017)

JohnPW":3pzfyszw said:


> Back on topic :mrgreen:
> 
> I had a look at a couple of irons, the line is quite faint and it's soft and fuzzy, I have thought it would be more distinct.


Did you follow custards grinding tip? On a single bevel, fully polished iron, the line is undectable.

BugBear


----------



## D_W (1 Aug 2017)

bugbear":jtxa5vl8 said:


> JohnPW":jtxa5vl8 said:
> 
> 
> > Back on topic :mrgreen:
> ...



use of any natural stone will make the line appear quite quickly. Slate, arkansas, japanese, etc - even a cheap fine sandstone.


----------



## custard (1 Aug 2017)

bugbear":31ni6lji said:


> JohnPW":31ni6lji said:
> 
> 
> > Back on topic :mrgreen:
> ...



I think the key thing is that the entire bevel is in one plane, if there's a combination of a ground angle and a honed angle it becomes tricky to pick out the lamination line. I chose grinding because that's much easier than honing!


----------



## D_W (1 Aug 2017)

You guys have gun blue over there, or some kind of weak etch? Gun blue finds a lamination pretty quickly. 

But the natural abrasive is the way to go, if you have some fine sand, etc - all of those things around the hardness of hardened steel will cut the steel slowly and the backing metal quickly, leaving a different look right away.


----------



## custard (1 Aug 2017)

Here's one of the downsides of laminated irons. 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-Stanl ... SwRH9ZcG4H

I'd bet a pound to a penny that the iron in this Ebay listing is laminated. If you go to the very last photo and zoom in you can see the surface is cracked or crazed. I've seen that a few times, it's something to beware of.

Another problem can be that they're tricky to flatten off, not impossible, just more work than later irons. I've got a couple where the cap iron doesn't seat as well as I'd like, so at some settings you can get shavings wedging between the iron and cap iron. With a bit more effort I could probably get them fixed, but I'm not short of irons and life's brief enough without that on the to do list!

A final issue is that laminated irons are pretty _old_, so finding examples with more than an inch of useful life left isn't all that easy.

With laminated irons it seems to be a case of when they're good they're very good; but when they're bad they're awful!

I had a look today at a pair of Bailey planes that I like and use regularly, a 4 1/2 Record and an 06 Sorby. Interestingly they both had laminated irons, I'd not realised it before but maybe I am favouring these irons.







I don't know how old this iron is, but it still looks like it's fresh from the wrapper. And as a practical, user, smoothing plane I'm not sure what else anyone could possibly want?






The I Sorby 06 is interesting, the iron is stamped I Sorby and it has the sharp angular top that's the chief characteristic of all the laminated irons I've seen,






I guess the iron is original to the plane, there's no doubt it's laminated, but as working planes I'm not grinding off the camber on these. There's a bit more surface corrosion, but judging by the amount of iron that's left it wasn't used all that much (or maybe the original owner swapped irons around?). I don't know if this plane was manufactured by Sorby or if it's a badged Record? Furthermore, I don't know if these irons were even made by the plane manufacturer, or were subbed out to a third party?






As with the Record, the results are pretty much everything you could want from a tool. Maybe a Lie Nielsen with an A2 iron would hold up better on highly abrasive timbers, I don't know because I've never tried them out side by side, but for most users that's a non issue as who works Teak and Rosewood these days? In any temperate zone hardwood it delivers exactly the shaving I'm looking for, and I'm not conscious of having to hone it any more (or less) frequently than a modern LN or Veritas iron.


----------



## D_W (1 Aug 2017)

That iron in the auction has past corrosion damage that someone cleaned. A shame. I can't imagine it would've gotten out of the factory that way.


----------



## D_W (1 Aug 2017)

custard":2etzx7bc said:


> As with the Record, the results are pretty much everything you could want from a tool. Maybe a Lie Nielsen with an A2 iron would hold up better on highly abrasive timbers, I don't know because I've never tried them out side by side, but for most users that's a non issue as who works Teak and Rosewood these days? In any temperate zone hardwood it delivers exactly the shaving I'm looking for, and I'm not conscious of having to hone it any more (or less) frequently than a modern LN or Veritas iron.



to the extent that a LN iron would keep you from learning to use the cap iron to take a bigger bite without tearout, it would be a detriment. For a while, I had no LN planes. With the recent splurge, I do have a bronze #4 (I just wanted to see if I could make a plane, as an amateur) that could match it in use. 

