# bendy cap irons



## nabs (5 Mar 2016)

with apologies to all those people who find the topic of plane cap irons mind numbingly boring and annoying...

I have been doing some research into the thrilling topic and was very interested in Vann's observations about the difference between Leonard Bailey's original patent and the typical implementation on the planes he owns:

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/ross-no-4-plane-t89988-30.html
I thought I would start a new thread rather than reply to the old one, which the OP started on an unrelated topic 

just to lay my cards on the table: I am a woodworking dunderhead (honestly, I am completely clueless) who is just starting out learning about the tools of the trade and in the process has become slightly obsessed with all the controversy around cap irons. I can't really explain why this was so, but I did a lot of research as a result and thought I had it all clear in my mind until I read Vann's post.

If you read the patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/US72443 
it is clear that the intention was to make the cap iron apply pressure to the blade not just near the heel and toe of the cap iron (as with the previous design that had only a single bend towards the toe) but at three places: "at the toe and auxiliary bend of the cap-iron, and along from such bend to the heel 'or upper end of the cap-iron". And as Vann says, this is clear in the image also (c.f fig 2):






however, in practice - at least in Vann's examples (and mine too) the auxiliary bend does not contact the blade at all. 

Rather than get into another discussion on what cap iron design is best, perhaps we could assume for the sake of argument that these examples are representative of 20th century bailey planes and - on the basis that Record, Stanley etc sold rather a lot of them - that the design works adequately in practice to solve the problem Bailey was trying to eliminate:
"The difficulty experienced from the construction of the cap iron with the single bend ..., is, that it allows of vibration of the cap-iron and the plane-iron while in use, such vibration being productive of what joiners term chattering, and consequent defective operation of the plane."

So to the point, does anyone have an example of the "Bailey" cap iron that _does_ make contact with the blade all the way between the auxiliary bend and the heel? Are the end of the 19th century ones different?

I am curious to know whether the patented design actually had some other disadvantage that caused it not to be widely adopted.

cheers and sorry again for those who are not looking forward to yet another cap-iron discussion.


----------



## Paul Chapman (5 Mar 2016)

I've never seen a Bailey-style plane where the cap iron functions as described in the patent you referred to. All of the Bailey-style cap irons I have and have seen make contact with the blade at only two points.

The problems with the Bailey design in my experience are as follows.

1. It uses thin blades.
2. The design of the Bailey-style, bent metal cap iron causes the thin blades to bend.
3. Frogs on most Bailey-style planes are very badly machined and the surfaces are not flat.
4. The alignment of the frogs on many Bailey-style planes is not accurate.

Some of these problems can be corrected by doing a lot of work on the planes and changing the blades and cap irons. However, a better option in my view is to buy a Bedrock-style plane in which the frog assembly tends to be accurately machined and to use thick blades and the Stay-set style cap iron, which was designed specifically to overcome the design faults in the Bailey-style cap iron.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Corneel (5 Mar 2016)

I would have to go out to the shed and diassemble some planes, but I go to friends in a few minutes, and I think my wife wouldn't agree.

In the mean time I must say that I am a huge fan of the original Baileys with the thin blades. They are superb. No need to exchange with ugly, thick, expensive, aftermarked stuff. The originals often do need quite a bit of work, but you only need to do that once. After that they shine in easy of sharpening and great planing performance.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Mar 2016)

Hello nabs, and welcome to the forum!

There was a (rather rambling) discussion about this some months ago - bailey-style-planes-thin-irons-and-cap-irons-t92531.html


----------



## worn thumbs (5 Mar 2016)

I own seven or eight Bailey style planes and don't recognise the theoretical deficiency at all.Each and every one works well.It may help that they are actually sharp and set to remove sensible shavings.


----------



## David C (5 Mar 2016)

UK 1970's Stanley blades were rather like cheese, and not up to hardwoods.

Replacement blades were like manna from heaven!!

If I remember correctly Hock first and Japanese laminated second.

Thin C/Bs were OK once fettled but several experiments showed that a heavy c/b produced improved performance.

David Charlesworth


----------



## nabs (6 Mar 2016)

thanks all for the comments, and I did see the "thin irons" thread the other month - my conclusion is that Mr Bailey knew both the benefits of a thin iron (cheaper to make, easier to sharpen) and the downsides (increased chance of flex/vibration) and therefore invented a modified cap iron to reduce the downsides.

I defer to the more experienced amongst us regarding the relatively poor finish on many "bailey" cap irons, although I have to say on my x5 ebay planes (all pre 1960s Records) it only took a couple of minutes rubbing the toe on sandpaper to get it to mate cleanly with the blade, and only in one case did it make a noticeable difference - this was an example where the cap iron had a couple of nicks in it which (before flattening) were causing shavings to get caught clogging the plane.

It took another few minutes to polish and shape the "hump", although to my untrained eye I could not tell any difference in performance. The trouble is, I think, that all these little modifications collectively may improve performance, but when you are starting out they pale into insignificance compared to the impact of having a very sharp blade (as I realized once I finally cracked how to do that part!).

so, back to the patent - if the disadvantage of the thin cutting iron is it can flex and the auxiliary bend is supposed to reduce the chance of this happening then how is it so?

my reading of the Bailey patent is that it says the part of the plane the blade rests on that is immediately before the cutting edge acts like a fulcrum, causing the section of the blade further back to rise from the bed of the frog when the blade is pushed into the wood. It seems intuitive that the blade would tend to flex up and down over the fulcrum as the pressure on the blade varied during the stroke (chatter?)

Bailey's fix is to include a second auxiliary bend in the cap iron such that some of the pressure from the capiron screw and the lever cap is pushed immediately behind the fulcrum.

Now bear with me here, because my engineering knowledge is as limited as my woodworking skill, but it seems to me that although some degree of extra tension is applied immediately in front of and behind the fulcrum , the fact that the rest of the cap iron lies flat on the blade means the pressure is distributed over a larger area and therefore lessoned. In other words, although the newly created arch means that some of the pressure is directed to the area where it is needed most, the fact that it was reduced overall counteracts the benefit.

My related theory is that the design that was actually implemented and that we see in our planes from the 1st half of the 20th century is a compromise, attempting to get the best of both worlds: leaving a pronounced bend in the length of the cap iron means it will place the cutting iron under more tension than were it simply laid flat on top, and adding an auxiliary bend helps to direct some of the pressure nearer the fulcrum (albeit not actually right behind it) and this reduces the chance of vibration.

I have done a hyper-realistic artists impression below. 





QED!

One last point, for which some evidence was provided in the aforementioned "thin iron" discussion, a side effect of the design is that there is more pressure at the heel and the toe of the blade than elsewhere, creating a tendency for the part of the blade in between to flex away from the frog - thus giving cause for those of us, me included, to wonder why we bothered flatting the face of our frogs since it is likely for the most part it does not make contact the blade in any case, apart from at the top and the bottom.

Is any of this important in the real world? Apparently not since 100 of thousands of bailey plane users seem to have been able to make effective use of them without giving it a moments thought, but I still like to know


----------



## Vann (6 Mar 2016)

nabs":s63hnl78 said:


> ...So to the point, does anyone have an example of the "Bailey" cap iron that _does_ make contact with the blade all the way between the auxiliary bend and the heel? Are the end of the 19th century ones different?


Some early USA Stanleys (end of the 19th century/beginning of the 20th) have cap irons much closer to the patent shape. Without going out to my "shed", I can't recall if I have any that fully comply. 

Certainly, by the time Stanley began manufacturing in UK, their cap-irons no longer followed the patent. Nor did Record cap-irons (of the Bailey type).



nabs":s63hnl78 said:


> Is any of this important in the real world? Apparently not since 100 of thousands of bailey plane users seem to have been able to make effective use of them without giving it a moments thought, but I still like to know


Yebbit, there must be a similar number that have been bought and not been able to be used - witness the number of almost unused examples available through internet auction sites. Though I admit that the faulty cap-iron shape is but one of many issues with a modern Stanley/Record, that combine to stump the newbie.

Yes, planes with this shape of cap-iron can be made to work. Similarly I'm sure a plane with a mis-shaped frog can be made to work with the addition of a thicker cutting-iron. But I think that a plane with a minimum of faults will be likely to perform better when the going gets really tough. 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## nabs (6 Mar 2016)

yes that is a good point Vann - in fact all but one of my Record planes arrived from ebay in a basically unusable state. I wish now I had been a bit more scientific and tried to gauge the impact of simply sharpening the blade vs sharpening the blade and doing all the other flattening and fiddling I did, that way I would be better placed to comment on the relative benefit of each step.

Also, since the main impetus behind the bailey design seems to be to create something that is straightforward to engineer and therefore relatively low cost, I agree that the main trade-off of the design - namely passing some of the final setting up steps to the end-users - will deter some people who do not have access to teachers to tell them how, or who lack the patience to wade through all the confusing advice on t'internet in order to discover it themselves.

Having been down the later route myself I think my advice to others in the same situation would be - if you have the cash - to pay for a modern high-end plane where some of the compromises of the bailey design are mitigated (better engineering tolerances, thicker blades etc) just to avoid them being deterred by the frustrations of getting a cheaper and older one to work.

Having said that, I have to say that my experiences getting old planes to work has been positive and very satisfying , so if a new woodworker was prepared to try it I would certainly encourage them to have a go - you really don't have much too lose with a 20 quid ebay plane and actually it is not that difficult.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (6 Mar 2016)

Can't remember which book it was, maybe The one by Garret Hack, or possibly by our own David Charlesworth, but I remember discussuin on the "hump" and some slight bending of the chipbreaker to make sure it "mates" with the blade correctly. I do recall David's instructions on working the "toe" to mate correctly.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (6 Mar 2016)

It's quite true that a sharp cutting iron cures quite a lot of planning problems!

There's no such thing as a plane design that is perfect in all circumstances. All of them are compromises to some extent. Some people feel that the Bailey type perhaps compromise a bit too much, and whilst they cope well enough most of the time, they struggle when the going gets really tough. That's probably why the modern premium planes tend more to the bedrock, thick casting, thick iron designs.

The best bet with planning practice is not to over-think it. Just keep a sharp iron, and get to know your planes and what they'll do. The only way to find out if they are in any way deficient for the kind of work you want to do on the types of timber you want to use, is to use them. Then decide if there's any milage in trying other types. Unless, of course, you just feel like trying a few different planes out of curiosity or in the spirit of scientific investigation......which is, of course, entirely different from plane collecting!


----------



## Corneel (6 Mar 2016)

I finally got around to have a look at my pre-1914 Stanleys. None of them have the patented three point capiron contact. And on all of them the blade is bend upwards when fastened to the capiron and touches the frog only at the top and bottom.

They all work perfectly allright. I think the Bailey design is very fault tolerant. And the old ones were made to a rather high standard. My long planes (6 and 7) came to me very flat in the sole. I had to do some work to the #3 and #4 to remove a hump behind the mouth. On all of them the fit of frog to bottom was very good. Only my #5 is a little wobbly, but that doesn't seem to hurt performance. It also has a fault in the lateral adjuster (someone replaced the pin with a screw) and now the blade rests on the adjuster instead of the frog. Doesn't harm either.

The Bedrock doesn't really add a whole lot to these older Bailey designs. Chatter isn't really much of a problem in planes anyway, as long as the blade is sharp. There is a typical problem, skipping, when the edge enters the wood, but that is mostly user error, when you don't put pressure on the plane in the right spot. A thicker blade doesn't cure that.


----------



## nabs (6 Mar 2016)

thanks for checking Corneel. I think you make a very good point about the way the design allows for a degree of error in the manufacturing process, and I see that as part of the genius of Bailey's design. 

For my part I did do a little work to improve the fit between the frog and the soles/blades in my planes - they certainly weren't perfect - but since each of them had clearly been well used in the past, despite these minor defects, I now wonder if it this work made any practical difference.


----------



## Vann (7 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1mgpmgre said:


> There's no such thing as a plane *design* that is perfect in all circumstances.





nabs":1mgpmgre said:


> I think you make a very good point about the way the design allows for a degree of error in the manufacturing process, and I see that as part of the genius of Bailey's *design*.


Ahh, but that's my point - this _isn't_ Bailey's design. His design has three specific areas of contact between cap & cutting irons.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Corneel (7 Mar 2016)

The whole plane is Bailey's design. It is much more then this patent of the capiron that doesn't quite work out in real life (like many patents).

I can't stand up for the original condition of my planes. They are over 100 years old. Hard to say what all happened in the mean time. They might even not have the original capirons. The surface has detoriated enough not to be able to see any lettering.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Mar 2016)

There have been so many minor incremental changes to the 'Bailey' design of plane over the years, it's rather hard to say whether most are actually Bailey, or Bailey-with-Stanley-modifications. Or even 'based on Bailey but not quite the same' - Record Stay-Set, perhaps?

Vann - I agree completely that most thin bent cap-irons do not conform to Bailey's specific design set out in his patent, and that his specific design is the better arrangement.


----------



## ED65 (7 Mar 2016)

Corneel":3ky5mbju said:


> In the mean time I must say that I am a huge fan of the original Baileys with the thin blades. They are superb. No need to exchange with ugly, thick, expensive, aftermarked stuff.


+1! There is a growing mountain of anecdotal evidence that there's little real improvement in performance. The main difference can be in sharpening frequency, which isn't an issue for many users.


----------



## ED65 (7 Mar 2016)

Just a quick observation WRT what Bailey himself thought important, from what little photographic evidence I can find his Victor and Defiance planes both do seem to have cap irons that made, if not complete at least much better, contact with the cutting iron than typically seen on Stanleys.


----------



## lurker (7 Mar 2016)

CC

You missed:
or Bailey-with-Stanley-modifications with accountants overruling designers versions (ie post 60s) 

And this is where the water gets muddy as there are now so many mongrels out there.
I'm sure others are like me: I have planes that I have built from maybe 3 donors or modified with 2 piece cap irons or even with home made blades in them.

We have posts here saying "this is my pre war (or whatever) stanley" when clearly its a lot newer than that. I say nothing because I dont want to hurt peoples feelings.

As for e-bay: I have spotted a silverline described as a vintage plane :lol:


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2wzsd6fn said:


> There's no such thing as a plane design that is perfect in all circumstances. All of them are compromises to some extent. Some people feel that the Bailey type perhaps compromise a bit too much, and whilst they cope well enough most of the time, they struggle when the going gets really tough. That's probably why the modern premium planes tend more to the bedrock, thick casting, thick iron designs.



If you can plane it with a plane of any type, you can plane it with a bailey plane. Most people don't know how to use them, which leads to thinking a thicker harder iron and a heavier plane is the answer for difficult woods (and a higher angle). 

There's really nothing to be improved for a user who knows how to use a bailey type plane. It'd be lovely if they could get rid of the metal friction, but that's not going to happen easily with a metal plane. 

Premium planes are an improvement for beginners, but the extra weight is a tax after that. 

Except for the crowd who does nothing but smooth plane (or better yet, who don't much use planes, but instead sand) - those folks are unlikely to notice much extra weight. 

I can't speak to the patent showing three points of contact. It's hard to tell what's contacting what on a cap iron when you are looking at the cap iron setup out of plane tension. Even if I had three points of contact, I'd want the contact to be biased toward the edge as the more pressure there is on the edge, the less chance there is that a chip will get under it. 

The sprung cap design does work well with the cam lever cap, better than the modern (un)improved designs that claim to be closer to wooden type caps, but aren't that, either.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

Not trying to start a fight with my talk about the stanley planes, just stating fact. There's plenty of other misinformation about them out there, too, which is the later "good" ones (before they started cutting the mouth from the outside of the plane) with large adjuster wheels and belt sanded frogs somehow performing worse than the earlier milled planes. I've never found that to be true. 

When I started woodworking, it was just stated as law more or less that you plane things that are difficult to plane with a more expensive plane, and use stanley's for easy stuff. It's probably been a very long time since people generally finished off of a plane and without any sandpaper, anyway. 

But it's simple fact that a stanley plane will plane anything a lie nielsen or clifton or veritas plane will, or a steep pitch infill. If the stanley won't plane it with the cap set correctly, then it's wood that needs to be scraped (like some of the tropicals) to finish - and such a need is very rare. 

Cap iron use makes edge uniformity and clearance a lot more important for finish than pure sharpness. An iron sharpened on a washita stone will take a shaving sub thousandth easily, and cut for about as long as one sharpened on something finer - until the clearance runs out. And it'll provide a good finish as long as the iron doesn't get chipped (which has very little to do with sharpness).


----------



## David C (7 Mar 2016)

David,

I would be very interested if you could suggest a simple experiment, which would demonstrate the superiority of the old Stanley cap irons over the new heavier designs?

David Charlesworth


----------



## Corneel (7 Mar 2016)

I don't think he sais superior. More like, plenty good enough for all things wood. And the extra weight of the new ones is a detriment.


----------



## CStanford (7 Mar 2016)

If one feels mass is a help then use a no. 6 or 7 loaded with the standard cap iron and cutter for almost everything. One would be in good company in choosing a No. 07, namely, Alan Peters.

The best smoother I have usually turns out to be my 08.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

David C":3pq4lkj8 said:


> David,
> 
> I would be very interested if you could suggest a simple experiment, which would demonstrate the superiority of the old Stanley cap irons over the new heavier designs?
> 
> David Charlesworth



We've had this discussion before. In use, the stanley cap iron works just as well as any cap iron (and the profile is already correct out of the box - it's somewhere around 50 degrees at the leading edge when you polish it). It's certainly my preference over all others when one is actually using one. 

And then it has the added benefit of more spring with what is a cammed lever cap. That is a luxury, but it sure feels nicer to lock down. 

That leads to there being no improvement from "improved" chipbreakers. When the stanley is set properly, chatter is a myth. The plane will stop you in your tracks long before you can get it to chatter. 

Beginners generally don't understand those subtleties and assume that a poorly set up plane is the plane's fault. A user who has some gear around like me can generally shop appropriately for a stanley 4 and prepare the cap, the iron and the plane in about 15 minutes.


----------



## CStanford (7 Mar 2016)

I think lever cap pressure is an often overlooked fine adjustment -- can be too tight and certainly too loose. If a plane is not planing well it's worth adjusting the lever cap pressure one way or the other, and only a slight turn of the screw is required.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

Corneel":166a3fva said:


> I don't think he sais superior. More like, plenty good enough for all things wood. And the extra weight of the new ones is a detriment.



A big detriment. The unfortunate truth about a finely milled sole that is perfectly flat is also that it will create much more friction and more abruptly as the wax runs out. Which is something that you will notice with Lie Nielsen or Lee Valley vs. a vintage plane that's functionally flat but not perfectly. 

Not noticed too much if you smooth and wax all the time, but start working rough wood and the constant waxing is a bit of a pain.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

CStanford":7d38fesh said:


> I think lever cap pressure is an often overlooked fine adjustment -- can be too tight and certainly too loose. If a plane is not planing well it's worth adjusting the lever cap pressure one way or the other, and only a slight turn of the screw is required.



Yes, and the comfort range is larger with a little bit more spring from the cap iron.


----------



## CStanford (7 Mar 2016)

It is certainly a fine adjustment that has the potential to be rendered moot, or close to it, if installing thick aftermarket cutters and cap irons.

I've tried both in a roundabout way, one plane I bought came with a Stay Set and a Hock iron. Works fine, and certainly provides a different set of 'feels' initially, but comparisons 'down the road' did not reveal a daylight to dark sort of thing.