Going to softer irons taught me more about doing work faster than anything. they'll never win a contest where you tie a plane behind a car and drag it for the fastest and longest continuous 1 thousandth thick shaving, but they work awfully well for everything, including teaching you to have your surface near perfection before you take your final thin smoothing strokes. 

I think the sorby planes are knockouts, but I've only got one, and I had to pay semi-dearly to get it (about 200 pounds for a #7). It's a pearl. And as nutty as I am about flattening things, it met any current manufacturer's flatness spec as it arrived without any sole treatment or evident of it in the past. Not saying they're all like that, but it provided some relief after spending the big bucks that nobody over here would probably ever give me back if I decided to sell it.

(I've been working rosewood blanks lately, and they have not been a problem with stock irons - or one I made out of O1 that is comparable to a prewar stanley laminated iron in hardness)


----------



## custard (15 Oct 2017)

Here's a photo that shows the cracking or crazing on a laminated Record Iron,






Here's another Record iron, it has the sharply angled top design and the "crucible steel" message that I associate with laminated irons. It's definitely laminated, you can see the lamination line in the ground edge. What's surprising is that it carries the War Office logo and what looks like the date 1951 (although I guess this could also be a serial number of some sort?). I thought lamination was all done by 1939, maybe this was old stock that was stamped at a later date? Or maybe the War Office specced laminated irons? All guess work though, I don't really know.


----------



## nabs (15 Oct 2017)

I would guess it is a date - I have a startett rule that was also marked with a broad arrow and a year (1971) and I know it is the year because it came with a receipt from 1971! I wonder if it was a MOD requirement to have the date stamped?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Oct 2017)

I wonder whether stuff was stamped when it became surplus? My b.i.l. bought this before he left this Country in 1987 from a retired dock worker (Devonport).


----------



## nabs (15 Oct 2017)

hmm that is a good point - I just assumed the mark on mine was put on by the manufacturer, but my only reason for thinking this is it is very neat and aligned exactly (as is the stamp on your BIL's plane, mind you) - not exactly proof now I think of it!


----------



## custard (19 Oct 2017)

I followed up on the previous suggestion of taking a laminated Bailey style iron to a single bevel rather than the grinding/honing double bevel that I normally use.

Working this way laminated Bailey irons deliver a noticeable time saving in sharpening compared to later non-laminated Bailey irons, it takes the same time and the same number of strokes to bring an entire laminated single bevel to a polish as it does to polish a sliver of the edge with a double bevel regime. It's like the backing steel just isn't there.

If I _only_ used laminated Bailey irons I'd probably go this route, however I use lots of different irons and I prefer a consistent approach as I generally gang sharpen half a dozen plane irons at the same time, plus there's a linisher permanently set to 25 degrees just two paces from my bench so in my circumstances it's no hardship to keep grinding down the bevel to within one mill of the edge. However, if I was a site craftsman working with just an oil stone I think I'd have noticed the additional sharpening burden that came when laminated Bailey irons switched to non-laminated. I'm surprised that wasn't noted somewhere in the historical record?

Incidentally, this is the single polished bevel of a Record laminated iron,






The lamination line is no longer visible (I sharpen on diamond stones and finish on the pink and yellow "scary sharp" papers, I forget what grit they are). If I was to grind this edge the lamination line would magically re-appear. I've no idea why that is the case.


----------



## nabs (19 Oct 2017)

it is odd that the change from laminated to solid steel seems to have gone largely unremarked upon - the only written statement from any modern manufacturer that has turned up is Stanley's slightly apologetic advert for laminated irons in the 30s which seems designed largely to anticipate the grumbles of uneducated users who might mistake the improved sharpening times for a sign the quality of the steel had got worse.

Perhaps by the time laminated irons were dropped by Record and Stanley in the 1950s there were just so few trademen who cared/noticed compared to the new audience of DIYers that their voices were no longer heard.


----------



## custard (20 Oct 2017)

Same laminated Record iron as before, edge ground, lamination line now clear.


----------



## bugbear (20 Oct 2017)

custard":3h946ycg said:


> Same laminated Record iron as before, edge ground, lamination line now clear.


I think virtually any steel, regardless of hardness, will give a mirror finish with a fine enough grit. So at high grit, both laminations have the same finish, and you can't see a line.

But at coarser grits. the different response of the different steels give a different finish, resulting in a visible line.

<pedant>There is no "line", it's just a boundary.</pedant>

BugBear


----------



## D_W (20 Oct 2017)

custard":3pkcrxxw said:


> I followed up on the previous suggestion of taking a laminated Bailey style iron to a single bevel rather than the grinding/honing double bevel that I normally use.
> 
> Working this way laminated Bailey irons deliver a noticeable time saving in sharpening compared to later non-laminated Bailey irons, it takes the same time and the same number of strokes to bring an entire laminated single bevel to a polish as it does to polish a sliver of the edge with a double bevel regime. It's like the backing steel just isn't there.
> 
> ...



When you're grinding, the particles cut deeper on the soft steel and it behaves differently (the structure of the grooves, how much it deforms when cut, etc), and the line also seems to take some abuse. When you're honing with synthetic abrasives, the grooves become relatively uniform and the polish is uniform and no damage is done at the line, so you don't see it. 

If you switch back to a few strokes across the bevel with something like a slurried slate, the abrasive will regain the disparity since it's about the same hardness as the steel but cuts the soft steel quickly and can't polish it. 

That's pretty much it. Same thing applies when sharpening something like a soft pocket knife - the disparity between the larger particle natural stones and the small particle synthetics will show up as the natural stones will be able to cut the softer steel better than they would on a harder knife.


----------



## custard (20 Oct 2017)

I've dug out a few more laminated irons, with a view to getting them fit for work. I'd rejected them all for one reason or another; but they're excellent quality, seventy year old tools, so it's a pity not to get them working again.

Several of these laminated iron had what's probably the most common problem you'll encounter, a pronounced belly on the non bevel face. You can see it here, a few passes on a stone show the abrasive is only hitting in the centre of the iron. If you try using that iron as is you risk getting shavings jammed under the cap iron,






Some people gently hammer the corners of the cap iron to get a tight fit, but that's not such a good solution if you have a Record Stay-Set cap iron or if you swap around several irons in the same plane. You can always flatten off the back of the iron, but that can be a really long arduous job, and for an iron that costs a couple of quid it's not how I want to spend my time. There's always "the ruler trick", but personally I'm moving away from that as I don't want a mix of irons, some that need a ruler to sharpen and some that don't. 

A good whack with a nylon faced hammer right on the high point of the belly will often fix the problem, turning a convex back into a fractionally concave surface that's perfect for stoning flat. But I've hesitated to do that with laminated irons up to now because of the risk of cracking the hard steel. However, that's probably a mistake, they either get sorted or they're just ballast. So I decided to try the kill or cure remedy of the nylon hammer...






I did three and they all turned out fine, no sign of cracking. That's no guarantee that a fourth wouldn't have split, but faced with the problem again I wouldn't hesitate to give it a whack.


----------



## D_W (20 Oct 2017)

I think the laminated irons are more likely to survive the hammer than the non-laminated irons.

It's relatively easy to build a run of glass that will allow you to work those flat without hammering if you'd like, but it's not necessary, of course. Total time for the worst of irons (and they'd be in-plane flat for a 1000 grit-ish stone) is just a few minutes until you get into the weirdo exotic steels that don't like to be sharpened by anything.


----------



## custard (20 Oct 2017)

Another thing I'm finding with laminated Bailey irons is a fair degree of corrosion. Based on a sample size of less than twenty irons it's difficult to be conclusive, plus of course the laminated Bailey irons are older than the non-laminated examples, but I suspect they're more corrosion prone. It would be interested to hear from someone like Music Man if there's any justification for that or if it's just random sample variance?

Anyhow, I had a couple of laminated irons which were deeply pitted. IMO pits on the cutting edge renders an iron useless, so they're for the bin. But there was one which might be salvageable, this is the bevel side showing the lamination line, not too badly corroded on that side (not that corrosion on the bevel side matters in the least),






But the other side wasn't too good. It was flat enough (see the scratch pattern from a some quick check strokes on a stone) but if you drag a fingernail across you feel it's a bit more than corrosion, borderline pitting was my verdict. The other thing about this iron is that the previous owner has tried to get through to good steel with an over enthusiastic, ruler trick type back bevel.






I couldn't see a cap iron ever setting properly against that humungous back bevel so I ground it off,






When I'm preparing for a lengthy flattening job I generally use double sided tape to stick a wooden block on the bevel side. It just gives you something to grip and spares your fingers a bit.






I then set up a metre long run of good quality 120 grit abrasive. You can tape this to your planer beds, but I always get concerned that abrasive dust will contaminate my machine, so I set up this type of arrangement on the sliding table of the table saw. *Oops, messed up the photos see the last photo for the set-up*






I work the iron the full metre length, averaging about fifty back and forth strokes every minute. So one minute of work equals 100 metres along the sanding belt. After three minutes, or 300 metres, this is what it looked like.