When mass seems to be a factor that might make a difference it's easier just to pick up a bigger plane, or if one's long plane is cutting fine finish the job with it.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Mar 2016)

I may be wrong, but I almost get the feeling that some people think some flexibility is desirable in a plane iron, or at least, that a moderately flexible plane iron is not detrimental to plane performance.


----------



## CStanford (7 Mar 2016)

Not at all. Too much lever cap pressure is as bad as too little. 

The goal of course is to make the *fine* adjustments one needs on a particular day for the particular species under plane. Standard issue Stanley and Record provide all the adjustments required (by design it practically goes without saying). This isn't to say that these two companies never sent a clunker out the door.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2lmzf7fj said:


> I may be wrong, but I almost get the feeling that some people think some flexibility is desirable in a plane iron, or at least, that a moderately flexible plane iron is not detrimental to plane performance.



If the flexibility is so much that chatter is allowed, that's not desirable. What you do want to have is exactly what charles says, compliant adjustability without backing off any pressure as you would have to do in the double-action norris-type adjuster. 

There is quite a wide range of tightness that can provide "stop you in your tracks" setup on a stanley plane, so it's not necessary to feel any looseness to have good adjustability and no chatter.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

There are only two types of planes that I can think of that chatter when properly set up - moulding planes in a very heavy cut (which isn't a big deal, you don't finish with the heavy cut). That includes rabbet planes, especially, where the design leaves a fairly distant contact point to an iron. 

And 18th century type single iron planes with very thin irons under a heavy cut. 

Every other plane design out there should stop you in your tracks, especially if it has a cap iron. Even the later continental planes that have abbreviated wedge fingers that don't terminate as far down on the cap as they could.

The one thing that I can think of that will make a stanley plane feel flimsy is that the lateral adjusters clank around if they're loose. It gives the perception that something that matters is loose in the plane when it is actually not.

The fact that a common stanley plane can plane anything should be good news, but it's often met with "no it can't, you need a premium plane". That puzzles me some (I'm not singling you out, I still see that often on various forums. Either a premium plane or a steep pitched infill plane is suggested), it's a choice to get luxury planes, not the necessity that it's explained to be.

It's nice to have choices. 

Some of us who can afford any type end up working with something less expensive, anyway. If someone walked into my shop tomorrow and offered me a substantial fraction of what I paid for my infills, I would be glad to let them go (I paid less than many because I made them either from scratch or out of a kit). They just have nothing over a stanley when the rubber hits the road.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Mar 2016)

Would you describe how to 'set up' a common Bailey type plane with a standard iron and cap-iron, please?


----------



## Corneel (7 Mar 2016)

That's not so difficult. Set the frog inline with the angled portion of the sole. Set the capiron close to the edge, really close when the wood calls for it, but otherwise not too far away either. That capiron gives a bunch of support. Set the levercap screw so that the lever clicks down with a reasuring click, but check that the adjuster still works easilly. Make sure that the sole doesnt have a hump behind the mouth. Make sure that the capiron mates the cutting blade perfectly. 

I think that's about it. Oh yes, sharpen the blade.


----------



## CStanford (7 Mar 2016)

Lots of permutations CC with regard to frog position (mouth aperture), cap iron position, cutter projection, cutter shape, cap iron pressure. Infinite just considering the cap iron position and frog positions alone. And of course the cutter could have an infinite number of shapes.

There are some general principles to be sure, they hardly need repeating in that they must have been covered dozens of times here, probably thousands when considering all the forums out there not to mention the standard references - Hayward, Joyce, et al.

Most will settle on setups that work for the species normally encountered and then make changes for special jobs or when the planing is not going so well. Thank goodness there is still a bit of art and judgment left in the process and that the Bailey design accommodates it all.


----------



## G S Haydon (7 Mar 2016)

The Bailey style is a wonder of industrial design. The only thing against it sole friction but that's not too bad because it's light. As mentioned by other it's great to have choices but the bottom line is the Stanley will everything any other plane will. You could choose to argue better, but lets not start one of those


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

Corneel":e5b82lrw said:


> That's not so difficult. Set the frog inline with the angled portion of the sole. Set the capiron close to the edge, really close when the wood calls for it, but otherwise not too far away either. That capiron gives a bunch of support. Set the levercap screw so that the lever clicks down with a reasuring click, but check that the adjuster still works easilly. Make sure that the sole doesnt have a hump behind the mouth. Make sure that the capiron mates the cutting blade perfectly.
> 
> I think that's about it. Oh yes, sharpen the blade.



that's pretty much it. If the cap doesn't mate well or is in rough shape, do as little as possible to alter its shape while getting it to fit well. 

The biggest aid in setting up a stanley plane is buying one that's not iron-pitted or broken in some way. the rest of the stuff is quick. There is a myriad of classes telling people how to tune their planes by filing and lapping all kinds of stuff on the plane that makes no difference in terms of performance (frog faces, trying to square sides, filing frog feet, etc).


----------



## David C (7 Mar 2016)

Well no one has come up with a demonstrable advantage, except weight! (I wonder how few ounces?)

My favorite plane is a highly tuned 1970's Stanley with Hock A2 blade and L-N new improved chipbreaker. (I have described one improvement before, which involves fit between lever cap and hump).

This is in use all the time and the idea of reverting to a soft Stanley 70's blade and thin C/B is ludicrous.

The often repeated assertion of "no improvement" is without a shred of foundation. They are better machined, generally much quicker to fettle and work extremely well.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Mar 2016)

D_W":1pvebsb2 said:


> Corneel":1pvebsb2 said:
> 
> 
> > That's not so difficult. Set the frog inline with the angled portion of the sole. Set the capiron close to the edge, really close when the wood calls for it, but otherwise not too far away either. That capiron gives a bunch of support. Set the levercap screw so that the lever clicks down with a reasuring click, but check that the adjuster still works easilly. Make sure that the sole doesnt have a hump behind the mouth. Make sure that the capiron mates the cutting blade perfectly.
> ...



Ah. Thank you for the answer.

Whenever I've had a Bailey plane so set (Records and a Faithfull in my case, but all with the same standard thickness cutting irons), I've had a gap between the face of the frog and the back of the blade, and another gap between the flat face of the blade and the cap-iron. The blade is unsupported between the base of the frog (or somewhere near the blade's bevel) and somewhere near it's top. The cap-iron contacts close to the cutting edge, and somewhere near the top. Most of the time, that probably doesn't matter very much, but does it matter during those times when things get difficult?

Sometimes, when planing endgrain, redwood (Scot's Pine) with hard knots, even clean-grained beech on occasions, I've had planes chatter. That's with sharp irons and nicely-fitted standard cap-irons, and the work well-held on a decent bench. Using planes with thicker irons (Lie-Nielsen number 4 and 5, and a Record 07 with a Clifton iron and two-piece cap-iron) - same bench, same workpieces - I don't get chatter. Using wooden planes, I don't get chatter. I've never used an infill (cos they're expensive) so can't comment on them.

Perhaps that unsupported blade isn't such a good thing? Perhaps stiffening it up a bit (either thicker iron, closer-fit cap-iron, or both) help a bit at difficult times? I think so, anyway.


----------



## custard (7 Mar 2016)

David C":nwk6quws said:


> Well no one has come up with a demonstrable advantage, except weight! (I wonder how few ounces?)



I still use a thin blade if I'm working on my boat or away from the workshop. Nick a thin blade and it's thin enough (and soft enough) to "grind" out the nick by hand on a coarse stone, nick a beefy A2 blade and, without a bench grinder, I'll be leaving nasty track marks for the rest of the day!


----------



## Paul Chapman (7 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":14xnz8t1 said:


> Perhaps that unsupported blade isn't such a good thing? Perhaps stiffening it up a bit (either thicker iron, closer-fit cap-iron, or both) help a bit at difficult times? I think so, anyway.



And Leonard Bailey would have agreed with you, I suspect, judging by the reasons he stated in the patent referred to earlier for a modified cap iron........

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## ED65 (7 Mar 2016)

D_W":38fdvcwr said:


> ...it's a choice to get luxury planes, not the necessity that it's explained to be.


That should be proclaimed from the rooftops on woodworking forums. I couldn't even estimate the number of times in just the past two years I've seen the recommendation to get a "better" plane, or upgrading the iron to a premium one. to solve problems experienced by the OP working with hardwoods.

It's likely that nine out of ten times a cap iron adjustment (and possibly some fettling) along with a lighter cut would have solved the person's problem, in perhaps 2-3 minutes of trying various adjustments.


----------



## Corneel (7 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":31jkxbsl said:


> Sometimes, when planing endgrain, redwood (Scot's Pine) with hard knots, even clean-grained beech on occasions, I've had planes chatter. That's with sharp irons and nicely-fitted standard cap-irons, and the work well-held on a decent bench. Using planes with thicker irons (Lie-Nielsen number 4 and 5, and a Record 07 with a Clifton iron and two-piece cap-iron) - same bench, same workpieces - I don't get chatter. Using wooden planes, I don't get chatter. I've never used an infill (cos they're expensive) so can't comment on them.



Sorry, I don't have that experience. When the blade is sharp, no trouble with endgrain and certainly not with beech which planes wonderfully. I've had my fair share of trouble with tearout around knots in fir and stuff like that, but no chatter that I can remember. Skipping at the start of the cut is sometimes an issue, but I think that is mostly (my) user error.


----------



## ED65 (7 Mar 2016)

David C":3j2zom40 said:


> Well no one has come up with a demonstrable advantage, except weight! (I wonder how few ounces?)


Okay, how about _much _cheaper? A small fraction of the cost in fact, so no exaggeration there.



David C":3j2zom40 said:


> This is in use all the time and the idea of reverting to a soft Stanley 70's blade and thin C/B is ludicrous.


Come now, that's of course not the only alternative David. Even an inexpensive modern iron straight from China could be better than a stock 70s Stanley iron going by what's said about them.



David C":3j2zom40 said:


> The often repeated assertion of "no improvement" is without a shred of foundation.


As I refer to above, there is a growing amount. You can find forum posts and blog entries aplenty where for example the same person who has both clearly states they notice _no improvement in performance whatsoever_.

And since Paul Sellers started writing about the same issue there's been a lot of agreement posted about how well stock blades actually work in a well-fettled plane, as long as the user isn't "getting too excited" as Frid would put it.


----------



## Corneel (7 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2u0jykwx said:


> Sometimes, when planing endgrain, redwood (Scot's Pine) with hard knots, even clean-grained beech on occasions, I've had planes chatter. That's with sharp irons and nicely-fitted standard cap-irons, and the work well-held on a decent bench. Using planes with thicker irons (Lie-Nielsen number 4 and 5, and a Record 07 with a Clifton iron and two-piece cap-iron) - same bench, same workpieces - I don't get chatter. Using wooden planes, I don't get chatter. I've never used an infill (cos they're expensive) so can't comment on them.



Sorry, I don't have that experience. When the blade is sharp, no trouble with endgrain and certainly not with beech which planes wonderfully. I've had my fair share of trouble with tearout around knots in fir and stuff like that, but no chatter that I can remember. Skipping at the start of the cut is sometimes an issue, but I think that is mostly (my) user error.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

David C":1m7jm0ld said:


> Well no one has come up with a demonstrable advantage, except weight! (I wonder how few ounces?)
> 
> My favorite plane is a highly tuned 1970's Stanley with Hock A2 blade and L-N new improved chipbreaker. (I have described one improvement before, which involves fit between lever cap and hump).
> 
> ...



We don't generally use those irons over here, either, but the old water and oil hardened irons are plentiful here, and they are as good as anything new (at least if someone understands the concept of using a cap iron). 

I certainly get much more uniform edge failure from a vintage stanley iron than I do a new A2 iron, which means they finish plane until the clearance is gone and don't leave chipout lines. 

I recall having a conversation with George Wilson about this, and george also always preferred to make irons around dark straw, and never had much regard for modern irons that are trying to push the limits. I found that pretty interesting, because George is pretty progressive and has been making irons out of air hardening steel MUCH longer than any of the boutique makers have. 

Or more flatly said, the vintage iron works at least as well, depending on whether or not the user actually knows how to use it above and beyond taking thin shavings very slowly.


----------



## CStanford (7 Mar 2016)

And then of course there is the inexplicable scenario of the person who owns premium planes and then who apparently still uses what most would consider to be less than premium planes that produce chatter no less. Why are these planes still in the shop and even worse why are they still being used?

It's like driving a wheezing Ford Pinto through the countryside on a beautiful Saturday afternoon and leaving the Bugatti convertible in the garage.

Makes no sense in the real world.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":w0j5pwij said:


> D_W":w0j5pwij said:
> 
> 
> > Corneel":w0j5pwij said:
> ...



Actually, what you describe is what you want, and it's also why the idea of a perfectly milled frog face is not applicable to planes. You always want a bias so that an iron is held firmly on two sides at the cutting edge and up wherever the top pressure is coming from (ideal if it's under the cam of the lever cap). 

Try waxing the sole of the plane if you get skipping cutting end grain. Sometimes it's the straws of the wood brooming the bottom of the plane and causing it to skip. I've not had any chatter planing off the ends of double iron planes (beech) that are a little more than 3 inches square, except the sole of the plane does need a bit of wax from time to time to keep the billet from gripping it. 

That's not just for stanley planes, but all metal planes. 

On things like the end of a panel of cherry, planing with a stanley 4 has not yielded chatter, but I would imagine that the same skipping could occur if the conditions were right. 

For what it's worth, I've made a fairly large number of different types of planes, from infills to old double iron woodies, and that bed bias is always there if you are to have a good functioning plane (the one where the iron touches at the top and bottom). It's a bias for stability and also adjustability. 

Lee valley machines the beds of their planes, including the single iron planes, but they also bias the machining so that the iron contacts top and bottom. Rob Lee told me that when I brought it up at one point as I had implied the question of what do you do when shoot for perfect machining and the machining leaves a bit of a belly on the machined area. He flatly said that it's machined for looks, but the center is low to ensure a good bed.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

David C":oe3zix4c said:


> The often repeated assertion of "no improvement" is without a shred of foundation. They are better machined, generally much quicker to fettle and work extremely well.
> 
> David Charlesworth



They work fine. I doubt the wood cares about the machining on the cap iron, though. 

And they're not better than vintage caps. You've got a logical disconnect - what actually hasn't been proven is your assertion that the modern types are better. 

If you knew more about making or designing planes than me, I'd be surprised. I've been walking through the patties that you leave for a while to be polite, but I think you're plus in years and minus in relevant experience - at least in making any judgement about vintage stanley planes or the design of their irons and cap irons. Especially if you are tied to slow processes using honing guides, and making comparisons for all stanley planes based on something made in the 1970s.

I have already tried and owned practically everything you've suggested, and I am certainly less inclined on making fine furniture or marquetry, but not on dimensioning wood or making planes.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Mar 2016)

CStanford":1p3l5rf4 said:


> And then of course there is the inexplicable scenario of the person who owns premium planes and then who apparently still uses what most would consider to be less than premium planes that produce chatter no less. Why are these planes still in the shop and even worse why are they still being used?
> 
> It's like driving a wheezing Ford Pinto through the countryside on a beautiful Saturday afternoon and leaving the Bugatti convertible in the garage.
> 
> Makes no sense in the real world.



I take it that slightly snide comment was aimed at me.

The answer, Charles, is very simple. I started woodworking back in the 1980s, and the first planes I bought were standard Records - an 04, an 05 1/2 (that I no longer use), and later, an 07. That was because the local architectural ironmonger stocked them, except the 07 which if memory serves, came mail order from Tabwell Tools. I had all sorts of difficulties with the 04, eventually having it surface ground flat by a mate of mine, and fitting it with a Smoothcut iron and replacement Crown rosewood handles. The 07 was a much better made plane, but still gave the troubles outlined in my previous posts on this thread. When the new Victor irons (Clifton before they were called Clifton) and two-piece cap-iron became available in the late 1990s, I fitted them, and it transformed the plane. About the same time, the LN planes became available in the UK, so I invested, and instantly 'retired' the 04. The suite of two LNs and 07 with uprated iron and cap-iron kept me going for years, along with a Marples BB woodie jack bought from Bristol Design at about the same time.

When I joined this forum (early 2012, I think), I started to become more interested in vintage planes, so a few woodies 'appeared'. With all the talk about budget planes, I thought I'd invest £17 in a Faithfull 03 just to see what they were like - I've documented some experiences on this forum. As bought, it was pretty much useless, but fettled up it just about works, though certainly not flawlessly. I haven't yet, but I'll probably put a decent iron and cap-iron in it sometime, and I suspect so fitted it will be quite a reasonable performer.


----------



## CStanford (7 Mar 2016)

Sounds great. Enjoy your woodworking.


----------



## David C (7 Mar 2016)

Well David said,

"And they're not better than vintage caps. You've got a logical disconnect - what actually hasn't been proven is your assertion that the modern types are better. 

If you knew more about making or designing planes than me, I'd be surprised. I've been walking through the patties that you leave for a while to be polite, but I think you're plus in years and minus in relevant experience - at least in making any judgement about vintage stanley planes or the design of their irons and cap irons. Especially if you are tied to slow processes using honing guides, and making comparisons for all stanley planes based on something made in the 1970s."


Now you are demonstrating your true offensive rudeness.

Of course I do not have ready access to Vintage Stanley irons, any more than you do to 1970's UK junk.

There is no point in trying to talk to you as you are too embedded in your particular personal preferences.

However you should stop spreading disinformation, (could that be l--s?) about perfectly good kit.

David Charlesworth


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

The only way you could accuse me of spreading disinformation would be to extrapolate some of my prior statements into something that isn't there.
I have stated one plain truth. There is nothing better about modern planes for an experienced user. The things about them that make them better for beginners do not drive experienced users to them. It would seem that experienced users tend to prefer vintage planes, and the more they use planes in their work, the more they seem to have gear that involves old wooden planes or stanley planes. 

I tolerate a lot from people who don't know as much about plane design or building planes as I do, and there are people who know more about it than I do (I can spot them pretty easily). But I'm not going to sit here and entertain an opinion about cap irons from someone who was intent on knowing what is "improved" without knowing how to use the "improved" cap iron in the first place.

This topic has come up several times now, and I have no biases - I don't sell my planes, I didn't design any for any of the makers. I have to assume you must've had some hand in suggesting what is improved to Lie Nielsen, but if so, you did it without knowing how to use the cap iron. That is fact.

I don't know how much dimensioning of wood you have done with planes to form a deeper opinion than removing planer chatter, either, but it is necessary to do more than smoothing or planing test pieces to get better depth in use of the cap iron.


----------



## worn thumbs (7 Mar 2016)

The title of this thread refers to bendy cap irons.None of my planes,which range from the thirties to the eighties and are either Record or Stanley have any indication of bending.If they were loaded sufficiently to bend,I doubt that adjustment would be possible.

The subsequent statements of entrenched opinion regarding plane irons,adjustment or use don't really address the topic.I happen to agree that a Stanley will do just about any planing you ever need to do and if anybody complains about tearout on tricky grain its pretty clear that they haven't tried adjusting the frog to close the mouth a bit.I even had perfectly adequate service from the maligned seventies Stanley irons.I only hope that novices browsing this forum aren't put off the activity by the tone of this discussion.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Mar 2016)

On the gap between frog face and cutting iron - D_W says this is desirable. I beg to differ, at least in the case of thin cutting irons. With thicker cutters, having far more stiffness, it doesn't matter much.