I was disappointed in this result, the pitting was deeper than I'd expected. There's a long way to go yet!


----------



## custard (20 Oct 2017)

After six minutes, or 600 metres of sharpening things were looking better,







But bitter experience from having done this many times warns not to count your chickens. It might look better, but I bet I'm not even half way through yet.

After twelve minutes, or 1200 metres, there's clearly light at the end of the tunnel, just one pit remains,






It would be viable to stop now and then grind this last pit off when I reach it in the course of normal sharpening. However, I decided to plug on...and on...and on.

It actually took nineteen minutes, that's 1900 metres or over a mile of sharpening before all the pitting was removed.






It's worth remembering that this is a fairly optimum set up, a coarse 120 grit paper, a long run of abrasive that's stretched tight, even the little handle to help take the strain. Now think about some enthusiastic but inexperienced hobbyist trying to do this on an eight inch long 1000 grit stone, and kidding himself he can move onto an 8000 grit stone "for the last few strokes" when he's actually less than half way through. The poor guy would be there all day, and his fingers would be frozen solid. Actually that's not true, a pound to a penny he'd have packed it in as a bad job and stomped out of his shed in a black mood! The message is, if you're going to sand out even light pitting then don't underestimate the scale of the challenge, and set yourself up for success with the right set up.

Anyhow, with all the pitting removed, then and only then is it time to polish up the face. And this is what it then looks like,


----------



## swb58 (20 Oct 2017)

"I was disappointed in this result, the pitting was deeper than I'd expected. There's a long way to go yet!"

I feel your pain! My experience is limited but I've often seen how the cap iron causes an extra line of corrosion like yours.
So how will you proceed? Keep at it until all the pits are gone or stop when the iron reaches a 'minimum' thickness and then do the ruler trick if necessary?

Edit. Oops, seem to have missed your last post.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 Oct 2017)

I have a 10" disc of 18mm MDF with 100 grit stuck to it on my lathe. A minute on that and they're done.


----------



## custard (20 Oct 2017)

So having put in all that work in preparing this particular laminated Record iron, how good is it?

There's not much point in showing performance on the edge of a 3/4" pine board, that's not much of a challenge. So I dug out some old growth Indian Rosewood from the far north in the foothills of the Himalayas. This is the really good stuff; hard, dense, abrasive, and stunningly beautiful with rich purple tones. It's a world removed from the blander East Indian Sonokeling Rosewood that you get today. Timber like this would have been amongst the most testing material for a cabinet maker working anytime from the invention of the Bailey plane up until the 1970's or 80's when it finally became unobtainable. Sure, you can find harder woods, or more highly figured woods, but stuff like this would have represented the practical upper limit for a cabinet maker, if a plane can handle this then it's worth serious consideration.

The Record plane, using the laminated iron from the previous post, produced beautiful full width shavings and left the Rosewood silky smooth.






Then I tried the same plane with a later, non laminated Record iron,






Absolutely no discernible difference!

What about a Lie Nielsen with super thick A2 steel?






Very nice, but no improvement over the Record that I can detect.

So what about a Holtey infill, the Rolls Royce of planes. Surely that would deliver a better result?






No it doesn't, exactly the same sort of shavings and same surface finish as the other planes.

And that has been my consistent finding over many years of furniture making. A well prepared Bailey plane with the standard iron is all you need for almost all furniture making purposes. The problem for many users though is that a Bailey plane, used or new, is unlikely to work straight out of the box, and it's not just the graft of sole flattening and de-pitting the iron, subtleties like forming the optimum camber actually require a fair bit of experience and practise before you get it right. 

I guess the other relevant question is will a laminated Bailey iron hold an edge longer? 

Personally I think edge retention is over stated as a benefit. I frequently find myself sharpening tools before I have to, I might want a break, or I might want to prepare myself mentally for a difficult procedure, or I might feel a camber needs adjusting, in all these cases a sharpening break is the ideal thing. 

Furthermore, there's no alarm that sounds when an iron needs sharpening, it's hugely subjective. So I find it virtually impossible to objectively assess the longevity of different irons. Very _subjectively_ I think these laminated irons last about 10% or so longer than later Bailey irons, and equally subjectively I think A2 steel irons last up to twice as long as current Bailey irons, especially in abrasive timbers. But I wouldn't die in a ditch over any of those conclusions. Also it's instructive that when I've worked in shared workshops it's always the case that some craftsmen sharpen their tools much more frequently than others, even though they're involved in similar projects and using similar tools. After a while I guess you just get used to a certain sharpening frequency and tend to stick with it. 

For the hobbyist it's even more difficult, they'll probably be using their tools relatively infrequently so they may well forget when they last sharpened. They may confuse a poor plane setting with a lack of sharpness. They're unlikely to have the experience to think "hang on, it's taking a bit too much effort to push this plane through this particular timber at this particular shaving thickness".

But what I can say with conviction is that Bailey irons, in all but the most extreme abrasive timbers, will deliver sufficient edge retention to make them practical, furniture making tools.

Incidentally, I'm not trying to talk people out of Lie Nielsen, Veritas or infill planes, they work straight out of the box, and they usually feel better in the hand and operate more smoothly with less stiffness or backlash. But do they _perform_ better? If you've got the skill and determination to properly prepare a Bailey plane then I'm not convinced that they do. But hey, it's your time and your money, so everyone's free to make their own choices!


----------



## bugbear (20 Oct 2017)

custard":1fbyu3fu said:


> I couldn't see a cap iron ever setting properly against that humungous back bevel so I ground it off,


Pitting like that, _in a straight line_, is normally the result of moisture and/or shavings being trapped under the capiron for a few years (on a shelf, in a shed). I just grind the length back, I don't flatten, in that instance.

BugBear

(and, yes, someone had the cap iron too far back)


----------



## MusicMan (20 Oct 2017)

custard":3nryob6m said:


> Another thing I'm finding with laminated Bailey irons is a fair degree of corrosion. Based on a sample size of less than twenty irons it's difficult to be conclusive, plus of course the laminated Bailey irons are older than the non-laminated examples, but I suspect they're more corrosion prone. It would be interested to hear from someone like Music Man if there's any justification for that or if it's just random sample variance?




Yes you have a point there, Custard. Corrosion occurs when two dissimilar metals in contact are also in contact with a conductive water medium; dirty water will do (and also for similar metals when the water has different concentrations of conductive stuff such as dissolved oxygen). The laminated part is alloyed, which makes it electrically a little bit different from the relatively pure iron of the backing. Unlikely to affect normal tool life in a workshop, but when stored for decades in a damp shed it could indeed lead to corrosion. This will tend to concentrate, as BB pointed out, along the line of the join.

There will be randomness due to the storage conditions.

Keith


----------



## richarddownunder (21 Oct 2017)

custard":100s620c said:


> So what about a Holtey infill, the Rolls Royce of planes. Surely that would deliver a better result?



You USE a Holtey :shock: =P~

Interesting thread by the way!

Cheers
Richard


----------



## nabs (21 Oct 2017)

thanks Custard , that is a very clear demonstration of the kind of issues that are typical with used bailey irons and require you to do _something_ to fix them (whacking with a hammer, grinding, flattening with abrasives etc )

also a salutary reminder about what an buttocks-ache it is to flatten them (the only way to make it tolerable IMO is to use a long strip of sandpaper as you have shown)

I am begining to wonder if _all_ the square topped Records are laminated (I am not at home buy will check mine when I get back later today). Were any of yours solid steel?


----------



## custard (21 Oct 2017)

nabs":lyamlwh9 said:


> I am begining to wonder if _all_ the square topped Records are laminated. Were any of yours solid steel?



I've only got a few dozen Bailey plane irons, so it's not a huge sample size. Part of the reason I started this thread was to widen the sample size amongst other users to see if a more significant pattern emerged. That's why I showed the "full grind" method of identifying the lamination line, and BB and DW then stepped in with other methods. But as I've previously said, these are the data points that emerge from my limited sample,

-All angular topped irons are laminated. This applies not just to Record but also to irons stamped Marples, Sorby, English Stanley and American Stanley.

-No round topped irons, no matter what the brand name, are laminated

It was this that led to the conjecture that all the laminated irons came from the same third party factory? Possibly that supply ceased during WW2, or possibly it ceased in the early 50's? The early 50's date would be consistent with the evidence in Record's "Planecraft" book (my 1950 edition features laminated irons), the dating claims of David Lynch (http://www.recordhandplanes.com/dating.html), and the single example I previously showed of a Record iron carrying a War Department stamp with a 1951 date. It would be interesting if any more knowledgeable forum members know anything about the dating sequence of other brands, in particular English Stanley and American Stanley?

I was concerned that as soon as a point of difference in tool manufacture emerges it gets seized upon and all sorts of performance advantages get attributed to it. I've tried to emphasise that, from a working cabinet maker's perspective, laminated versus non-laminated isn't a huge deal. Maybe some small sharpening advantages and some small corrosion disadvantages for laminated, but they're all pretty good irons that get the job done provided you properly prepare the iron and plane.