In a Bailey-type plane, the lever cap applies pressure to the cap-iron at the top of the frog, trapping cap-iron and cutting iron against the frog casting, and to the hump of the cap-iron near it's lower end. The cap-iron transfers this pressure to a line across the cutting iron very near the cutting edge, and at the top of the frog.

Thus, the cutting iron is trapped at the top of the frog, and has a force exerted on it's flat face near the cutting edge. The back of the iron contacts either the plane's sole casting, or the bottom front edge of the frog casting, and the force from the cap-iron pivots it about that point. Because it's fairly flexible, the unrestrained part of the iron lifts off the frog face, giving the gap mentioned earlier in the thread.

When the plane contacts wood, the cutting edge is driven backwards and slightly downwards, pivotting on the back of the bevel, and causing the cutting iron to bend even more between bevel and top of frog. When the cutting edge hits a particularly hard spot, it bends down and back even more than before, causing even more of a bend in the body of the blade, tensing it like a flat spring. When the energy in this flat spring builds up enough, it suddenly releases by flicking the cutting edge up and forward. The cutting edge then digs in again, and the cycle repeats.

Those familiar with chatter will know that it manifests itself with a jarring high-pitched skrawking noise, and a mass of parallel fine lines across the workpiece about 1/16" apart or a bit closer.

However, if the cap-iron is modified such that it traps the body of the cutting iron against the frog surface, taking out most of it's flexibility and preventing it acting like the flat spring described, chatter ceases. The cutting edge may still bend down a little, but can't go as far into the wood surface because the whole system is much more rigid. And THAT is what Bailey's patent calls for - pressure from the cap-iron not just at the cutting edge and the top of the frog, but near the base of the frog casting as well. The Record Stay-Set and Clifton two-piece cap-irons do the same thing, and the modern flat, heavy cap-irons do something very similar by preventing the iron from fluttering between bevel and top of frog.

The standard Bailey thin iron works with it's proper patent cap-iron, but is just a little bit too flexible with the pressed thin cap-iron most are fitted with. If made to the Bailey patent, it would be a stiffer, more rigid plane.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Mar 2016)

D_W":1zypg0zx said:


> The only way you could accuse me of spreading disinformation would be to extrapolate some of my prior statements into something that isn't there.
> I have stated one plain truth. There is nothing better about modern planes for an experienced user. The things about them that make them better for beginners do not drive experienced users to them. It would seem that experienced users tend to prefer vintage planes, and the more they use planes in their work, the more they seem to have gear that involves old wooden planes or stanley planes.
> 
> I tolerate a lot from people who don't know as much about plane design or building planes as I do, and there are people who know more about it than I do (I can spot them pretty easily). But I'm not going to sit here and entertain an opinion about cap irons from someone who was intent on knowing what is "improved" without knowing how to use the "improved" cap iron in the first place.
> ...



Are you really telling David Charlesworth that he doesn't know how to set up and use a plane? :shock:


----------



## CStanford (7 Mar 2016)

Worth a read and look at the before-and-after photos:

http://www.amgron.clara.net/shavingaperture53.html (using a Record SP40 (?) he describes as "an economy version of a Stanley No. 4") However he apparently did flatten the sole by scraping, a technique he described elsewhere on his website.

Not meant to open the cap iron closeness debate; more about ways to skin felines that the Bailey design offers - for those interested in seeing solid performance from a bargain plane, though a well-fettled one.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2iv1pml4 said:


> Are you really telling David Charlesworth that he doesn't know how to set up and use a plane? :shock:



I am telling him that I know more about:
* using a cap iron (and more about what makes a preferable design)
* and I know more about bench plane design and making in general

On those two things, yes, I am. 

I am not clogged by teaching beginners. 

I know more about sharpening, too. Especially in the context of working wood, shaving hair, sharpening knives, scissors, saws... How's that?

I certainly know less than David does about fine furniture and making videos. There's no question about that.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2xtgg5v2 said:


> Those familiar with chatter will know that it manifests itself with a jarring high-pitched skrawking noise, and a mass of parallel fine lines across the workpiece about 1/16" apart or a bit closer.



I am familiar with chatter. My planes in my first year of use were improperly setup bailey planes and a couple of wooden planes that I bought that I couldn't possibly figure out how to use well. I thought double iron planes were something that you could only use working downgrain and that chatter was part of the experience. 

I've learned otherwise since. When the lever cap pushes down on the edge of your iron, the gap between the iron and bed should not allow chatter, the zipper feeling that you get with it (the chatter), or the tiny lines that result. Something isn't right in your setup. All bailey planes should have the gap you describe, as mine do also, but none of mine chatter (so long as the cap iron is set properly).

Every wooden plane I have seen (of at least reasonable age) has the bias we're talking about built into the iron. If it's not, it should be built into the bed to preserve chatter free use and good adjustability.


----------



## CStanford (7 Mar 2016)

FWIW, ECE mentions making their planes so the irons bed on only three points (and how this affects the lateral adjustment of their planes). Makes sense. The last thing you want is a hump, that's for sure.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

If you think I might not know much about planes, by the way, here is a recently made plane - I made this 100% by hand. No electricity, not even for roughing or resawing the billet it came from. 

It awaits a handle, which can't be made until the future owner of it is known. I've done quite a lot of planemaking of various types of planes to get to this point. It's funny that the two types of planes that vexed me as a beginner are the two types that were used to make this one. No chatter. This is beech, of course. 

Early in my planemaking, I was dead set on making "improved" planes that were better than anything I could buy. I made single iron wooden planes and single iron infill planes. It took that hardheadedness and experience to learn why leonard bailey's planes sold so well and why this type of double iron plane wiped out single iron planes in all but economy grades. It took a little longer to figure out how to shape the cap and plane so that it would feed reliably (and the cap is shown in the picture as I drawfiled it to give it an appropriate geometry for a wooden plane - it's later sheffield make and a bit fat at the business end. Or was a bit fat. The shape of lord stanley's work is very close to the shape of this cap where it meets the wood. 

http://s27.postimg.org/u5x8qjxab/20160221_160217.jpg 
http://s27.postimg.org/giml4ldtv/20160221_160228.jpg 
http://s27.postimg.org/pcdhlp0sj/20160221_160306.jpg 
http://s27.postimg.org/ii36w085f/20160221_160327.jpg 
http://s27.postimg.org/vfv25lr2b/20160221_160357.jpg 
http://s27.postimg.org/pnuxygh8j/20160221_160420.jpg 
http://s27.postimg.org/l0ovwotvn/20160221_160529.jpg 
http://s27.postimg.org/9x9v4txz7/20160221_160623.jpg 
http://s27.postimg.org/fiwa8vyo3/20160221_160724.jpg 
http://s27.postimg.org/bqhtq9phf/20160221_160831.jpg


----------



## CStanford (7 Mar 2016)

Solid craftsmanship. I'd be proud of it.

Surely folks must realize that Bailey's design wasn't his first drawing of the thing. I'm sure he went through many iterations and trials.

That people expect the same performance from later, poorly executed Bailey copies in substandard materials speaks for itself I'd say. 

Stanley or Record of good vintage will give good service, as history has proved.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Mar 2016)

LEONARD BAILEY, OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. 

Letters Patent No. 72,443, dated December 24, 1867. 

IMPROVEMENTIN GARPENTERS PLANES. 

TO ALL PERSONS TO WHOM vTHESE PRESENTS SHALL COME: 

Be it known that I, LEONARD BAILEY, of Boston, in the county of Suffolk, and State of Massachusetts, have invented a new and useful Improvement in Bench-Planes; and I do hereby declare the same to be fully described in the following specification` and represented in the accompanying drawings, of which- Figure 1 is a top view, and 

Figure 2, a longitudinal section of a plane-iron and its cap-iron, and their holding-devices, such cap-iron being constructed in accordance with my improvement. 

Figure 3 is a longitudinal section of the plane-iron and cap-iron, as ordinarily constructed, that is to say, with one bend, a, only near the bearing-edge of the capiron. l 

My object is to use Very thin steel plane-irons, and in so doing I nd that they are liable to buckle under the pressure of the cap, which causes them to chatter, and makes them otherwise imperfect; and my invention consists in the providing of an auxiliary point of contact between the cap and plane-iron, and at the point where the plane-irontends to buckle or rise from its bed or base, and thus have a pressure at that point in addition to that at the cutting-edge, which iirmly holds this thin plane-iron to its bed. 

The cap-iron, as commonly constructed, that is, as shown at D, in tig. 3, when applied to the plane-iron E, will rest thereon only at the extreme lower end of the cap-iron, and also at or very nearits upper end. There will be along angular space, between the two irons, when they are clamped together by the holding-devices which are represented in figs. 2 and 3, at A, B, and C, and consist of a screw, A, a bearing, B, and ay cam-lever, C, arranged in a manner well'known. 

The diiiiculty experienced from the construction of the capiro n with the single bend a, is, that it allows of vibration of the cap-iron and the plane-iron while in use, such vibration being productive of what joincrs term chattering, and consequent defective operation of the plane. 

In carrying out my improvement, I make the cap-iron with an additional bend, b, (see figs. 2 and 3,) ata short distance back of its lower end or toe, or at a distance therefrom equal to about double the distance at which such lower edge or toe is to be from the main benda, or the toe of the bearer B, the same being as shown in figs. 2 and l, so as to cause the cap-iron Dto bear on the plane-iron Ein threelplaces, or at the toe and auxil-V iary bend of the cap-iron, and along from such bend to the heel 'or upper end of the cap-iron. This construction or formation of the cap-iron D completely obviates the diiculty above mentioned, and is a very valuable and useful improvement. 

In all bench-planes the plane-iron must project slightly beyond its bed or bearing, the edge of the bed beyond which it projects serving as a fulcrum to the force of the pressure of the cap upon the extreme edge of the planeiron. When thick plane-irons are used,A their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap' suiiiciently to `prevent Ebuckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thinvsteel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I eifcctually prevent buckling and chatteriug, whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons. K 

What I claim asV my invention, and desire to secure by Letters Patent in the adaptation of thin steel to the plane-irons of bench-planes, is- 

The auxiliary point of impact between the cap and the thin planeiron, at the point or portion thereof where the thin/steel tends to buckle under the pressure of the cap upon theprojecting edge of the plane-iron, substantially inthe manner described. 

LEONARD BAILEY. 

Witnesses: 

R. H. EDDY, IF. P. HALE, Jr.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

There may be some early types of the frog that have a gap between the frog and the casting. I can't recall if I've had stanley planes of that type, but I know I've had KK planes and ohio planes that had a span that the iron was unsupported. I don't like them much. 

Most stanley planes that you'll find will allow you to set the frog flush with the casting and the iron will be supported all the way down as far as it can be supported. If you have one of the early types of frogs where the iron goes unsupported for a span, that may be part of the problem. 

Once you learn to use the cap iron, there's no good reason to set the frog anywhere other than flush with the casting to get the most support possible for the iron down at the end. Ideally, you want it to be resting at the edge of the bevel on the back. 

When you build an infill plane, if you do the best you can, you do the same thing with the iron. There is wood there, but it is more desirable to have a bias so the metal is a bit proud and the iron is not bedding on the wood except at the top of the plane. It beds on the metal just above the bevel for the best fit possible and the most support possible. 

I know bailey advocated being able to close the mouth of the plane, but I'd imagine that the frog was more beneficial to the maker by given them something easier to manufacture than a one-piece plane.


----------



## CStanford (7 Mar 2016)

I think Holtey beds his irons on three metal buttons (for lack of a better term) inserted into to the wood of the infill.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

CStanford":3ugnj2w3 said:


> Solid craftsmanship. I'd be proud of it.
> 
> Surely folks must realize that Bailey's design wasn't his first drawing of the thing. I'm sure he went through many iterations and trials.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the kind words, Charley. 

If Leonard didn't get it right on the first try (later planes came with lateral and thicker castings), Stanley certainly had enough chances to figure out what the market wanted. And plenty of others introduced things that got no traction. 

Ohio tools at one point made a cap iron design that is a lot like the current "improved" cap irons, but it got no traction in the market. The iron was thick but no better than stanley's and I'd imagine some people used to hand grinding thin irons didn't find much favor in it. 

There are also other vintage irons that are thicker, but again, no traction. If the market of professionals saw no need for a thicker iron and heavier cap iron, i can't imagine what the current market of amateurs thinks they can "improve". I followed that mentality, that there's an easy improvement around the corner for everything, but the improvement is in the craftsman, and if the craftsman improves, it's no surprise that they will begin to favor what professionals favored. 

Same thing exists in the world of chisels. It looks like there are a whole lot of hand tool woodworkers who like something styled similar to a ward or marples chisels more than they like a modern interpretation of a construction chisel made 4 clicks harder on the rockwell scale. I've been through that, too, and must admit that nothing is better to use than vintage english carbon steel chisels.


----------



## D_W (7 Mar 2016)

CStanford":3qfvu0pi said:


> I think Holtey beds his irons on three metal buttons (for lack of a better term) inserted into to the wood of the infill.



I don't know the configuration for sure, but he does prefer metal bits to bed the irons in at least some planes, and as I recall his discussion of his S designs (I think that's what they are), it's clear he doesn't much appreciate the inability to control the bed of a wooden infill in the long term without them. 

He's a solid fellow.


----------



## CStanford (7 Mar 2016)

Interesting stuff David. 

Agree with you on the chisels wholeheartedly.


----------



## David C (7 Mar 2016)

Just for the record, I had nothing whatever to do with the design or sale of L-N new improved chipbreakers.

I have used them since they first came out and they work very well indeed, a fact which D-W seems to be in denial over.

Sorry OP, I have never seen a Stanley C/B touch the blade back in 3 positions.

David Charlesworth


----------



## CStanford (7 Mar 2016)

My Record cap irons all touch the cutter at top and bottom before the screw is tightened (but not in the middle), then they touch in the middle when the screw is tightened. I'm assuming this is a good thing. They seem to work fine.

Perhaps the overall design, itself, leaves scope for variance but still provides good performance?

Blissfully ignorant in Memphis....


----------



## D_W (8 Mar 2016)

David C":2rg0aqnm said:


> Just for the record, I had nothing whatever to do with the design or sale of L-N new improved chipbreakers.
> 
> I have used them since they first came out and they work very well indeed, a fact which D-W seems to be in denial over.
> 
> David Charlesworth



That is again outside the scope of what I said. I said they're not an improvement on vintage cap irons. 

The only "improvement" that could be speculated is comparing a misused and abused vintage cap iron to a new milled cap iron. 

I still can't figure out why lie nielsen prepares them with a flat front on them, but they know less about the cap iron than I do, too. You might not like it, but it's just plain truth. They certainly know a lot more about mass producing metal planes, but they didn't know what a cap iron was for when they made their improved version, something which is easily known based on the fact that they shipped many planes with cap irons drilled such that they couldn't get all the way to the edge of the iron without running out of travel on the adjuster. And they got caught up in that goofiness of making steeper frogs - as if professional users wouldn't have demanded that were it necessary. That again is a bandaid for beginners, something in lieu of learning to set a cap iron, which is something that can be learned in a matter of a couple of weeks - all the longer it took for me to get the hang of it in a vacuum with no assistance or data. 

They otherwise make nice planes, they're nice people, they service customers well and they provide people with planes that are very close to ready to use. But an experienced user gains nothing with their gear or any other new gear. I never gained any time with it at the bench, either, and i'm quite happy now to have irons that work well with a washita stone, another lost art in the day of "flatten it every time" guide sharpening. Everything is taught as paint by number now, which is a shame.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (8 Mar 2016)

Thick cutting irons (say 2.5mm and thicker) are stiff enough not to vibrate in service, and thus cap-iron design and bedding are less critical.

Thin cutting irons (2mm or less) are flexible enough to vibrate (chatter) in some circumstances, and need more attention paid to stiffening up by use of a suitable cap-iron design and better trapping against the frog bed. This was discovered by Leonard Bailey many years ago, hence his patent to alleviate the problem, allowing him to use thinner irons successfully. Most modern cap-irons in thin-ironed Bailey-type planes do not, for some reason unknown, accord with the provisions of Bailey's patent, leaving the planes liable to chatter in adverse circumstances.

This is not just abstract theory. It accords with observation and practical experience.

(Engineering note - stiffness is proportional to the cube of thickness, so only a relatively small increase in thickness of a plane iron will give a significant increase in stiffness. Conversely, only a small decrease in thickness will give a significant increase in flexibility.)

The rest is just noise.


----------



## Corneel (8 Mar 2016)

Stanley planes with thin irons do not chatter. 

Unless the blade is dull, or the lever cap way too loose or something like that. The exact curvature of the capiron is not critical.


----------



## MIGNAL (8 Mar 2016)

I have two No.4's. A super fettled Stanley, pre 60's vintage. I did everything to that. Initially I fit it with a very thick Sorby iron but with a modified standard chipbreaker. Sometime later I bought a thick Ray Iles blade and a two piece Clifton chip breaker. Not once have I found it to work any better thatn the 50's Record No.4 that I bought for £15 (including the postage!). That was fettled too but only the sole and the blade. The frog, mouth or chipbreaker wasn't touched. In fact the Stanley sits on the shelf, unused for almost a year. I work some pretty hard woods, Ebony, Rosewood, Bubinga, Oak. I think it would need to be very exceptional circumstances for it to chatter. I haven't tried the knotty endgrain but I'd almost certainly wet that endgrain before it even saw a plane. I sometimes plane endgrain Ebony but that is in thin stuff, 8 mm 's thin which isn't that much of a test, even in Ebony endgrain.. I've a feeling my 70's Stanley No.5.5 would pass the knotty end grain test, even without wetting it. I'll give it a go. Just don't expect a full width shaving.


----------



## CStanford (8 Mar 2016)

I suspect Paul Sellers is right when he attributes chatter to friction of the sole of the plane:

https://paulsellers.com/2012/10/more-co ... s-chatter/

Or I guess somebody would have to come up with a reason why a plane chatters on one pass and then does not on the next after the sole is lubricated.

Might make sense to try the easy fix first. The cost is a candle-stub.


----------



## D_W (8 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":tpdrqyai said:


> Thick cutting irons (say 2.5mm and thicker) are stiff enough not to vibrate in service, and thus cap-iron design and bedding are less critical.
> 
> Thin cutting irons (2mm or less) are flexible enough to vibrate (chatter) in some circumstances, and need more attention paid to stiffening up by use of a suitable cap-iron design and better trapping against the frog bed. This was discovered by Leonard Bailey many years ago, hence his patent to alleviate the problem, allowing him to use thinner irons successfully. Most modern cap-irons in thin-ironed Bailey-type planes do not, for some reason unknown, accord with the provisions of Bailey's patent, leaving the planes liable to chatter in adverse circumstances.
> 
> ...



Some of the old frog designs that leave the iron suspended may chatter (I can't say, I don't keep those types because I don't like the gap between the frog and casting). The designs that have the frog going all the way to the casting do not chatter unless the user causes them to. 

As charlie pointed out, Sellers is correct that it's an issue of too little wax. I plane the ends of the planes that I just showed. No wax, and the planes skip. Wax, and they do not. 

For what it's worth, I plane the ends of those (and not particularly thin shavings) using a vintage iron that's been sharpened only with a washita and a bare strop (I am not chasing the atom to prevent chatter).

I can't remember the last time I got true chatter from a stanley or millers falls (the two type of planes I have on hand) plane. Sometime before learning to set the cap iron, I guess.