----------



## nabs (21 Oct 2017)

I agree that it looks increasingly likely the laminated irons are from one supplier - having a single supplier cease trading or stop making would be a good explanation for what looks like a backwards step from an end users perspective - i wonder if the rounded tops all came in at the same time?
The only oddity is Records boasting of their special recipe tungsten steel, but I suppose this is not incompatible with a single supplier...


----------



## CStanford (21 Oct 2017)

I have a laminated Stanley iron that came my way more or less by chance. The steel might be a little harder depending on the period of steel one compares it to. It is by no means revelatory. Like all hard(er) steels the extra time the edge "lasts" seems to be about equal to the extra time it takes to hone it - some sort of immutable law of materials science in play I suppose. 

Assuming the same quality of steel is available in the solid (and it is), I'd much rather have it than laminated, and who wouldn't, other than those married to a rigid tradition and/or have a need to beat it with a hammer.


----------



## bugbear (21 Oct 2017)

CStanford":3hjt0t3z said:


> I have a laminated Stanley iron that came my way more or less by chance. The steel might be a little harder depending on the period of steel one compares it to. It is by no means revelatory. Like all hard(er) steels the extra time the edge "lasts" seems to be about equal to the extra time it takes to hone it - some sort of immutable law of materials science in play I suppose.
> 
> Assuming the same quality of steel is available in the solid (and it is), I'd much rather have it than laminated, and who wouldn't, other than those married to a rigid tradition and/or have a need to beat it with a hammer.


As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, in a laminated blade, the hard steel is very thin, hence quicker to sharpen that an all-hard blade.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (21 Oct 2017)

Oh what a bunch of hooey. The time savings between honing a regular, solid Stanley iron and one that is laminated is entirely immaterial, even at the same Rc value. Anybody tweaking to this level of of time 'savings' must have (or have had) one hell of a bit of production -- a lot of work of very high quality, that or be entirely delusional.


----------



## bugbear (21 Oct 2017)

CStanford":1fsa2nza said:


> Oh what a bunch of hooey. The time savings between honing a regular, solid Stanley iron and one that is laminated is entirely immaterial, even at the same Rc value. Anybody down to tweaking to a level of this kind of time 'savings' must have (or have had) one hell of a bit of production -- a lot of work of very high quality.


You were the one who complained about "extra time it takes to hone" harder steel. Now you're saying it doesn't matter. Make your mind up.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (21 Oct 2017)

The point behind the post is that harder steels are a net zero in time savings. Laminated steel does not change this equation. How could it? You're lifting and honing the tip anyway. The fact that the hard steel is laminated to something softer never comes into play. It's down to the difference in hardness of the steel, and the net savings in time is zero (or charitably unmeasurable in the real world) no matter if it's solid or laminated.


----------



## nabs (21 Oct 2017)

as far as I know only one person on this thread has bothered to compare the times to hand-grind laminated irons compared to solid steel - the results were posted earlier on.


----------



## custard (21 Oct 2017)

CStanford":2prjljtj said:


> The point behind the post is that harder steels are a net zero in time savings. Laminated steel does not change this equation. How could it? You're lifting and honing the tip anyway. The fact that the hard steel is laminated to something softer never comes into play. It's down to the difference in hardness of the steel, and the net savings in time is zero (or charitably unmeasurable in the real world) no matter if it's solid or laminated.



If you're talking about an old time workman doing his sharpening on a stone, or possibly with a workshop hand cranked wheel, then I disagree. The benefit of a laminated iron for the hand worker is there's only a thin sliver of hard steel to be worked.

Here's a more dramatic example, an infill with the original thick, laminated Norris iron. Plus a Holtey special, an identical replacement iron in solid A2 steel. The laminated layer in the Norris iron is about the same thickness as the laminated layer in a Record or Stanley, but the backing steel is a very different story.






The original Norris iron can be maintained by hand, even if the iron took a knick you could remove the knick by hand, it'd take fifteen or twenty minutes but it's perfectly do-able. However, without a power grinder I don't think the Holtey solid A2 replacement iron is a viable tool. Day to day sharpening would soon become impractically arduous as you worked back from the original ground tip, and if you ever put a knick in the edge you'd be looking at hours of hand work to remove it.


----------



## woodbrains (21 Oct 2017)

Hello,

Inspired by this thread, I decided to dig out my laminated Record irons that were put aside to renovate one day, but which never came. Until today.