There is one other thing that appears fairly often in stanley type planes that haven't been used in a while, and that's a rear handle that feels tight to the hand, but isn't quite tight. It will cause a plane to skip (but not cause the iron to chatter). 

I appreciate that leonard said what you printed in the patent, but it would appear to be out of date as it's not an issue with most of the stanley planes that have been made (in number), especially the ones people are likely to be using.


----------



## D_W (8 Mar 2016)

All of this discussion has sent me out to peebay to see if I can snag another 4, they are common as water. 

But Jeez, the price of them has gone up in the last couple of years. 

I once (in my early days of much tool rotation) had one with rubber handles, and I thought it was hard on the eyes because of the rubber handles. They were probably somewhere around wartime. I'd like to get another one of those. The rubber that was used, thinking back, was quite nice. It wasn't cheap feeling like plastic, but it didn't rub your hands raw, either.


----------



## Corneel (8 Mar 2016)

CStanford":13yms037 said:


> I suspect Paul Sellers is right when he attributes chatter to friction of the sole of the plane:
> 
> https://paulsellers.com/2012/10/more-co ... s-chatter/
> 
> ...



Hey I learned something from this thread! Thanks for the link Charly. I was fitting a replacement piece for a doorsill tonight, just a bit of carpentry work in meranti. I had cut it just a tad too long. When planing the endgrain to make it shorter, the plane squealed quite horribly. I didn't really detect chatter marks, but I didn't look very closely either. Anyway, a dab of wax on the bottom of the plane and the squeal was gone, planing was much smoother.


----------



## ED65 (8 Mar 2016)

David C, if you're still monitoring the thread this is exactly the kind of thing I referred you to at the bottom of page 3:



MIGNAL":2kypqdif said:


> Sometime later I bought a thick Ray Iles blade and a two piece Clifton chip breaker. Not once have I found it to work any better thatn the 50's Record No.4 that I bought for £15 (including the postage!).


----------



## David C (8 Mar 2016)

Well ED--,

We used to make a lot of full sized benches, using Afzelia for the tops.

This timber is full of mineral deposits, has high density and interlocked grain. We noticed and confirmed a huge improvement of blade life and performance by switching to thicker A2 blades. I'm sure Ray Iles D2 blades would have the same benefit.

Believe who you will.

And how about a name please?

David Charlesworth


----------



## CStanford (8 Mar 2016)

Krenov was a fan of Doussie (Afzelia). Not sure if he had access to A2 cutters though.


----------



## D_W (8 Mar 2016)

That issue is exactly what I was addressing when I made the statement that if your blade life is too short, the shaving is probably too thin. 

I certainly can't deny that the harder alloy steel blades will hold a thin-shaving type edge longer (that is, if all you're doing is taking a thousandth or possibly two and not using the cap iron properly, a harder iron or one with a bunch of non-iron carbides in it will do that for longer). 

But when you turn the shaving up a notch to double that, the gap narrows. 

Years ago, I was making several infill planes and at the time I got frustrated with the inability of the lie nielsen A2 irons' ability to stay keen in cocobolo that had a bunch of silica in it (silica that you could see - sparkling). I thought I'd hit the jackpot when I bought a couple of continental style mujingfang planes with high speed steel irons in them, they stood up to that much better than lie nielsen's A2 irons (which are about as good as A2 irons get - though there's not really that much variation from maker to maker, lie nielsen's are still the best I've used). 

A year and a half ago, I made two more planes out of cocobolo and resolved to set the cap iron for most of the work, sharpen only with a washita, and use only a stanley 4 with a stock iron. I also made a conscious effort to take a thicker shaving. Aside from bandsawing the blank after squaring, everything was done with a stanley 4. Each plane required no resharpening. I reserved thin shavings only for a few passes to remove any tearout, the rest were probably double or triple finish shaving thickness. 

I would pose this as a question if 62 hardness irons are such a great thing - why didn't anyone care to have them on earlier planes? It's not as if the steel in stanley, or sargent or anyone else's planes couldn't handle that hardness. It certainly could, but the users were more educated in using planes for more than 2 thousandth shavings. 

I still have some "premium" irons left in my shop, but the context of actually getting something done is:
* use a stock iron, sharpen it with a washita and a bare strop, sharpen in a minute and spend another minute taking the plane apart and putting it together and get back to work
* take a thicker shaving with the cap set if you are doing something more than taking a final shaving

I have one other instance of this to compare, I'd be ecstatic if someone would test it, that the advantage of a harder iron disappears when the shaving is increased in thickness some. I have a single premium bench plane - a lee valley plane with a V11 iron. I set out to get an idea of it in sizing a try plane blank of beech, something that I have done plenty of with an old butcher laminated iron that someone sold to me unused. I expected to see the V11 iron outlast a try plane iron like that (water hardening steel, probably something in the neighborhood of 58 hardness) by a factor of two or three. I got less far with the V11 iron than I did the try plane. Part of that is because the try plane is a much better plane for coarse work than a 15 inch metal plane, but I was shocked. 

If I took both of those planes and compared them in a contest of which could plane the most feet of 1 thousandth shavings, I'm sure that the V11 iron would win easily. Backed out to real world use, and it's not as clear. 

And the butcher iron can be sharpened on a single washita stone and it responds well to a bare leather strop. This method of sharpening can't be appreciated by someone until they have worked a fair amount in context and gotten out of the idea of paint by numbers woodworking and sharpening. 

But, I get it if someone struggles to sharpen and has to get out a bunch of gadgetry, and wants to prolong the interval between as long as possible. History shows preference otherwise, though, and for good reason. The "hard iron" fascination came along as a crutch to amatuers. 

If you'd like to get an idea (I know you don't care) why people like me and some others who get further into planing prefer carbon steel knocked down a click in hardness, all you have to do is look at brent beach's pictures of edges after he's planed with them. The alloy steel irons look like garbage. The slightly softer and finer carbon steel irons will plane until their clearance runs out without leaving any marks on anything. 

But they won't pass the amateur's pointless test of the most 1 thousandth shavings in a row. It takes a little bit of skill and practicality in planing to get past such nonsense. 

Eskilstuna carbon (look at the edge):
http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/EKtest.html

Lie Nielsen A2:
http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/LNA2test.html

D2:
http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpe ... %20D2.html

(You can see the edges of the latter two, and they leave evidence on a finish planed surface. Brent didn't print the results of turn of the century american stanley irons, but they're just slighty softer than eskilstuna irons and fail in the same way - uniform fine wear).


----------



## MIGNAL (8 Mar 2016)

Those Muji HSS are good. Take a lot to get sharp but stay sharp long. Good for certain woods but not my stock blade, even though I have a few of them. Anyway, I didn't think we were discussing edge retaining abilities but bendy cap irons and their performance in relation to thicker cap irons and thicker blades.
Mignal. Who's rather tired from planing a load of Ebony fretboards with his 70's Stanley 5.5 plane (thin Acorn blade, standard chipbreaker).


----------



## D_W (8 Mar 2016)

MIGNAL":12aj9i2v said:


> Those Muji HSS are good. Take a lot to get sharp but stay sharp long. Good for certain woods but not my stock blade, even though I have a few of them. Anyway, I didn't think we were discussing edge retaining abilities but bendy cap irons and their performance in relation to thicker cap irons and thicker blades.
> Mignal. Who's rather tired from planing a load of Ebony fretboards with his 70's Stanley 5.5 plane (thin Acorn blade, standard chipbreaker).



I'd like to know what those irons are (what type of western HSS they're close to), they will take an edge off of a washita and a jasper, though you'd never grind anything off of them with a washita and they gummed up shaptons when I used to use those to sharpen. Same irons sharpen fairly well on okudo suita, which is really unusual for a high speed steel. So do woodwell/muji's chisels - same steel in the HSS types. 

For what it's worth with their cap irons (muji), I'm not a fan. IN the scheme of things, they copied the ulmia's wedged-plane cap iron and they're a bit bulky and not well behaved on tightening. They'd have been better off to copy an older continental smoother with a less bulky cap.


----------



## D_W (8 Mar 2016)

MIGNAL":1yzv6j4e said:


> Those Muji HSS are good. Take a lot to get sharp but stay sharp long. Good for certain woods but not my stock blade, even though I have a few of them. Anyway, I didn't think we were discussing edge retaining abilities but bendy cap irons and their performance in relation to thicker cap irons and thicker blades.
> Mignal. Who's rather tired from planing a load of Ebony fretboards with his 70's Stanley 5.5 plane (thin Acorn blade, standard chipbreaker).



Do you have a page where I can see your work?


----------



## nabs (9 Mar 2016)

hello all, it is the OP here again - thanks for the posts I have learned a lot more from what you have said. Here is a summary of what I understood:

chatter can generally be avoided by good technique, but where it does tend to occur there are a couple of things that can help on the hardware side:
1. a thicker blade
2. increasing stiffness of the blade via the capiron design

item 1 seems uncontentious - as was pointed out earlier, Bailey concedes the same in the patent that prompted the original post. Cheshirechappie provides the engineering explanation:
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/#p1041391
It does seem to be a matter of personal preference whether people choose thick irons over thin although, with the exception of the Stanley 1970s (and beyond?) irons which were apparently woeful, it is generally agreed the thin ones will do the job.

for item 2 things are more complex: in our not very scientific survey the majority of observations for 20th century bailey design planes show that - despite the auxiliary bend in the cap iron - it does not make contact close to the fulcrum created by the edge of the frog/mouth as was intended by Bailey's patent.

However, it seems that the auxiliary bend in the actually implemented version of the cap iron must still direct some additional pressure between the heel of the frog and the mouth than would otherwise be the case and that has the effect of reducing the distance over which the blade can flex. 

There is a good explanation of the chatter effect here https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/#p1041321 that also explains why the Record stay-set design is probably a better solution, at least in this regard. 
This post also makes it clear why other adjustments will also have an impact on the blades ability to bend/chatter, including the tightness of the cap-iron screw and lever cap, depth of cut and position of the cap-iron in relation to the cutting edge.

There were a couple of other interesting side notes:
1. chatter is not always caused by poor technique or because the blade vibrates - it can also be caused by friction on the sole of the plane (c.f Paul Sellers post reference above)
2. at least one modern plane maker apparently deliberately creates a slightly concave face on the frog - it is not explained why, but one theory might be that this reduces the friction between the blade and frog so the blade adjustment mechanism is not overly stiff. I am guessing that, if this is a problem at all, then it is a greater problem for planes designed for thicker irons, since these irons are less likely to flex under pressure of the lever cap and will therefore make more contact with the frog. As ever, there are trade-offs to be made for each design decision.

In a feeble attempt to turn this interesting theoretical discussion back to something more tangible, I did try and get my bench planes to chatter with my limited wood supplies (pine and maple) and amateurish technique, but was not successful. However I was able to get spectacular squeaky and juddery results with a slightly blunt spokeshave when going against the grain. I am curious to see if the dampening idea mentioned by Paul Sellers makes a big difference, so will give that a go at the weekend.

So there you have it - who would have thought cap irons could be so entertaining


----------



## CStanford (9 Mar 2016)

Don't forget to put a little candle wax on the soles of your spokeshaves, too.


----------



## D_W (9 Mar 2016)

nabs":3rhm4xeq said:


> hello all, it is the OP here again - thanks for the posts I have learned a lot more from what you have said. Here is a summary of what I understood:
> 
> chatter can generally be avoided by good technique, but where it does tend to occur there are a couple of things that can help on the hardware side:
> 1. a thicker blade
> ...



Hi Nabs - for your #2 there (at the bottom), it's lee valley who biases the bed of their planes. They do that so that the iron contacts the plane casting/frog (the bevel ups are where this discussion came from) at the mouth and then at the other end of the frog where the pressure from the cap holds the iron down. LV knows their craft well.

Old wooden planes are the same way, except since the blacksmiths didn't want to be charged with making a perfectly flat iron, they smithed the irons hollow so that the irons touched at the top and the bottom of the plane, and on some planes, the corners of the bed at the top are relieved so that the iron contacts only in the middle of the bed at the top. 

Those are what I call biases in favor of the maker and the user - even if there is a bit of error in the modern sense (the bed isn't perfectly cut in all areas, etc), it'll be less than the bias, and everything will work well. These biases exist in most planes, including moulding planes, so that the planes work well both initially and as time goes on and the planes move a little bit. 

Karl holtey uses brass pins on the bed of his planes to do the same thing, and Ron Brese was the other person I had the discussion with early on as I'm making planes entirely by hand (including the infills) and perfectly flat isn't something I want to achieve.


----------



## Corneel (9 Mar 2016)

Here's an example of a plane bed with quite a bit of bias, moulding plane made in Rotterdam, The Netherlands in the 19th century.


----------



## D_W (9 Mar 2016)

Corneel":33glltcg said:


> Here's an example of a plane bed with quite a bit of bias, moulding plane made in Rotterdam, The Netherlands in the 19th century.



that's significant! It's less than that by a lot on western moulding planes - just a slight bias, but the iron in that plane is thick and would handle it fine.


----------



## MIGNAL (9 Mar 2016)

D_W":1m7076ra said:


> MIGNAL":1m7076ra said:
> 
> 
> > Those Muji HSS are good. Take a lot to get sharp but stay sharp long. Good for certain woods but not my stock blade, even though I have a few of them. Anyway, I didn't think we were discussing edge retaining abilities but bendy cap irons and their performance in relation to thicker cap irons and thicker blades.
> ...



The world isn't quite ready for me yet. It will be one day. Don't forget my mate Van Gogh only ever sold one painting in his entire life. 
Criminal. :wink:


----------



## Corneel (9 Mar 2016)

Yes, this moldingplane is extreme. Other Dutch molding planes I have are about half of that. But they all feature a hollow bedding. English ones too I believe. And when you have a hollow, the amount doesn't matter a whole lot anymore.


----------



## ED65 (9 Mar 2016)

David C":1kx6f66w said:


> We used to make a lot of full sized benches, using Afzelia for the tops.
> 
> This timber is full of mineral deposits, has high density and interlocked grain. We noticed and confirmed a huge improvement of blade life and performance by switching to thicker A2 blades. I'm sure Ray Iles D2 blades would have the same benefit.


It's the definition of "performance" that is what I was referring to.

Sharpening interval is a separate issue, obviously that's one of the key advantages of a harder/tougher/more durable steel within reason; many of the same people who say they don't notice a difference in plane performance will acknowledge they have to sharpen less frequently. It's the other things that swap-in irons supposedly do that are moot. Topping that list must be eliminating chatter, it's a bit of a nonsense really since chatter is essentially a non-issue if the plane is in proper order and set correctly. 



David C":1kx6f66w said:


> Believe who you will.


I prefer not to think of it as choosing _who _to believe. Although obviously we all do that to some degree weighing evidence is more of a numbers game. 

It's likely that there were millions of Bailey-type planes produced in 100+ years and used by hundreds of thousands of professionals all over the world during that time, I simply refuse to believe these planes with their thin stock irons were guilty of the numerous failings they're often accused of in modern times.


----------



## D_W (9 Mar 2016)

ED65":xj6b15qf said:


> It's likely that there were millions of Bailey-type planes produced in 100+ years and used by hundreds of thousands of professionals all over the world during that time, I simply refuse to believe these planes with their thin stock irons were guilty of the numerous failings they're often accused of in modern times.



A very reasonable conclusion. 

Proving them out is easy for us - though it's not always easy to figure out how to get the best out of them when the current crop of instructors (and publications) doesn't seem to use them for anything other than smoothing. 

A very good track to take to really try to learn what people knew 100-200 years ago is to look at it as they probably knew something we don't, and it's worth our time to try to figure it out rather than write it off. 

I'd love to convince more people to sharpen with either a coarse stone and a washita or a grinder and a washita. the notion that such a method can't get tools sharp is hocum. The notion that the current crop of instructors may not have a clue how to use them probably is not.


----------



## memzey (9 Mar 2016)

I've found this thread really interesting (probably a bit of a sad admission that actually) but thought it was lacking some visuals. So I popped in to the shed and took some photos of a pair of No. 4s I have for comparative purposes:



The plane to the left is a British made ~1960's model. To the right is an American made type 6 so probably from the 1880's. 
Here you can see them with the iron assemblies and lever caps removed:



On closer inspection the most obvious differences I could see was the size of the hump on the caps and their lengths. The hump on the later cap iron being markedly larger but the older iron being a bit longer:



In terms of thickness of metal they are about the same - perhaps the older one is marginally thinner (the iron itself certainly is):



In terms of feel when tightening the cap iron screw the newer one had more spring to it but the older one felt softer. Not sure if that proves anything but I thought it might help nonetheless!


----------



## D_W (10 Mar 2016)

Definitely helpful. Neither of those planes will have the problem mentioned in the patent (the springing issue). 

I'm not sure what types would actually have the gap between the casting and the frog, but neither of those do, and I'm sure they are or will be good stable users. 

I went out to ebay the last couple of days and noticed that some of the other brands of planes (notably sargent) also have the gap that bailey describes. Stanley eliminated it, apparently pretty early on if that's a type 6. I never paid much attention to types, though, so I don't know when. 

My favorite stanley irons (though I like any of them before they became the more highly alloyed type) are the older laminated irons. They're great irons.


----------



## memzey (10 Mar 2016)

They are both good users although the type 6 is better in every department to the later, British made variant (which I am thinking of converting into a scrub). 

I too much prefer the older irons. The one in this plane is original (I can't tell if it's laminated or not) and works like a dream. In another thread about chisel steel I stated that in my limited experience I had found that older, British cast steel chisels, particularly W&Ps, had the best balance between taking an edge (ease of sharpening), quality of edge (how sharp they get) and holding that edge (time between honings). Thinking about it now that's probably true for these older Stanley irons as well, although I should state that as I have never had a problem with them I have never sought out to use the modern, thicker alternatives.


----------



## D_W (10 Mar 2016)

100% agree about the comments re: the steel. There are all kinds of compromises to be made either way, I guess, but there's no functional improvement in the modern steel unless you're not finish planing with it and it takes you forever to sharpen. 

Same goes for the chisel. There's a user on another forum who jumps at the chance to tell every beginner who says their vintage chisels don't satisfy that they just aren't capable of using them properly yet. He's 100% correct in that, too.

I'm not sure if anyone is making anything comparable to the tang-style ward bevel edge chisels these days. There are a lot of socket and socket/tang style chisels, and some with ferrules that just have a slab of cut bar stock shoved in the handle with no bolster. I guess it's a lack of available skill, but those chisels are absolutely the finest to use day to day.


----------



## memzey (10 Mar 2016)

D_W":elzzuexu said:


> I'm not sure if anyone is making anything comparable to the tang-style ward bevel edge chisels these days. There are a lot of socket and socket/tang style chisels, and some with ferrules that just have a slab of cut bar stock shoved in the handle with no bolster. I guess it's a lack of available skill, but those chisels are absolutely the finest to use day to day.



I couldn't agree more. Bit off topic as this post was about cap irons but if I showed you the chisels I have acquired over the past year or so you would note that they pretty much all fit this description. In particular I find the thinner blades and fine lands make them easier to use for paring and more precise work. Having said that I do also have an old 1" Stanley 750 which is a very nice chisel too. The socket types do look a little bulky and clumsy in comparison to those with tangs though.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Mar 2016)

D_W":3mnfvbkh said:


> I'm not sure if anyone is making anything comparable to the tang-style ward bevel edge chisels these days. There are a lot of socket and socket/tang style chisels, and some with ferrules that just have a slab of cut bar stock shoved in the handle with no bolster. I guess it's a lack of available skill, but those chisels are absolutely the finest to use day to day.



Ashley Iles. 01 steel, multiple-strike forged under a Pattinson spring hammer, hand ground and finished. Very fine side bevels, very slight hollow in length to the flat face. Superb cabinetmaker's bench chisel.

Bristol Design tried in the 1990s to replicate the cast steel chisels of old, offering a range of bevel-edged and paring chisels made from straight carbon steel they sourced in Germany, and had forged and ground in France (I suspect in the Forge de Saint Jury, famous for the Auriou brand). They offered an extensive range of carving chisels, too. I bought (still have) a few b/e chisels, and can confirm that they took a superb edge. There were a couple of problems; many people reported having a lot of work to do to get the flat face flat, and I found that was a problem with some of mine. Also, the side bevels were not that fine. I suspect the problem was that the forge found that the chisels distorted after grinding, as the stresses locked in by the fast water quench were partially released. That said, they were a brave attempt to offer something better than the bog-standard Marples Blue Chips when there wasn't anything else of genuine quality around.


----------



## D_W (10 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":jtzi3k0l said:


> D_W":jtzi3k0l said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure if anyone is making anything comparable to the tang-style ward bevel edge chisels these days. There are a lot of socket and socket/tang style chisels, and some with ferrules that just have a slab of cut bar stock shoved in the handle with no bolster. I guess it's a lack of available skill, but those chisels are absolutely the finest to use day to day.
> ...



As far as ashley iles, these right?

https://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/sto ... shley_Iles

I had a set of these with boxwood handles (which it appears are no longer offered) and they were decent. Edge holding was a little funny for 61 hardness they claim, but it's not like you couldn't do work with them and they are a good price compared to the bevy of $60-80 chisels we have over here touted by the gurus. 

Note quite up to par with the old forged bolster wards, though - but a decent modern chisel that you can hold on the handle and not have a heavy fat construction style blade. 

Stanley 750s are popular over here as collectors things, and then the LN repros pushed by the gurus (same promise of "almost ready to go" as the other white collar retiree tools). They're not very handy for someone who grips chisels by the handle, though. 

I wouldn't have been bothered by the less than flat issues with the french carbon steel chisels, you only have to rectify that once, but fat bevels are not attractive given that they're in every $8 hardware store chisel. Suspect if that type of tool is going to be made again, you almost have to clear it with the blog gurus to get a push or everyone will just buy what the gurus suggest (who also advertise in magazines where the gurus reside or have buddies). It'd probably need to be made by a carving tool maker, too, as I don't know who else would have the skill on hand to make a tang chisel with a forged bolster.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Mar 2016)

I think the boxwood-handled ones were the old mark 1 chisels. As far as I'm aware, the mark 2's the link shows have always had Bubinga carver-type handles, and have only been available for about five years or so. They're quite popular, too; the Ashley Iles website listed them as out of stock until the new year just before Christmas - they sell them as fast as they can make them. Being the happy owner of several, I can understand why.


----------



## D_W (10 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":3cw59r9h said:


> I think the boxwood-handled ones were the old mark 1 chisels. As far as I'm aware, the mark 2's the link shows have always had Bubinga carver-type handles, and have only been available for about five years or so. They're quite popular, too; the Ashley Iles website listed them as out of stock until the new year just before Christmas - they sell them as fast as they can make them. Being the happy owner of several, I can understand why.



They were sold over here as "london pattern", but had longer blades that looked something like these (a shallow grind, but not quite as chubby as these at the edge):

https://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/sto ... shley_Iles

The grinding wasn't the most tidy, but for the price, it was plenty tidy enough. 

There has been some recent static about the chisels coming over here and presumably the handles shrink and some ferrule work is necessary or something. That kind of thing should be no big deal, but it seems most customers in the US think a tool should come in the box ready to work and never ever need any of their attention, no matter how hard they use it, and no matter what the price is. 

I can't imagine that AI could make the chisels for any less and still stay afloat. They're half what lie nielsen charges, and I'd rather have AI's pattern than a stanley 750 copy or some of the other things that are sold here for twice or triple the price. LN finishes their chisels to a level that probably requires that price, but A2 suffers the same issue that it does in plane irons - it makes sense for someone who has trouble sharpening in a short period of time, but not much else.


----------



## D_W (11 Mar 2016)

An update to my curiosity - I'm curious enough about the later types of stanley planes (and what happens if you actually use them properly - i.e., with the cap iron) that I ordered two planes newer than I would normally get. 

One is a late type post-war american plane and one much newer than that with light brown beech handles and a blue bed (and my not-so favorite - some kind of air hardening chrome vandium-ish type of iron). 

With all of the talk about how long it takes to prepare planes, I'll prepare each of the two for no more than 15 minutes and see how they are. I think the stuff that's peddled about these planes taking so long to fettle is because the people fettling them have no clue what they're doing and end up doing all kinds of stuff that isn't necessary to do even the finest work with them. Call me suspicious.


----------



## nabs (12 Mar 2016)

hello D_W - I hope you will start a thread to tell us what you discover - I would be very interesting in reading it. In terms of set up time, I think you are probaly right

Having acquired a few old Record planes now, the first one took me half a day to finish and the last one (admittedly a tiddly type 3) took just under an hour. They were all of similar condition, and actually, in the case of the number 3, I suspect that if I had simply sharpened it then it would have been fine (in practice I cleaned it, flattened the sole, derusted etc)


----------



## D_W (12 Mar 2016)

That's a nice looking record plane.

I'll video the two planes that I set up. A decade ago when i started, I went on a binge buying rusty planes, and non rusty planes, and stripping castings, etc, spending a lot of time cleaning up planes. I try now to make sure that the odds are in my favor for getting a clean iron and cap with little or no rust, and castings, the same - as little rust as possible. 

This one could have enough rust at the end of the iron that my 15 minute ideal may not hold up:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/351673487804?_t ... EBIDX%3AIT

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Stanley ... true&rt=nc

This one should be less of a gamble. 

The market is definitely stronger for these now, I'd never have had to have paid $30 and $40 for these, respectively, until recently. $40 would've been the price for a nice plane with good rosewood that someone had done a fair bit of cleanup on already. 

I bid on a plane between the ages of the two i linked the other day with fairly ugly beech wood on it and it went for $53 + shipping. I could hardly believe it. 

Millers falls planes used to be a steal here, too, but same, they're not now. It was easy until just a couple of years ago to get a #4 sized plane in a desirable type for $10. Now they're as much as stanley planes.


----------



## Corneel (12 Mar 2016)

Wow, expensive stuff! You should buy overhere. The shipping might be a bit much though.

http://www.marktplaats.nl/a/antiek-...285449651fa109c354bbabe740c1b&previousPage=lr


----------



## D_W (12 Mar 2016)

Kees, I can't see the price on that, it just says "reserved". Nonetheless, there are deals to be had on the ground here, they are just sparse and one has to be the type of person looking just to buy tools rather than looking to buy a specific tool. 

There are a couple of antique shops and dealers around here who always have an inventory of planes, but you're likely to find a lot of $40 marked defiance and handyman planes, and not so much a clean #4 with no issues.


----------



## MIGNAL (12 Mar 2016)

I bought this Record for £15 (iirc) including the postage. I just waited for a BIN listing to come up. 





Doesn't look much but it had a pretty much full length square cut blade. I've cleaned it up since and varnished the handles. In terms of performance it was a quick job. Blade flattened very quickly, as did the sole. I didn't touch the frog or the chipbreaker. Most of the work was cosmetic. I've dated it to mid 50's. That's in stark contrast to my Stanley No.4, which I pretty much did a crazy restoration.





Fitted with a thick Sorby iron, yolk modified. Later on I changed it for the Ray Iles blade and a two piece Clifton chip breaker. The Stanley has a thick casting.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (12 Mar 2016)

D_W":3fyhkhbx said:


> Kees, I can't see the price on that, it just says "reserved". Nonetheless, there are deals to be had on the ground here, they are just sparse and one has to be the type of person looking just to buy tools rather than looking to buy a specific tool.
> 
> There are a couple of antique shops and dealers around here who always have an inventory of planes, but you're likely to find a lot of $40 marked defiance and handyman planes, and not so much a clean #4 with no issues.




Quite a few cheaper than $40 (and nice) Bailey's at today's PATINA gathering. Many 4's, fewer 5's, lot's of Bedrocks, mthough it wasn't planes I was after. Many handaws dirt cheap. What was missing? Did not see a single natural stone! David, you're going to have to make the trip to Damascus one of these days! Saw more than a few guys from the Pittsburgh area.


----------



## Corneel (13 Mar 2016)

D_W":fgqgwes7 said:


> Kees, I can't see the price on that, it just says "reserved". Nonetheless, there are deals to be had on the ground here, they are just sparse and one has to be the type of person looking just to buy tools rather than looking to buy a specific tool.
> 
> There are a couple of antique shops and dealers around here who always have an inventory of planes, but you're likely to find a lot of $40 marked defiance and handyman planes, and not so much a clean #4 with no issues.



Ok, then someone scooped it up pretty quickly! It was 15 euro. To be honest, it was by far the best deal I could find so quickly. Most were in the 30 euro region, comparable to the price you paid.


----------



## D_W (13 Mar 2016)

Tony Zaffuto":rf9xae2s said:


> D_W":rf9xae2s said:
> 
> 
> > Kees, I can't see the price on that, it just says "reserved". Nonetheless, there are deals to be had on the ground here, they are just sparse and one has to be the type of person looking just to buy tools rather than looking to buy a specific tool.
> ...



I used to be studying for professional exams around the time of the patina show each year, but I no longer have an excuse not to go as I got through all of them. One of these years, I might go. I'm afraid of what I might get, though, as I'm trying to get rid of my excess stuff so as to create a smaller and neater shop area as the power tools slowly disappear. 

Bummer that there were no stones there, not even washitas?


----------



## D_W (13 Mar 2016)

MIGNAL":oxfi0rkz said:


> I bought this Record for £15 (iirc) including the postage. I just waited for a BIN listing to come up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That setup with the Sorby is interesting! What have you decided in terms of how well it works vs. a stock blade? I'm assuming that those older sorby irons and the stock record stuff are fairly similar in hardness (something that would sharpen well on a washita). I' not sure that I have a cap iron screw that's large enough to span an iron that thick, but I have the irons and planes. Such an experiment would be interesting with a very cheap handyman plane here (Which has a fixed frog and often a large mouth),

Did you have to do anything to get the back of the iron to mate well to the stanley frog (like lap it?).


----------



## D_W (16 Mar 2016)

nabs":25gwiusl said:


> hello D_W - I hope you will start a thread to tell us what you discover - I would be very interesting in reading it.



So, of the two planes I got, I set up the better of the two last night in about 20 minutes (it had some rust on it and needed a fair amount of lapping). What I didn't do that would've been smart was check the piece of wood I was planing to test it to make sure it was flat first, so the video's not fit to publish as there's a mid-section in it where I'm screwing around with the scrap I picked up to flatten it in the first place. 

I have a second plane that is much worse off, it will make for a better video. Hard to make a decent video sometimes if you don't plan well!!

The first Lie Nielsen plane I ever got only needed to have the iron set up, which at the time took me 45 minutes. I'm sure this second plane will take well less than that, despite also being rusty and needing some of the iron to be ground off due to the characteristic rust where the cap iron was contacting it.


----------



## MIGNAL (16 Mar 2016)

Not sure how it compared to the stock blade. Someone gave me the plane and the iron that was with it was the thinnest I've ever come across. It had 1946 stamped on it, which I presumed was the date. The edge wasn't far off the keyhole so I decided to renovate the plane and put in a different blade. Once I had started there was no stopping. Out went the painted handles and in went some bubinga handles that I made. I sprayed the plane with some black engine paint. The frog was flattened, the blade, the seating, the sides made square, the sole as flat as I could make it, the chipbreaker and yolk modified and polished up. Sometime later I fell for the 'superior' blades and the Clifton 2 piece. Out went the Sorby, in came the Ray Iles.
It was all a complete waste of time. The Record I bought performs just as well, although it is a 50's one with a decent blade. It took me 20 minutes to get it working well. I then did a quick cosmetic job on it, which probably took a further 60 minutes. My Stanley 5.5 might just be even better. Strange but I think it's a late 60's early 70's. I swapped the blade for an old square cut Acorn, superb blade. It has some bad pitting which is slowly drawing nearer each time it gets sharpened. Don't know why the Stanley or the Acorn work so well but they do. I guess the stars are all aligned.


----------



## ED65 (16 Mar 2016)

D_W":1m0acwgv said:


> With all of the talk about how long it takes to prepare planes, I'll prepare each of the two for no more than 15 minutes and see how they are. I think the stuff that's peddled about these planes taking so long to fettle is because the people fettling them have no clue what they're doing and end up doing all kinds of stuff that isn't necessary to do even the finest work with them. Call me suspicious.


I think you're right to be suspicious as I believe that much of the _fettle to within an inch of its life _advice that I've read in recent years on a few of the woodworking forums is complete overkill. That's in most cases. Obviously, as touched on in one or two recent threads, there is an element of luck with what you buy in terms of how flat the sole is. 

I do think a 15-minute setup time is ambitious, but achievable. If you're lucky, as I've been, then you'd have time to spare from your quarter of an hour. 

I currently have two no. 4s, which charitably are of the "cheap and cheerful" variety. They should be complete rubbish straight from the factory, and certainly neither one was ready to take shavings as-bought. But any user with experience and an effective sharpening regimen could have gotten each one ready to rock and roll in well under 10 minutes because they wouldn't have had to do one jot of work on the soles.


----------



## D_W (16 Mar 2016)

MIGNAL":1p8gonr1 said:


> Not sure how it compared to the stock blade. Someone gave me the plane and the iron that was with it was the thinnest I've ever come across. It had 1946 stamped on it, which I presumed was the date. The edge wasn't far off the keyhole so I decided to renovate the plane and put in a different blade. Once I had started there was no stopping. Out went the painted handles and in went some bubinga handles that I made. I sprayed the plane with some black engine paint. The frog was flattened, the blade, the seating, the sides made square, the sole as flat as I could make it, the chipbreaker and yolk modified and polished up. Sometime later I fell for the 'superior' blades and the Clifton 2 piece. Out went the Sorby, in came the Ray Iles.
> It was all a complete waste of time. The Record I bought performs just as well, although it is a 50's one with a decent blade. It took me 20 minutes to get it working well. I then did a quick cosmetic job on it, which probably took a further 60 minutes. My Stanley 5.5 might just be even better. Strange but I think it's a late 60's early 70's. I swapped the blade for an old square cut Acorn, superb blade. It has some bad pitting which is slowly drawing nearer each time it gets sharpened. Don't know why the Stanley or the Acorn work so well but they do. I guess the stars are all aligned.



Thanks for that summary. The second stanley that I have is fairly recent, but not so recent as to have the 12-xxx model numbers. The first one that I cleaned up last night isn't exactly a pearl in the cosmetics department, or even some fittiment things (with a squarely ground iron, the lateral adjuster is over fairly far for an even cut, but that's a pointless thing to be concerned about as it's never going to be adjusted further to the right or run out of travel given the need to keep the iron ground in line with the cap iron. 

I don't know what age the first one was, but I'd guess 1950s. 

Thinnest irons I've used are very early stanley's and the tsunesaburo laminated iron, that I think they list as 5/64ths or something. I was into the whole thick iron thing when I ordered that and I was thinking "why would someone make such a nice iron so thin, and it's not even hardened for its full thickness". It taught me a lesson. It was maybe technically the best smoother iron I've ever used, held an edge like A2 does, but didn't fail leaving little lines all over the place like A2 does. Brent Beach's pictures show exactly why. 

But it's not hard enough to sharpen for me to really have that much preference for the edge holding over a stanley iron, and the way stanley's irons roll up a nice wire edge and then release it sharpening only on a broken in washita is hard to beat for true functional use. 

This next plane up has what I'd call rubber-steel, the late chrome vanadium type stuff that stanley put in planes. We'll see how it works. I'm sure it'll be fine. I built a couple of cabinets earlier this year using an iron that I got at home depot for $2, labeled as "buck brothers" over here and made in the USA for that amount. A bit soft, but it actually works well and if anything, it will teach a user to be a bit more skilled with a smoother and not waste time taking only very thin shavings.

We don't have acorn branded stuff over here in general, I'll have to go look it up. eskilstuna is more or less regarded as the top of the line carbon steel stuff here if one is looking for tidy even wear and still more edge retention (the latter, I just haven't seen any iron that works at all that edge retention has been much of an issue. I've improperly hardened a couple and found out what happens when an iron isn't even fit to be functional at all, though - even those were fine after a second go at hardening them). 

If someone was going to do a service to beginner, it would be to tell them to learn to use their hands and eyes (unless they were unfortunate enough to have sight not good enough to do it) and learn to sharpen quickly, and without a bunch of gadgetry. All of this goofiness about irons that don't hold an edge long enough would probably disappear, then.


----------



## D_W (16 Mar 2016)

ED65":3sv0utbo said:


> D_W":3sv0utbo said:
> 
> 
> > With all of the talk about how long it takes to prepare planes, I'll prepare each of the two for no more than 15 minutes and see how they are. I think the stuff that's peddled about these planes taking so long to fettle is because the people fettling them have no clue what they're doing and end up doing all kinds of stuff that isn't necessary to do even the finest work with them. Call me suspicious.
> ...



The following are what I did in 20 minutes last night. 

* Lap very minor rust off of the back of an iron (I have a long run of 80 grit PSA paper on a lap to do that initial work, it's quick), then work through the back on two finer whetstones and then a washita. 
* grind a nasty sharpening job off of the end of the iron (it wasn't cambered, and it wasn't straight, hard to explain what happened to it)
* hone the bevel onto the washita with a little bit of camber
* take the handle off of the plane and grind some length off of the handle rod - the handle had dried and the rod was too long to tighten it
* clean up the cap iron profile and bring it up to washita polish level (where mine has settled, that's probably 3-4k equivalent japanese stone grit, but a different edge quality - one that shaves hair cleanly)
* lap the bottom of the plane on the 80 grit lap, lap the sides of the plane (not for accuracy, just to remove rust), touch them up with finer paper to knock off the nubs (poor choice of terms, the jagged edges left by the 80 grit abrasive), brush it off and apply some paraffin

The next plane is not in such good condition, I think it'll take another 10 minutes more, but I will have a jump on filming it this time because I won't be fiddling to plane the test piece flat first.


----------



## MIGNAL (16 Mar 2016)

I wouldn't be too concerned over Acorn. They weren't the best made. I still have the plane but the blade surprised me on how good it was, which is why I swapped it to the Stanley 5.5. Maybe it was one of those that surpassed their usual output. Maybe they sourced their blades from a specialist. I think it's from the 30's.


----------



## D_W (16 Mar 2016)

MIGNAL":2nzqitwj said:


> I wouldn't be too concerned over Acorn. They weren't the best made. I still have the plane but the blade surprised me on how good it was, which is why I swapped it to the Stanley 5.5. Maybe it was one of those that surpassed their usual output. Maybe they sourced their blades from a specialist. I think it's from the 30's.



Probably just good quality oil hardened steel, as most of the early 1900s stanley non-laminated irons seem to be. I'd assume that the laminated stanley irons were water hardening, but not sure. They all wear about the same rate.