I had two 2 3/8" ones in use already, must have been in good condition when I got them, so required minimal fettling at the time. I have two 2" ones and two more 2 3/8" ones in my spares box to fettle. I chose a 2 3/8" one to bring back to life today. It was completely red with old rust on both sides, as was the cap iron. It wasn't too badly pitted, once I had abraded the rust off. I put a combo square across it to see if it had a belly as Custard remarked was common. It was actually concave across the width. The two I had in service were dead flat, though I can't remember how much work I put in to polish the backs to get those flat. I decided to hammer out as much of the hollow as I could, before I flattened it on 120 grit. I can honestly say it was harder going than flattening the backs of 'regular' non lam irons. The abrasive just doesn't 'bite' as well, the harder steel seems to skate over the abrasive. I wouldn't want to remove too much of a belly or concavity on abrasive, for sure. Once I got a uniform scratch pattern (nearly) from the paper, it didn't take too long to get the surface matte on a 1200 Waterstone and a good polish on an 8000. I must admit , I left a little island of less optimally polished steel, as I ran out of 120 grit paper before I got it uniform, but the area is back from the cutting edge, and I'll catch this up during the usual deburring after future honing. The bevel was a bit wonky from the previous owner, so I ground it all back on a Tormek at 30 degrees. Then I honed it to a single flat bevel at 30, which I will continue to do, no secondary bevels to see how quick they are to sharpen with stones alone and no grinding again, unless I accidentally have a chip. It remains to be seen how quick honing will be in future, but it went from the hollow grind to a flat single bevel pretty quickly on its initial commissioning. I should think keeping them sharp on two waterstones in future should be painless. 

The abrasion resistance of the harder steel, as evidenced in the back flattening session, absolutely must equate to longer edge retention. How can it not? How long extra remains to be seen, but logically, if it takes a couple of extra strokes on a stone to get it sharp, say 20-30% extra work and this equates to 20-30% extra planing time, then I can't see the downside. 

I'll do the two 2" ones another day, and it turns out the other 2 3/8" one is a Stanley, so perhaps I can do a limited comparison. In short, though, they are worth doing if they are flattish to begin with.

Mike.


----------



## nabs (21 Oct 2017)

in the spirit of scientific investigation I have just finished testing my plane irons. My first 'discovery' is I have too many planes  but this does allow for a reasonable sized sample to add to Custard's.

Any old iron(s):






I tried the 'etch' approach first, but it was hard to see the line where the bevel was very polished. The tip about using a file is excellent, though, and you can immediately hear the difference when drawing the file along the edge of the bevel side vs the face. Of course if you do a few strokes you can see the evidence also as the bevel side really does file easily on the laminated irons.

filing evidence (bottom corner of bevel):





All of my 9 (!) record irons are laminated. I only have three non-Records and they were all solid steel. Interestingly the WS iron (which came in an old beaten up no 4) is _exactly_ the same profile as the Record equivalent, although I am not sure what that proves! No idea where the stanley came from but it is not laminated - does the weird logo give a clue to when it was made?

stanley (solid steel)





MF (solid steel)





WS (solid steel)


----------



## custard (21 Oct 2017)

I was hoping someone would have a WS iron, I've got a later Woden iron but Woden didn't take over WS until the mid 1950's, so you wouldn't expect them to be laminated. WS seemed to very much plough their own furrow and this iron seems to re-inforce that.


----------



## nabs (21 Oct 2017)

according to this site:
https://virginiatoolworks.com/2015/02/1 ... rk-stamps/

the stanley iron is from 1912-1918 - adding a little more credence to the claim they started using laminated irons in the 1920s...


----------



## nabs (21 Oct 2017)

and this website about WS tool contains an information leaflet that confirms the irons are crucible cast steel (although no explicit statement they are solid steel)
http://www.wstoolsbirmingham.com/histor ... irmingham/


----------



## custard (21 Oct 2017)

nabs":21ge865b said:


> the stanley iron is from 1912-1918 - adding a little more credence to the claim they started using laminated irons in the 1920s...



That would fit. I've only got two laminated American Stanley's, but they've both got the 1920's Sweetheart logo.


----------



## nabs (21 Oct 2017)

out of curiosity has anyone got a Record iron with a rounded top that is also stamped 'best crucible cast' (as opposed the more recent 'tungsten vanadium steel')? If so , is it laminated?


----------



## woodbrains (21 Oct 2017)

Hello,

Is it from a number 03? I think my 03 does, but I'll have to check another day, I'm not near my workshop. 

Mike.