----------



## D_W (19 Mar 2016)

Video of cleaning up the second plane (long video filled with my opinions):
*preparing the iron and cap
*lapping the sole and the sides (the sides only because they had rust on them, they could've been left alone)

That's pretty much all of it, but it did take about a half hour. The modern stanley cap needed some cleanup, but I didn't alter the geometry (it's already close to perfect for use, it was just roughly milled). 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InbpoRc ... e=youtu.be

Right around 39 minutes in the video after getting done with cleaning up the plane, there is an indication of the reflective surface quality. 

I hate to say it, but of the dozen stanley 4s I've had over the years, this modern plane has at least as good of a feel as any. 

Cheshire - note at the very end, I took a thicker shaving than I really should have in the ash, just so I couldn't be accused of removing tearout by taking a thin shaving. Even at that, it is impossible to get this plane to chatter because it's set up properly. It'll just near bring me to a halt (any deeper and it would) struggling to push the cut back against the grain in ash. 

I should in the near future finish kitchen cabinets that I have 3/4ths done and then went into procrastination on. I'll get a better idea of iron life, this iron is definitely softer than the old ones, but in combination with the cap use, it probably won't be an issue. 

It sharpens like a dream on the washita (since oilstones are about the same hardness as very hard steel, if the steel is a click off of that, they cut it plenty quickly) - probably will never take than some fraction of a minute to sharpen. 

In my opinion, a lot of people could stand to learn to use a single washita to sharpen. There's nothing lacking after seeing the reflectivity from the cherry (that you'll find with a guide and a bunch of waterstones), I don't know what it would be, and I never have to fart around flattening the washita - or really anything other than wiping it off quickly with a paper towel once in a while. No lack of camber, either - certainly no witness lines on the cherry board (though you can see a dry crack at one end of it, that's not related).


----------



## custard (19 Mar 2016)

Difficult to argue with that video. The fine set cap iron does what you claim and the evidence is right there.

Thanks for posting.


----------



## D_W (19 Mar 2016)

custard":2p7mwtl2 said:


> Difficult to argue with that video. The fine set cap iron does what you claim and the evidence is right there.
> 
> Thanks for posting.



It's hard to know what stanley knew about the plane at that point in time, but I just used it some more in actual work...it's really a surprisingly nice working plane. One that most forumites would curse because of the soft iron and coarse looking frog. With the cap set, it is rock solid and I'm sure when used properly, I can find a way for the iron to wear me out physically before it needs to be resharpened. (still like vintage stanley irons better, though - but soft ones like this would be spectacular for roughing work).


----------



## custard (19 Mar 2016)

I've got a few alternative options for handling tear out on flat boards, but not too many for curved work. A card scraper or a high pitched HNT Gordon spoke shave are my usual solutions, but the shavings are so fine with these tools that it's a lot of work to remove tear out on curved components. Often I just go straight to a bobbin sander, but that carries a big risk that the fairness of the curve gets compromised, something that's difficult to spot until the finish gets applied. 

So if the finely set cap iron works on a compass plane that would be a big and useful step forward. Inspired by DW's video I just tried a "proof of concept" on a Bailey plane before giving it a go with a compass plane.

Here's an I Sorby Bailey style plane with the original thin iron (maybe a bit thicker than the usual Stanley/Record irons but not by much). It's been well used but not by me, and it's never been sorted out. The iron needed grinding, honing, and the back flattening. The cap iron was a quite "gappy", but that was easily sorted out. No more than 15 or 20 minutes work got it to this stage,







I used an off-cut of highly figured Curly Cherry from a Shaker chimney cabinet that I'm currently making. It's been a problem timber, needing back bevel knives on the planer/thicknesser and multiple passes through the drum sander to keep tear out under control.






I set the cap iron a few tenths of a mill back from the edge and started with some very thick shavings, much thicker than I'd normally use, but absolutely no sign of any tear out,






Then moved on to finer shavings, tried planing the board both ways, still zero tear out,






I was fretting about blunting the edge by running the cap iron over the honed edge when setting it (I think David Charlesworth mentioned having a similar concern - I've got in the habit of treating a honed edge with extreme reverence, maybe it's not really warranted?). I actually did run the cap iron over the edge a couple of times, but in practise it didn't seem to cause any problems and the iron still cut well. I'm sure with a bit more practise at setting the cap iron extremely close this wouldn't happen so much, and in any event I'd be less anxious about it in the future.

What can I say, so far at least it works! 

I'll put a bit more work into the plane and try again tomorrow on some other problem timbers. And if it still delivers good results then I'll move on to doing the same thing on curved components with a compass plane.


----------



## D_W (20 Mar 2016)

Perfectly done, Custard. All of the old "hard to use" planes will suddenly be easy. Permanently. I believe you'll find that if you can't plane it with those planes, you can't plane whatever you're doing with any plane.

You will get to the point that you don't overrun the edge very quickly, dozen sets of the cap iron, maybe. I think i've overrun an edge one time in the last two years, but the conclusion was the same as yours - no harm. 

Rightly said, too, that the double iron is ideal for a compass plane - essential if you want to work quickly. It'll keep you from getting in trouble when you go against the grain at the bottom of a cut. It clears up how the old wooden compass planes are used when their mouths are usually pretty rough.


----------



## nabs (20 Mar 2016)

thanks for the video D_W - it is really good to see someone demystifying the process of setting up these old planes and should encourage newbies like me to have a go.

Custard, I saw a top tip from a video by Richard Maquire on setting the cap iron - he suggests to set it a bit back and then to use a screwdriver or similar to tap the screw that holds the cap-iron to the blade until it snugs up close to the edge


----------



## Woody2Shoes (20 Mar 2016)

I'm wondering how the (very sound) idea of setting the cap iron tight up to the cutting edge, to minimise tearout, sits with the idea of gently cambering the edge to minimise the risk of marking the workpiece with the two corners of the blade. I suppose that, with a cambered blade, the centre of the cut will be (slightly) more prone to tearout than the two regions either side. I guess the camber may be only a couple of thou, compared with the several tens of thou between cutting edge and cap iron.

I round off the corners of the cutting iron, as well as very gently cambering the cutting edge, in the hope of needing less of a camber because of the rounded corners - and thus being able to set my cap iron a few gnat's body-parts nearer the cutting edge. Thinking more about about it, there's no reason why one couldn't gently camber the cap iron too(!) I wonder if anyone does this. 

Cheers, W2S


----------



## CStanford (20 Mar 2016)

Yes, shape the cap iron to match.


----------



## D_W (20 Mar 2016)

CStanford":3nluro7t said:


> Yes, shape the cap iron to match.



Absolutely not. The cap iron is relieved so that the front edge touches the iron. Cutting some parts on a curve will create a gap if the curve is more than the most gradual curve. There's no functional need to cut the cap iron anything but straight because it never protrudes through the bottom of the plane, which means that at the edges where it's closer to the edge of the iron, the chip thickness will be thinner there than the middle, anyway. 

There is never a good reason to profile the cap iron anything but straight.


----------



## D_W (20 Mar 2016)

Woody2Shoes":2vahsdi6 said:


> I'm wondering how the (very sound) idea of setting the cap iron tight up to the cutting edge, to minimise tearout, sits with the idea of gently cambering the edge to minimise the risk of marking the workpiece with the two corners of the blade. I suppose that, with a cambered blade, the centre of the cut will be (slightly) more prone to tearout than the two regions either side. I guess the camber may be only a couple of thou, compared with the several tens of thou between cutting edge and cap iron.
> 
> I round off the corners of the cutting iron, as well as very gently cambering the cutting edge, in the hope of needing less of a camber because of the rounded corners - and thus being able to set my cap iron a few gnat's body-parts nearer the cutting edge. Thinking more about about it, there's no reason why one couldn't gently camber the cap iron too(!) I wonder if anyone does this.
> 
> Cheers, W2S



Hi Woody - as I mentioned to charlie, straight across for the cap iron. Anywhere you've relieved the corners, the shaving will be thinner, anyway, and the cap iron set will still be appropriate and not interfering. Regardless of whether the curve is gradual or clipped off abruptly at the corners, the straight cap is the best setup both for ease and in terms of actually functioning. 

I think it's a mental puzzle at first to wonder how it will not be too close in some areas, but in reality, you are setting the cap for the depth of cut at the middle of your iron, and thus the cap iron needs to still be up from the sole a fair amount or the plane will stop you in your tracks. Anywhere that the cap seems to close to the edge won't be in the cut, anyway, and couldn't be even if you rounded the cap iron. 

One of the lovely things about the cap iron is pretty much the easiest solution in every case is the best one, and there is no fiddly ongoing tuning to do, and no restriction on changing the camber of your iron if you prefer.


----------



## CStanford (20 Mar 2016)

Cap irons are soft. They shape easily. The camber in a smoother should be extremely gradual. Just rubbing off the corners of the cutter is certainly also viable, leaving it essentially straight across. If you've ever seen somebody using a smoothing plane and producing a 3/8" wide or less shaving then the cutter has too much nose on it and/or they did a poor job of prepping the board to be smoothed. 

Lots of video around of this very thing purporting to show how it's done but doing anything but. If you have to take a potato chip thickness shaving to get one the full width of the cutter then there is too much camber. Full stop. 

In prepping lumber completely by hand, removing twist, cup, etc. you will often be left with very little remaining thickness in which to take comparatively greedy shavings in the final cleanup. If you're too cambered then your shavings will be much too narrow and the component will look like hell under a finish. Tearout will be the least of your worries.

All this of course assumes you are dimensioning lumber to a project cut list, or to fit, and not just knocking around in the garage.

Beware the SuperPlaners who eschew scrapers and sandpaper. Most cannot prep a board to the necessary standard needed to look good under a film finish, should that be the spec. Shaker and American Country with linseed oil -- not a problem.


----------



## D_W (20 Mar 2016)

I have no clue who you're talking to about dimensioning and cambering. Did you see any of what you're talking about in my planes? You think I had to resort to sanding those or spent an inordinate amount of time smoothing planing them? You're wasting everyones' time with all of the hypotheticals about cambering. You don't do it on a cap iron, it's suboptimal, unnecessary, and potentially problematic. Period. The rest of your trolling talk is no more than that.


----------



## Carl P (21 Mar 2016)

On the curved cap iron, I had a couple of spar planes go through my hands a few years ago - they both had a semi-circle shaped cutting edge and a matching cap iron. Unfortunately as I didn't need them I released them into the wild waters of ebay but, although at the time I didn't know about the cap iron effect, I remember being particularly impressed by the ammount of care that had been taken to get an exact fit between cap iron and cutting edge.

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## CStanford (21 Mar 2016)

Mr. Charlesworth has mentioned shaping his cap irons if it's any consolation to the membership.


----------



## custard (21 Mar 2016)

It's this issue of the camber that I think for me will be a limiting factor with the close set cap iron technique. In terms of dealing with tear out a close set cap iron is an absolute winner, I've now seen that with my own eyes and I'm convinced. But everyone uses bench planes for different tasks in different ways, and in my workshop at least there are four factors which will tend to restrict the close set cap iron approach.

First is cambering. The number one use for a bench plane in my workshop is probably edge jointing boards to make up wider panels. I believe a hand planed edge to be superior (in terms of invisible glue lines) to a machined edge, so every edge jointed board in my workshop is finished with a bench plane, and to achieve that tight but slightly sprung fit I'm most comfortable using a cambered iron. The thinner the board the more aggressive the camber needs to be for edge jointing, and there comes a point with cambering where a closely set cap iron just doesn't feel right.

The second major limitation is choice of finishes. For an oiled finished I get finishing straight from a plane. But a thin film finish, such as say varnish, is different in that it will almost certainly need subsequent work with an abrasive, and the minute scalloping that hand plane finishing leaves will risk the abrasive cutting through a raised, scalloped edge. So I work on the basis that for thin film finishes the workpiece is sanded smooth before applying the finish. This doesn't negate the benefit of a closely set cap iron, because sanding out serious tear out is a lengthy job, but for more benign timbers in my workshop at least it reduces its relevance.

Thirdly is veneer work. Even with the relatively thick saw cut veneers that I use I'd be nervous about planing a veneered surface, maybe with more experience of using a finely set cap iron I'd get more confident, but I'm not prepared to put hundreds of hours of labour at risk to gain that confidence, so I'll probably stick with very fine scraping and sanding on veneered work.

Fourthly is shooting. Components that are too small to be safely machined, or need adjusting by tiny increments, in my workshop generally get shot. And this is long grain as well as end grain shooting. I'm not sure a closely set cap iron would have benefits in this application, it may or it may not, I haven't built up enough experience to make up my mind.

Having said all this I'm convinced about the advantages of a finely set cap iron. It banishes tear out and permits a heavy shaving to quickly clean up tear out left by machines. And if I can get it to work on curves with a compass plane I'll be even more delighted and grateful to DW for bringing this valuable technique to my attention.


----------



## CStanford (21 Mar 2016)

Don't mess this up by pointing out real world scenarios. You've spoiled all the fun.


----------



## custard (21 Mar 2016)

CStanford":2uq4fj64 said:


> Don't mess this up by pointing out real world scenarios. You've spoiled all the fun.
> 
> Otherwise, damning with faint praise comes to mind. =D>



No faint praise from me. The ability to handle a highly figured piece of timber confident about tear out is a massive step forward. Furthermore, what's "real world" in my workshop may be purely hypothetical in another workshop.


----------



## Corneel (21 Mar 2016)

I don't see a problem there Custard. David allready explained how a straigh capiron works perfectly allright with a cambered iron. Well until you get into jack plane territory of course. The better solution to avoid tearout in that scenario is planing across the grain. In your second and third example, the capiron may or may not be an advantage, but that is the beauty of the thing, it is adjustable. Put it closer to the edge when you need it, set it further away when the timber doesn't present a problem and enjoy the reduction in resistance. And veneer, I think that was the ultimate drop in the bucket making the double iron plane so populair. With thick sawn veneers it was much quicker to be able to plane it smooth rather then to scrape off all those sawmarks. That doesn't invalidate the scaper for final cleaning of course, especially with todays ultrathin cut veneers. BTW, did you know that the capiron effect plays a major role in the veneer cutting industry?


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2016)

custard":2ogur3eu said:


> CStanford":2ogur3eu said:
> 
> 
> > Don't mess this up by pointing out real world scenarios. You've spoiled all the fun.
> ...



Bravo, Custard, for ignoring all of the discussions about where it may not work or what the patent may or may not have said. You have quickly nailed all of the advantages, but the biggest being the pre-smoothing work where you can either remove tearout or work to a line at a high rate with no risk even if you've got a glue seam with opposing grain directions. 

That is the biggest time gain, and I'm convinced that is exactly the part of the process that made double iron planes eliminate single iron planes so quickly. 

As far as the thing where you're not comfortable with it, I'm sure I wouldn't be, either. No need to use it everywhere, but where it works it really works well, and you'll probably find yourself getting more comfortable with it. You'll also begin to notice that you can keep the iron in the cut longer and for more feet of wood before resharpening when the cap is set properly.

(your intuition is correct that it doesn't offer material benefit on end grain, but you don't really need it there. It may be of some benefit on shooting long grain, but if you don't have tearout issues there, there's not much to solve).


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2016)

Carl P":z06l2iwz said:


> On the curved cap iron, I had a couple of spar planes go through my hands a few years ago - they both had a semi-circle shaped cutting edge and a matching cap iron. Unfortunately as I didn't need them I released them into the wild waters of ebay but, although at the time I didn't know about the cap iron effect, I remember being particularly impressed by the ammount of care that had been taken to get an exact fit between cap iron and cutting edge.
> 
> Cheerio,
> 
> Carl



On the spar plane, that profiled cap iron is appropriate, since the sole of the plane follows the profile of the cap and an even depth cut can be had with the profiled cap. 

I guess the best piece of advice is probably that the profile of the cap should match the sole of the plane being used. 

For folks who want to camber the cap iron on a flat soled plane, I think they just need to think a little bit harder about exactly what's going on at each area of the wood, and if they think the cap is too close at the corners, a thought about what's going on at the middle of the plane at the same time needs to be had. Specifically, if the situation is such that the cap iron is 2 thousandths away from the edges at the corner of an iron and one is worried that it might be too close and wants to remove the cap, a second thought needs to be had about what's going on in the middle of the iron. At that point, for the corners to be in the cut, the cap iron would have to be no more than 2 thousandth from the center of the plane, and if the center is several thousandths lower than the corners, the cut depth would be too large for the cap iron set and the plane couldn't be pushed. 

That's on a smoother cambered basis. The greater the camber, the narrower the cut and the less chance the edges are even in the cut. 

(well, and for practical purposes, if one leaves the cap iron straight across, it's easy to find that it lacks nothing and the rest is overthinking). 

But, the spar plane provides an interesting option for people who want to use the cap iron for very heavy work. It's not usually necessary to have the cap set so close as to provide resistance on a jack (though the cap does improve the function of the plane in general), but if someone wanted to, anyway, they could opt for a gutter style jack. 

Thanks for bringing up the spar plane to stimulate the discussion.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (21 Mar 2016)

D_W":3eftn664 said:


> Bravo, Custard, for ignoring all of the discussions about where it may not work or what the patent may or may not have said.



There may be a little confusion, here.

The first reference to cap-irons (back-irons, cover-irons, double-irons, chipbreakers) was in an advertisement for a Philadelphia planemaker, Samuel Caruthers, in 1767, in which he offered "double-iron planes, of late construction, far exceeding any tooth planes or uprights whatsoever, for cross grain and curled stuff". In other words, using the cap-iron to control tearout. It isn't known when or where the idea was developed. The close setting of the cap-iron is mentioned in many texts since (eg 'Planecraft') but precise setting dimensions are not mentioned.

In April 2014, and article was published in Popular Woodworking entitled, "Chipbreaker: Theory and Use" by Kees van der Heiden and Wilbur Pan. (Kees is also 'Corneel' of this parish.) This references the work of two Japanese professors, Kawai and Kato, showing what happens at the cutting edge of a plane blade. From this work, cap-iron settings in the order of 0.1 - 0.3mm were shown to be effective at tearout control. I do not know if there was discussion about cap-iron settings on the woodworking forums before this article was published; Keesl could no doubt set us right. To the best of my knowledge, no patents arose from either the first use of cap-irons, or from the work presented in the 2014 article.

If anybody should take credit for spreading the word in the modern era about using the cap-iron to control tearout, it is Kees and Wilbur, and of course Professors Kawai and Kato for their research. 

In 1867, Leonard Bailey was granted US patent 72443, which enabled him to use thin plane blades in metal-bodied planes. He did this by shaping the cap-iron in such a way that it pressed the blade to the frog surface at three points; the top of the frog, the base of the frog, and at an intermediate point between the two. This did not interfere in any way with the craftsman's ability to set the capiron close to the blade edge to control tearout, should he wish. It was a completely separate matter, intended to allow blades to be made from thinner stock without making them prone to chatter - a matter discussed in depth in other threads.


----------



## CStanford (21 Mar 2016)

Credit belongs to Planecraft. If you follow the mathematical logic in the table present in every edition of Planecraft (8+) you come to a setting the in 1/128" range for "difficult timbers" -- .2 of a millimeter, rounded, dead center of the range suggested by K&K.

The progression in the table goes 1/32", 1/64", then 'as close as you can get it.' Easy math from where I come from. Granted, they would never have put 1/128" in the table -- just as ridiculous now as it would have been back then. Anybody not getting the point is rather dense -- it's not measurable in a wood shop and it's a setting by eye and judgment as it should be.


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2016)

You're a little behind, Cheshire. I'll give you a brief history lesson on the American side. 
* Warren Mickley, since at least 2006, took every opportunity to talk about the superiority of the double iron. We thought he was a troll. Todd Hughes, a blacksmith also told us we were in the weeds if we didn't think it was superior. Todd was a straight up troll sometimes, though (for real), and he didn't actually use planes. he just suggested that the cap iron must be awfully effective to go to the trouble of smithing it and paying for it in an evironment where money is very tight (he was right). 
* Sometime around there, Steve Elliot and others got some data and stills from kato and kawai's study, it was mentioned on a few blogs and disappeared for reasons I don't know
* Early in 2012, after being goaded by warren over and over, I decided not to plane with anything other than a stanley plane until I figured out how to use the cap iron. I posted publicly to warren that he was right after I figured out how to use the double iron (took maybe a week or two weeks), and posted that I was ashamed to find out that the stanley plane was more capable at removing tearout than a 55 degree infill with a 3-4 thousandth mouth that I'd made not long before (thinking that such a plane was the most practical design for a do-it-all smoother). I told warren that he was right, I was wrong, and a few strings of posts ensued. Most of the people, including a few current plane makers told me that I was ridiculous and trolling with warren, and that they had only ever met one person other than warren who regularly used the double iron to control tearout. 
* Bill Tindall saw my post on wood central (and I was trolling people on sawmill creek telling them to set the cap iron close at that time, too - with little success). He said he was interested in what I was saying because at the same time, he and Steve Elliot were trying to get access to videos related to the earlier mid 2000s discussion that fell flat. They were not available yet - to anyone. They weren't posted on any public server and Bill and Steve were working with non-English speaking folks about first, getting the videos and second, having permission to share them (given that they were originally made for marunaka to design a super surfacer that would plane without tearout - they influenced the design of the double iron on the marunaka)
* Bill and I talked back and forth a fair amount and relatively soon after, those videos were posted to a japanese server
* Bill enlisted the help of Mia Iwasaki to translate the captions and documentation that came with them. Mark Hennebury (who sells supersurfacers) posted the videos over here on his site
* Wilbur took a copy of the video and Mia's translations and put captions in the video, and posted it on his site
* Bill at the time wanted to pitch the cap iron thing to magazines, and shortly thereafter (this is in 2012), he forwarded an email from Bob Lang asking if I would write an article for Popular Woodworking. i said I didn't want to because I'm not a professional and I thought that such an article should be written by someone like Warren (who has been using the double iron in daily work for 35 years or so and doing most of his finish work with planes). I also wanted complete control of what would go in an article, so in april of 2012, I posted an article that was edited (and pictures provided by) by Ellis Wallentine, and i think STeve Elliot may have read some of it - he provided one of the pictures in it, too, ellis provided the other. 
* I wrote an article because once the video came out, every Tom, Dick and Harry was an expert on using the cap iron and they were blindly following the video suggesting an 80 degree bevel on a cap iron (which is suboptimal in hand tools) and coming up with all kinds of ridiculous foolishness about measuring the distance the cap iron was set or making some contraption or shims to do it (it's very easily just done by hand and eye - kentucky windage, if you will).
* Fast forward a couple of years, Bill still was pushing around behind the scenes to get an article and Kees had written one and I believe Wilbur was added on to help push it through. Kees will never admit it, but the article content comes from Kees, not Wilbur. Wilbur's contributions (like annotating) have been ancillary, and not of the fundamental type in actually describing how to use the cap iron. 

Wilbur was not included in the discussions between Steve, Bill and I (and Wiley Horne and Mia) until well later - the actual discussions predated the video. Video is powerful, though, and people won't believe what you say to even try it, but they'll believe a video.

Stateside, there were only three people that I can remember experimenting with cap irons before the video ever came out. At least in an educated successful way. Bob Strawn, me and Kees. Kees isn't stateside, but he participates in our forums. I don't know why nobody paid attention to Bob Strawn. He experimented with all kinds of stuff (sharpening on thin strips of steel, other metals, and cap irons, etc).

There was no mention of planecraft or any of these other texts over in the states until after we published an article. Bill Tindall and I joked that as soon as we put it on wood central, every armchair expert would probably be able to go find it in older texts and say they knew about it all along. That said, nobody ever agreed with Warren publicly. 

I believe that there were plenty of people using a cap iron in England, but none of them ever came over to the states to say anything, and the English posters on our sites in the US didn't, either. Why Warren would repeat himself over and over when nobody believed him, I don't know. 

So that's pretty much a summary of it up to this point. 
* Credit Bill Tindall and Steve Elliot for finding and getting access to the video. They spent a lot of time doing it. 
* Credit Kees for looking at this stuff in a vacuum (and Bob Strawn, too) before anyone else. 
* Credit Mia Iwasaki for doing translation work that was technical (and something that was probably a significant amount of work) 
* You don't have to give me credit for anything, but recognize that I figured it out and was discussing it on forums before there was any video available to be distributed and before I knew of any of it. It's funny how much trolling I got at the outset for even suggesting it, and most of that evaporated when a video showed up. That shows a lot about peoples' rationality - refusing to try something that can be explained in a few bullet points on a forum post. 

The editor of the wood central article wanted me to credit Wilbur. Nothing against Wilbur (I have had some back and forth with Wilbur selling tools, etc, and he's a fine person), but he was not a part of the core effort, just a tag-along, and I would've left the credit with Mia, Steve and Bill as far as the video goes. 

I'd have never figured out how to use a double iron without Warren's goading, but Kees, Bob Strawn and I didn't need a video to figure it out despite never being taught anything about it. If you're wondering why we didn't figure it out from Warren, it's because warren's instructions on how to set the cap iron were usually something like "it's hard to explain, it's subtle. a craftsman's skill". 

I am so ardent about it not because of the above, but because when you actually put it in practice, it works a treat - better than anything else, and its at the fingertips of everyone. It makes every part of a stanley or old wooden plane work better, reduces the reliance on constant sharpness in trouble areas, and eliminates the need for precision stuff like tiny mouths and perfectly flat soles. And of those two types (old wooden planes and stanley planes), it 100% of the time makes those planes something that will stop you in your tracks before they will chatter.


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2016)

CStanford":3lofsgfm said:


> Credit belongs to Planecraft. If you follow the mathematical logic in the table present in every edition of Planecraft (8+) you come to a setting the in 1/128" range for "difficult timbers" -- .2 of a millimeter, rounded, dead center of the range suggested by K&K.
> 
> The progression in the table goes 1/32", 1/64", then 'as close as you can get it.' Easy math from where I come from. Granted, they would never have put 1/128" in the table -- just as ridiculous now as it would have been back then. Anybody not getting the point is rather dense -- it's not measurable in a wood shop and it's a setting by eye and judgment as it should be.



Bill and I were thinking of you (me more than Bill, maybe) when we mentioned that there would be after-the-fact armchair experts who had never managed in a decade to mention it before - not when Warren was getting belittled, or any other time. 

But after the fact, you didn't disappoint.

Bob Feeser referred to planecraft often, but he never said anything about the cap iron settings.


----------



## CStanford (21 Mar 2016)

Glad to know you were thinking of me. I don't even know who "Bill" is. This is weird, David.

You and "Bill" can refer to me however you please. It doesn't change the contents of Planecraft and the fact that it predates "Warren" by decades, and presumably "Bill" too.

If your metric by which you judge woodworking information is my having 'discovered' it first I can assure you that you will be sorely disappointed. Let me make this perfectly clear.


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2016)

CStanford":3qva3662 said:


> Glad to know you were thinking of me. I don't even know who "Bill" is. This is weird, David.
> 
> You and "Bill" can refer to me however you please. It doesn't change the contents of Planecraft and the fact that it predates "Warren" by decades, and presumably "Bill" too.



Well, we didn't give you exclusive rights to trolling. I think I referred to you as "people like Charlie"  

You've read wood central long enough to have seen Bill Tindall's handle. 

Why Bill was so interested in the double iron, I don't know. He goes down some odd technical rabbit holes. Bill didn't believe me (even after the video) that much, either, and unknown to me, it was a long time later that he actually even tried to use the double iron.

When he tried it, though (after kees posted a video), it didn't take long for him to describe - very animated - where it's useful (risk free flusing of surfaces on furniture, etc).


----------



## Sgian Dubh (21 Mar 2016)

custard":peiuzayt said:


> I was fretting about blunting the edge by running the cap iron over the honed edge when setting it ... I actually did run the cap iron over the edge a couple of times, but in practise it didn't seem to cause any problems and the iron still cut well. I'm sure with a bit more practise at setting the cap iron extremely close this wouldn't happen so much ...


I've mentioned this elsewhere custard (another forum I think), but one technique you might try for close setting of the cap iron to the cutting edge is to loosely assemble the blade and the cap iron, with the cap iron set generously back from the cutting edge. Then gently jam the cutting edge of the blade perpendicularly into a softish wood, e.g., poplar or pine. Slide the cap iron down to the wood, and tighten the machine screw to lock it in place. 

It usually works pretty well, and a bit of practice helps in determining how firmly you should jam the blade's cutting edge into the wood before adjusting the cap iron. I can't say I've noticed detrimental effects to a freshly sharpened blade through this 'wood jamming' technique, although there might be - I just haven't noticed any! Slainte.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (21 Mar 2016)

D_W - I'm not quite sure where the patent you mentioned comes into this. As far as I'm aware, the only patent applying to cap-irons is Bailey's, which as stated is about using thin irons, not about tearout control. Is there another patent about using cap-irons for tearout control?


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2016)

I never relied on a patent as impetus to figure out why warren was heckling me. I don't care much what was in the patents, because what's printed or not printed doesn't really change what is. 

One of the reasons I was so pleased to see Custard nail it right on the head trying out the cap iron is because I'm sure it didn't take him weeks to learn it, he's already aware of the benefits of it, and he's not arguing about what was in an old text or what's in a patent. 

It doesn't really matter. The only point I wanted to make about anything related to that patent is that:
* there hasn't been any subsequent metal plane cap iron design that is an improvement on Baileys (for any reason, really, performance or otherwise)
* the oft had discussion about flatness of the frog or the seemingly undesirable situation to some people where the iron contacts only at the top and the bottom is essentially a planemaker's dream. It's exactly how a good designer would have it.

I sure hope that in all of this, at least a half dozen other people who have never really appreciated their stanley or record planes too much will actually prepare and set a cap iron and work it. 

Forget about the patent at this point for anything other than literary curiosity. It will not teach you 1/10th of what an hour of experimentation at your bench will.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (21 Mar 2016)

D_W":26gkpzax said:


> It doesn't really matter.



Well, that at least I can agree with. On another thread, I did say everybody needs to lighten up a bit - it's woodworking, not life and death.

The reason for asking about the patent was as stated. There still seems to be some confusion, but before the whole thing becomes a flame-war, I think I'll just leave it be.


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2ksblklm said:


> D_W":2ksblklm said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't really matter.
> ...



I think most people ignore the patent when it's brought up, but it does come up on various forums from time to time. It's used relatively often as justification that Leonard Bailey didn't know that you could break chips with it (because he didn't say it explicitly), or as description that we're all setting our cap irons wrong if they don't touch at three points (though since you've brought it up this time, we did at least learn that the patent was made when the frog was an older style with a ledge and unsupported area, something all of the newer types have eliminated). There's no great reason for the caps on the later designs to touch at three points. Conceptually, it sounds good, but most people would probably bend the cap too far and have too little pressure on the edge of the iron where you really need it.


----------



## G S Haydon (21 Mar 2016)

Nice vid David. Shows a very effective way of using a plane.


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2016)

G S Haydon":srb2ltle said:


> Nice vid David. Shows a very effective way of using a plane.



Thanks, Graham. And a plane that would be cast off by most. I think I said it already, but I hate to admit that while the iron's not quite up to par with the older stanley's, the plane itself feels as good as any smoother I've ever used. :shock: It hardly took anything to lap it flat and the whole thing locks up tight as a drum. The handle is inexpensive beech with a thick lacquer on it, but it's shaped nicely and oriented well in the plane. 

Certainly a usable iron, though. I have a couple of more kitchen cabinets to make, and I will use this smoother and its iron to do them just to get a better idea of these modern irons in context (the cap iron makes their quality not so critical, though)

(I am kind of jealous of Custard's I.Sorby metal plane, though)


----------



## memzey (21 Mar 2016)

I continue to be intrigued by this thread. I do have a question however or possibly an observation that I don't think has been addressed. Last night, after watching David's YouTube video (I hope you don't mind me referring to you by your first name) I thought I'd do some experimenting. So I squared the end of an iron, which was previously a bit wonky and re-ground it at my grinder. Now on this occasion I happen to have misjudged my angles a bit and ended up with a lower angle on that iron than I was aiming for. I didn't think much of it and honed as usual on my oil stones and tried to set the cap iron as close as I could. As soon as I started taking test shavings on some pine I encountered the most exquisite chatter you could imagine! Ribbon upon ribbon of perfectly parallel little ridged shavings came off that plane - even when planing against the grain! I tried lube on the sole to no avail. The only thing that tamed it was going back to the stones and working a steeper bevel. I had never encountered chatter of any sort before this incident. This might be a false conclusion drawn by a too small sample but it does make me think that there is probably an optimal bevel angle for the cap iron effect. Does this make sense to anyone else as well?


----------



## CStanford (21 Mar 2016)

D_W":1c6c7t5c said:


> CStanford":1c6c7t5c said:
> 
> 
> > Glad to know you were thinking of me. I don't even know who "Bill" is. This is weird, David.
> ...



Ah, Bill Tindall. Of course. Lots of Bills in the world -- last names are good.


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2016)

memzey":30ocs07e said:


> I continue to be intrigued by this thread. I do have a question however or possibly an observation that I don't think has been addressed. Last night, after watching David's YouTube video (I hope you don't mind me referring to you by your first name) I thought I'd do some experimenting. So I squared the end of an iron, which was previously a bit wonky and re-ground it at my grinder. Now on this occasion I happen to have misjudged my angles a bit and ended up with a lower angle on that iron than I was aiming for. I didn't think much of it and honed as usual on my oil stones and tried to set the cap iron as close as I could. As soon as I started taking test shavings on some pine I encountered the most exquisite chatter you could imagine! Ribbon upon ribbon of perfectly parallel little ridged shavings came off that plane - even when planing against the grain! I tried lube on the sole to no avail. The only thing that tamed it was going back to the stones and working a steeper bevel. I had never encountered chatter of any sort before this incident. This might be a false conclusion drawn by a too small sample but it does make me think that there is probably an optimal bevel angle for the cap iron effect. Does this make sense to anyone else as well?



Certainly if the only difference is a long thin bevel vs. one that's not as long and thin, it would seem possible that would cause chatter.

I've always ground the primary high 20s or so and hand honed on something that's probably low 30s in degrees. I have also had wooden plane irons that were sharpened to a very long primary that didn't chatter, though (those irons, of course, came from sheffield). No clue what their angle was, probably 20 degrees or so. 

Anyway, whether it's only the thin primary bevel or if it's a combination of things that the thin bevel is a part of, I don't think we could know.


----------



## memzey (21 Mar 2016)

Thank you David. I normally sharpen to similar degrees but for some reason didn't quite manage it this time. On a separate note I've also had trouble in the past with the mating surface between the cap iron and iron not being 100% and as a result allowing shavings to get jammed in the gap. Do you have any detailed advice (or possibly a video in the offing) on cap iron prep to get this where it should be?


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2016)

Flat and straight stone and careful strokes with the edge of the cap iron running along the length of the stone until you raise a wire edge along the cap iron. Undercut about 5 or 10 degrees so that the cap iron end touches the back of the iron at a knife edge. 

(remove the burr off of the front of the cap iron with a fine stone, and then strop or stroke the cap across wood if necessary to remove the burr on the cap iron).

If there still isn't a satisfactory fit, check the back of the plane iron with a rule to make sure that it's not bellied. If it is, you're in a pickle. 

If the fit issue appears minor, you can roll the front off the cap down like your rolling a burr on a scraper and close minor gaps, but that kind of thing is not my first choice.


----------



## D_W (21 Mar 2016)

I worked the cap iron in the last video here at about 13:30, though it's not ideal to see it. the other end of the cap iron is below the level of the stone to get the undercut I mentioned. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InbpoRcQyI0

This cap iron required considerable work, more than most vintage ones. It was pretty coarsely made and I had to grind the leading edge to get the stanley curved profile correct (and get the mill marks out of it). 

I don't think I have anything better for the cap iron, but there must be dozens of tutorials about these types of cap irons that describe the same thing, as the requirement for the knife edge fit is there regardless of whether or not someone instructing the setup knows how to use the cap iron.


----------



## G S Haydon (22 Mar 2016)

I agree that Custard's plane is a fine one. Having said that if the primary objective is good surfaces and good workflow the video illustrates that experience, practice and understanding are the most important factors.

The only word of caution to anyone reading this thread is that the "new" (as in buy one from the merchants today) Stanley Bailey has in my experience been very poor quality, hollow plastic handles etc. It could be made to work but for £50> it's not a good use of time and money.


----------



## D_W (22 Mar 2016)

G S Haydon":2n8wr1ga said:


> I agree that Custard's plane is a fine one. Having said that if the primary objective is good surfaces and good workflow the video illustrates that experience, practice and understanding are the most important factors.
> 
> The only word of caution to anyone reading this thread is that the "new" (as in buy one from the merchants today) Stanley Bailey has in my experience been very poor quality, hollow plastic handles etc. It could be made to work but for £50> it's not a good use of time and money.



Yeah, bad deal here, too - the new one (12-904). Same price as the old ones in good shape.

I found one a couple of days ago for $20 and ordered it, though. Just curious, personally, but wouldn't suggest the thing could be cheap enough any other way to justify even shipping cost.

They make one even worse, too. Look up the 12-204, it's the same thing except it appears to be as cast with no finish work an any show surfaces.

And the gobs of second line planes where a distance of the iron is suspended with no support, $0 is too high of a price unless one has use for the screws.


----------



## G S Haydon (22 Mar 2016)

Yep the 12-904 was a dog! Could be made to work but I could not be bothered, and that's saying something for me!


----------



## D_W (25 Mar 2016)

well, that backfired some. the plane that I got is old stock and UK made, and doesn't look to be that poorly made. The lever cap cam is a tight, that's all I can see technically wrong with it. 

I'll see this weekend. It's not like I'm going to keep it (plastic handles and such), just more out of curiosity. Probably shouldn't waste my time with it.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (25 Mar 2016)

I doubt there has been a plane made that can't be made to perform, though the quest is always cost/benefits accreued of spending $$$$ on a cheap plane to the point the amount spent exceeds on of the moderm premiums available.

About a half dozen years ago, I took one of the Harbor Freight planes, #3 size, bevel down, that cost around $10 new, American. I had one of my toolmakers make a new A2 blade for it, quarter inch thick, I made a new brass lever cap. My machinist also ground the sole flat, cleaned up the blade bedding, squared the sides to the sole, as well as grinding off "HF" and "Made in ?". Tote and knob stripped easily to reveal a nice, tropical looking wood, that really looked nice with some oil. The sole was bead blasted and then painted mmu favorite color, Clifton green, with the edges of the sole polished bright, like a Clifton. I also replaced parts of the adjuster mechanism with readily available, well made brass parts.