----------



## richarddownunder (21 Oct 2017)

This is a good explanation. It makes you realise that a simple plane iron isn't so simple after all and they really did know a thing or two back then...I think I'll look at old irons with a bit more respect from now on!
http://galootopia.com/old_tools/planes/ ... dish-iron/

This is also quite good...
http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/lam ... ane-irons/

I found another reference that suggested that with a softer steel backing, the laminate could be hardened to HRC 62. 
Cheers
Richard


----------



## custard (22 Oct 2017)

I'm assuming Richard that the leaflet you linked to is a Stanley USA publication? The web site and the fact that it says "Sheffield, England" suggests that's the case,






If so it looks solid evidence that at least Stanley UK and Stanley USA were both sourcing laminated irons from the same Sheffield supplier. I guess it makes it _more_ likely that there was just one source of laminated irons for all plane manufacturers (including Record), and _less_ likely that Stanley Australia (or anywhere else in the Stanley empire) was producing their own irons.

Not conclusive though, for one thing you'd have thought that with years of tool historians pouring over the records the mystery Sheffield laminated iron manufacturer would have been identified by now?


----------



## CStanford (22 Oct 2017)

Well if they 'poured' over the records rather than pored over them, it could explain why all the records are missing. They became wet, and were ruined.

:wink:


----------



## Jacob (22 Oct 2017)

CStanford":1yw5c3av said:


> Well if they 'poured' over the records rather than pored over them, it could explain why all the records are missing. They became wet, and were ruined.
> 
> :wink:


If they pawed over them that could mess them up too.


----------



## AndyT (22 Oct 2017)

This is probably one of the thousands of questions which might be answerable by studying records in the Hawley Collection. However, the collection is looked after by a bunch of loyal volunteers and they don't have the capacity to go off pursuing questions of their own.

So if anyone reading this is in the Sheffield area and wants to do some original research, don't hold back thinking that the field has been fully explored already - it hasn't!


----------



## CStanford (22 Oct 2017)

My laminated iron is a SW era Stanley ("Sweetheart"). I have another with the same stamp and shape and came installed in a plane property 'typed' to that era and it is not laminated. If the laminated iron is harder, well it actually is harder, but it isn't by all that much based on how it hones.


----------



## nabs (22 Oct 2017)

looking more closely at the site linked earlier on, the author mentions he has two Stanley irons with the same stamp as my one (which apparently dates them to somewhere around 1912 ish to 1919). 

One of them is solid steel and the other is laminated - this could mean the laminated blades were introduced at some point in this period or (as the author of this site imagines) that Stanley were using both types - given the post above, I suppose they must have been using both types. 






http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/nov2002


----------



## memzey (22 Oct 2017)

I don’t have a round topped crucible Record iron but I do have a couple of square top ones. This one, dated with a broad arrow, is definitely laminated. 




I have a few old Stanley irons as well (similar age, older and slightly newer than the ones pictured). I’ll have a look and see what I find.


----------



## memzey (22 Oct 2017)

Done some digging. The following five are all pretty old and all but the one on the extreme right are laminated:




Here’s a close up of the non-laminated one. It’s the oldest of the lot and made in the USA:


----------



## nabs (23 Oct 2017)

if this type-study site and Stanley's adverts from the 30s are to be believed, even that last one was made in Blighty!*

http://www.timetestedtools.net/2016/01/ ... ter-dates/

* at least the steel was - it is possible that stanley still rolled, ground etc. We can be pretty confident that they did the heat treating themselves since once upon a time someone saw an account of a day-in-the-life of a Stanley 'temperer'


----------



## memzey (23 Oct 2017)

Thanks for that link Nabs. I hadn’t realised it but in my picture above we have type 2 and type 3 Sweetheart irons (2nd and 3rd from the right respectively). Seems strange to me that they would have “made in USA” on them but actually be made in England. I note it says the steel is made in England. Perhaps that steel was turned into a plane iron in the US?


----------



## nabs (23 Oct 2017)

cheshire pointed out that the ingots would most likely be small and that only modest rolling equipment would be needed so that is entirely possible.


----------



## custard (23 Oct 2017)

memzey":1bdmexsb said:


> Seems strange to me that they would have “made in USA” on them but actually be made in England. I note it says the steel is made in England. Perhaps that steel was turned into a plane iron in the US?



I guess that would have been fairly easy to justify, it might have been something as simple as edge grinding locally and arguing that represented most of the value added. After all, Nissan's factory in the north east uses less than 40% British components but they're still classed as British cars, and "Gravity" is classed as a British film despite starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.


----------