Net ffect was a #3 size plane that was a nice little smoother. It could easily take .0015" shavings all day, tear out free. What was my rolled up costs? I figured maybe about $85.00 of shop time and $5 a $10 of raw materials. Bear in mind, in my manuafacturing plant, I have a complete CNC machine shop (6 machining centers), manual style mabchine shop to support the CNC's as well as my powder metal presses & furnaces. I also have a complete tool making shop and batch heat treating furnace.

Sometime, I can make a video, if anyone wants to let me email it to them, to poet here. Like Charles, I'm very old school and posting pics, etc., does not come to me.


----------



## D_W (25 Mar 2016)

Tony Zaffuto":vuy0k56s said:


> I doubt there has been a plane made that can't be made to perform, though the quest is always cost/benefits accreued of spending $$$$ on a cheap plane to the point the amount spent exceeds on of the moderm premiums available.
> 
> About a half dozen years ago, I took one of the Harbor Freight planes, #3 size, bevel down, that cost around $10 new, American. I had one of my toolmakers make a new A2 blade for it, quarter inch thick, I made a new brass lever cap. My machinist also ground the sole flat, cleaned up the blade bedding, squared the sides to the sole, as well as grinding off "HF" and "Made in ?". Tote and knob stripped easily to reveal a nice, tropical looking wood, that really looked nice with some oil. The sole was bead blasted and then painted mmu favorite color, Clifton green, with the edges of the sole polished bright, like a Clifton. I also replaced parts of the adjuster mechanism with readily available, well made brass parts.
> 
> ...



I remember the brief craze for those HF planes. That's the best turnaround I've heard for one, though - quarter inch, too!!

I'm hoping that this UK 4 takes about 20 minutes to make it work well. The curiosity has more to do with fascination with how good a plane can be just with the iron and cap iron prepared properly, when the rest of the plane is really nothing to write home about (maybe that summarizes the wooden planes I make, too - since someone else made the cap iron and iron!!). 

I can't deny that no matter how much I secretly like a little getting something to work well in 20 minutes, there are some subtleties that a beginner wouldn't follow, and though I'm low tooling for these, I'm still using a grinder and a piece of glass shelving that most people wouldn't bother to acquire. 

And most of the people getting into this hobby aren't looking to pinch pennies, anyway.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (25 Mar 2016)

Meant 1/8" David! I picked the thing up during the craze just to see how many American dollars could be put into a dirt cheap plane to make it perform. Seems to me, LV or some other mail order company did something similar years ago. Fact is, there is not a whole lot of difference between substandard, then OK and finally exceptional, maybe a spread of the HF plane at their cost, then with another $23-$50 and finally an additional $100 (includes a profit margin of about 25%. Bear in mind, that HF plane was described on US forums as a "gem", and had no chip breaker.

I was in your neighborhood again: hockey game last night and we spent the night (William Pen). Wife & daughter had to shop, naturally, so it was off to Ross Park. I hung out at Home Depot, nearly long enough to have several orange floor walkers follow me around.


----------



## D_W (26 Mar 2016)

Tony Zaffuto":1yzp1jpf said:


> Meant 1/8" David! I picked the thing up during the craze just to see how many American dollars could be put into a dirt cheap plane to make it perform. Seems to me, LV or some other mail order company did something similar years ago. Fact is, there is not a whole lot of difference between substandard, then OK and finally exceptional, maybe a spread of the HF plane at their cost, then with another $23-$50 and finally an additional $100 (includes a profit margin of about 25%. Bear in mind, that HF plane was described on US forums as a "gem", and had no chip breaker.
> 
> I was in your neighborhood again: hockey game last night and we spent the night (William Pen). Wife & daughter had to shop, naturally, so it was off to Ross Park. I hung out at Home Depot, nearly long enough to have several orange floor walkers follow me around.



I feel for you going to that mall. There's nothing cheap there!! I'm between the mall and the hockey stadium more or less. 

If you go to that home depot enough, sooner or later you'll see a 6'6" cross dresser in high heels walking around the back or middle of the store. There's a harbor freight right down from me, too. 

I can't remember why I didn't get one of those "gems", but probably because I was afraid of putting $40 into a $10 plane only to have a $10 plane!! (in those days, I would've bought a single iron plane). 

I tend to think a lot of the opinions formed about "gems" on woodnet and other places are done without too much rigor (as in, if it's $10 and capable at all, folks get ecstatic. But it would get exposed smoothing an ash or maple bench top). 

100% agree on the difference between substandard and exceptional being very small. A mechanical engineer friend of mine likes to say "you have to go out of your way to make it 90% good enough when it would be just as easy to make it 100%".


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (26 Mar 2016)

I gave the plane away after I got it working-to a handtool newbie, though I didn't tell him it was a HF. I generally stay out of HF.

Your engineer friend is spot on. In the case of HF, you have to wonder what exactly the market is? Earlier this week, I took delivery of a 3d printer, in order to take 3d renderings from Solid Works ( our CAD program) to a3d model. Can do this in metal or plastic, and the technology is amazing, being able to make fully useable items from a drawin in very short order. Just think, taking a Bedrock/Bailey frog and increasing or decreasing it a few degrees: the whole plane world will be turned upside down.


----------



## D_W (26 Mar 2016)

Well, I met my match with the 12-904 plane that I bought....met my match isn't really totally true, but I did have to do more than lap it and prepare the iron and cap iron. Defective with a capital D - the adjuster is much thicker than the adjuster slot is wide, so the iron literally is suspended above the frog as the cap iron can't go all the way down on the adjuster. 

Reminds me of what my english friend says...how hard would it have been to make the adjuster narrower than the slot? How do you not notice a gap of a tenth of an inch between the frog and iron? It actually isn't too bad of a plane other than that, but it would actually be perfectly fine (despite plastic handles) otherwise. Five minute fix with swiss files, but not something the average person would have on hand. 

Strangely enough, with the iron suspended almost a full iron thickness above the frog over the adjuster, the plane actually planed just fine, it just couldn't lateral adjust with anything other than a hammer because the iron was suspended above the end of the lateral adjuster. Felt solid and everything. Just not exactly the ideal third contact point.

With the cap iron filed, I can't really find any fault with the plane in use. Took about 30 minutes to prepare it for use, though. The plastic handles are unsightly but they aren't uncomfortable.

http://s30.postimg.org/6hoeikspd/Surface.jpg

(it's hard to make it out until you look closer, but that is the reflection from the window on a piece of curly maple. It's much clearer viewed by human eye, but camera phones seem averse to picking up reflections and the objects they're on at the same time. You can notice that the definition from the mortar between the blocks is clear. The shaving thickness for that surface was 3 thousandths, and I'd say no lines, but there are a couple of light ones on the wood from a nicked iron).

Strange thing, though, the sheffield iron in this plane isn't really that soft, and I expect that after I clean off my bench, it should work fine.


----------



## D_W (26 Mar 2016)

Tony Zaffuto":2cur12ct said:


> I gave the plane away after I got it working-to a handtool newbie, though I didn't tell him it was a HF. I generally stay out of HF.
> 
> Your engineer friend is spot on. In the case of HF, you have to wonder what exactly the market is? Earlier this week, I took delivery of a 3d printer, in order to take 3d renderings from Solid Works ( our CAD program) to a3d model. Can do this in metal or plastic, and the technology is amazing, being able to make fully useable items from a drawin in very short order. Just think, taking a Bedrock/Bailey frog and increasing or decreasing it a few degrees: the whole plane world will be turned upside down.



When those printers first got public popularity, I figured we'd start seeing plastic trinkets manufactured by them, but I don't know if they're there yet. 

What kind of definition can the printer give metal objects? A plane casting and frog wouldn't have to be very strong as far as metals go, so it might be an interesting thing to try.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (26 Mar 2016)

D_W":3p6cje34 said:


> Tony Zaffuto":3p6cje34 said:
> 
> 
> > I gave the plane away after I got it working-to a handtool newbie, though I didn't tell him it was a HF. I generally stay out of HF.
> ...




Definition/detail is as good as the drawing. I bought the machine for rapid prototyping and design of prodcut to avoid leadtime to build prototype tooling to determine feasibility of design for powder metal process. We can do in hours what once took weeks.


----------



## swb58 (28 Mar 2016)

Can a thread get further away from hand tools?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (28 Mar 2016)

swb58":3jsukiqr said:


> Can a thread get further away from hand tools?



I agree. I have yet to work out if a printer, or even a CNC machine, has any part to play in hobby woodworking. It has little to offer hand tool woodworking. On the other hand, CNC is no doubt a boon to the small pro shop where before carving needed to be farmed out, or protyping, in the case of tool making and printers. I have received plastic printed tools from Lee Valley as part of the design-to-production process, and they were amazingly accurate. Rob Lee has mentioned this on the forums on a number of occasions. I got to see the machines when I visited the factory in Ottawa a few years ago. It still amazes me. A Black Art. However, I do not see the point for an amateur such as myself. The joy of woodworking for me lies in the challenge realising a goal through my own efforts. This is obviously not a concern for those amateurs that are instead more focussed on output.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (28 Mar 2016)

swb58":2iyr26d9 said:


> Can a thread get further away from hand tools?



Not intended to offend, though I think we've gotten past the original topic (as in, it's run it's course) and it's normal for ancillary discussions to be the only ones left. 

Funny things about forums, Tony is often minutes from me, yet I've never met him and talk to him more storing text on a forum in the UK. Hopefully that'll change sometime. He's also got a technical business so 3d printing might not ever come up for me or most others, but it's part of Tony's business that will hopefully afford him some hobby fun (I won't tell the tax man!). 

Just when I talk to like minded folks enough on here, and think that hand tools are getting real traction, I make a rare stop in Rockler (a hobbyist woodwork supplier here) and I see a demo for a small CNC machine with crowds of people around, and they're not just lookers as I can hear people talking about what they're doing with theirs. Using terms like "I carved", which is a confusing term to me when a machine is doing the carving.


----------



## swb58 (28 Mar 2016)

D_W":1j12biyt said:


> swb58":1j12biyt said:
> 
> 
> > Can a thread get further away from hand tools?
> ...



No worries, it was just a thought that crossed my mind at the time. You guys carry on . . . . . .


----------



## D_W (7 Nov 2017)

In a long dead post now, I was fishing through here for Custard's comments using the cap iron in a real world scenario, and noticed that this was about cambering cap irons. 

I still don't see a reason for it, but I figured as an addendum for the 1.3 people who actually read this thread and were interested, the Dean of the cap iron in the US (Warren Mickley) who works in an area where the Amish dominate and manages to undercut them on jobs that can be done entirely by hand, pointed out to me that Nicholson suggested that the cap iron edge should be concentric with or parallel to the iron. 

Charles Hayward appears to have said the same thing (whether or not it's just carried forward from Nicholson, I don't know. I don't know that it matters, but I'd sure like to know why nicholson recommends curvature to match the iron). 

My thoughts on curvature are as follows (summarized from a very long discussion):
* it makes sense if the sole is curved
* It makes some sense if you have a plane that has feeding problems at the corners (these are gone with Leonard's masterpiece, but they can be an issue in a poorly fitted plane and they are the last part of a plane wear and escapement to get right)
* If you had a reason to roll the iron laterally (as in use the right side of a smoother only and adjust it as such), then there would be some potential reason
* It could, perhaps, be a minimization of labor in planing (from a day when people would've done a lot of planing instead of just a little). Meaning, the center of the chip is the thickest, and that is where you need the cap iron to prevent the chip from lifting. Maybe it matters less at the edge

Custard, I hope you don't mind if I've quoted you elsewhere for mentioning that using the cap is just a faster and better way to get the same thing done as the rest of the "tricks" when you're dealing with a large slab of less than agreeable wood.


----------



## richarddownunder (8 Nov 2017)

D_W":32qfckf3 said:


> I worked the cap iron in the last video here at about 13:30, though it's not ideal to see it. the other end of the cap iron is below the level of the stone to get the undercut I mentioned.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InbpoRcQyI0
> 
> ...



Grinding without safety glasses! :shock: 

Just thought I'd mention it

Cheers
Richard


----------



## richarddownunder (8 Nov 2017)

Hi Folks. A number of years ago, having read discussions like this one about capirons and thick irons I thought I'd test it out by making extra thick capirons for a couple of Records - a 4 and a 5 - out of stainless which was darn hard to work and I'd not recommend it!! Both were OK planes as far as i could tell to begin with. Anyway, long story short, I felt that the thick capirons improved the feel of both planes and I haven't been tempted to replace the home-made ones with the originals. I haven’t experienced 'chatter' and 'feel' is subjective and the experiment isn’t really statistically valid, so its just opinion, perhaps biased by the fact that I made them so they had darn well be better than those thin bits of pressed steel. They feel more like my favourite Record SS to use and, I think, different to my ~1930 US Stanley, which is again and OK plane but not one I'd reach for to finish the back of a guitar or something similar. In the end, I really don’t need duplicate planes so I use my SS Record and Cliftons for everything and the stainless-fitted ones sit on the shelf gathering dust (but not rust). Just noticed the fit of each cap iron is a bit different but they both work well enough (cant remember whether the blue one is the final photo or whether I fitted it a bit better. Anyhow, my 5 cents as a beginner. 

Cheers
Richard


----------



## D_W (8 Nov 2017)

Those look quite nice. And stainless, too!


----------



## D_W (8 Nov 2017)

> Grinding without safety glasses! :shock:
> 
> Just thought I'd mention it
> 
> ...



We live on the edge here in the states!

There's a trick to staying out of the arc of the grit on that grinder, but safety glasses would be a better trick.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (8 Nov 2017)

Isn't it in the constitution that citizens are entitled (expected?) to ignore all machine safety? Anything else would be un-American crazy European communism, beware, that road leads to gun control and free health care.


----------



## D_W (8 Nov 2017)

Define free  I think I'd prefer our health care here as long as you can pay, yours if you can't afford it. Pretty indifferent about the guns, though. Despite the news fascination, at street level in the burbs, you don't see too much conflict!!

Just don't make us get a license to use a chainsaw! I'd hate that! One of the modern man's pleasures is working a good-running Swedish saw once in a while without having a license. Used to be peeing outside, too, but that seems to be discouraged as rednecky these days!!

(re that grinder, it's got an umbrella-ish shaped shield on the inside. If you stay to the left of the wheel a little, no problem).


----------



## custard (8 Nov 2017)

Here's a question that may relate to bendy cap irons.

Take two planes, a 1950's Record and a modern Lie Nielsen. 







Both Bailey designs and both deliver great results. However, in almost every case the Lie Nielsen iron can be advanced and retracted much more smoothly and with less effort. No difference in terms of shavings or surface finish, but when adjusting the shaving thickness on the fly (as I do all the time) the LN has the advantage. I'm not talking about backlash here, just the smoothness of operation.

Why is that?

Maybe it's the shape of the cap iron, the LN has no hump?






Or maybe it's because with LN both the frog and lever cap are gunmetal not steel, could that possibly make a difference?






Or maybe it's something else entirely? 

Over the years I've tried eliminating as many other variables as I can, flattening and lubricating the frog, lubricating the mechanism, adjusting the lever pressure, polishing and waxing the sliding surfaces of the iron and cap iron. I've even tried a substitute Y-lever, but I can never seem to match LN's silky smoothness.. 

I don't want to start a war about LN versus Stanley/Record. As I said, in almost all practical applications I don't believe there's any real difference between them. I can't tell a Record shaving from an LN shaving or a Stanley shaving, but in the specific area of advancing and retracting the iron, LN wins almost every time. But why is that so?


----------



## D_W (8 Nov 2017)

I believe the thread pitch is finer on the LN, but I've never checked to see by how much. It could be:
* the quality of the machining on the screw, or the freshness of it (the screw on the adjuster wheel)
* the manganese bronze (as you say). I've heard the term "self lubricating" for that before
* the cleanliness of the machining, and the lack of spring on the cap iron setup

I'm assuming it's the cleanliness of everything on the plane, but perhaps more of it is due to the screw pitch than I think. They do have quite a nice action. 

I have noticed a great deal of difference on the vintage planes I've had, and always assumed (maybe errantly) that any that I have that are a bit on the coarse side are due to accumulated trash or burrs that have existed since new. I'd always assumed that if I kept them long enough and used them enough, they'd eventually be smooth. But I have kept only one stanley 4 and one record 4, so I don't know if that would be true. 

The 70s stanley 4 that I have (surprisingly) adjusts about as smoothly as LN, but faster (due to the thread pitch) and with more runout (which I've come to not notice). It adjusts better than any vintage stanley that I've ever had, but it doesn't have that solid one-piece feel in use that the LN does due to less weight, and a lateral adjuster that can move around a little and give the feel that something is loose on it. 

One question, I see you didn't mention the lever cap. Is there any burr or coarse machining on the underside of the record lever cap where it meets the cap iron hump? Have you tried switching the LN iron set into the record to see if it makes a difference, or even just the cap iron?


----------



## custard (8 Nov 2017)

Good points DW. Thanks, I'll give that a try.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (8 Nov 2017)

Another small difference between the Record and the LN is the mass of the brass adjuster knob - LN being probably several times heavier than the Record - I don't know if the inertia of it contributes anything to the sensation of smoothness when twiddling it! Cheers, W2S


----------



## richarddownunder (8 Nov 2017)

D_W":tlsj7zii said:


> Define free  I think I'd prefer our health care here as long as you can pay, yours if you can't afford it. Pretty indifferent about the guns, though. Despite the news fascination, at street level in the burbs, you don't see too much conflict!!
> 
> Just don't make us get a license to use a chainsaw! I'd hate that! One of the modern man's pleasures is working a good-running Swedish saw once in a while without having a license. Used to be peeing outside, too, but that seems to be discouraged as rednecky these days!!
> 
> (re that grinder, it's got an umbrella-ish shaped shield on the inside. If you stay to the left of the wheel a little, no problem).



Yea, just thought I'd mention it as young impressionable fellas like me ( :lol: ) watching you tube might get the wrong idea and we have only got one set of eyes. I realise that guards, riving knives and the like are prohibited in the US by some ammendment or other. Who needs a licence for a chainsaw??


----------



## D_W (8 Nov 2017)

I forgot you're down on the other side of the world, and your guys like bulldozers, chainsaws and precarious situations quite a lot in some cases (maybe not the folks in Auckland or Christchurch, but the guys who live out in the weeds). 

I think the English folks require some kind of training to use a chainsaw, right?

As someone who has ended up under a tree in my youth (and suffered a broken leg because of it), and who had a great uncle who died from a kickback (though he was a legitimate woodsman ,and this happened before PPE was necessarily a thing) I can say with near certainty as a citizen of the states that there is no reason for any safety measures around a chainsaw. (hammer)


----------



## richarddownunder (8 Nov 2017)

D_W":1csser9w said:


> I forgot you're down on the other side of the world, and your guys like bulldozers, chainsaws and precarious situations quite a lot in some cases (maybe not the folks in Auckland or Christchurch, but the guys who live out in the weeds).
> 
> I think the English folks require some kind of training to use a chainsaw, right?
> 
> As someone who has ended up under a tree in my youth (and suffered a broken leg because of it), and who had a great uncle who died from a kickback (though he was a legitimate woodsman ,and this happened before PPE was necessarily a thing) I can say with near certainty as a citizen of the states that there is no reason for any safety measures around a chainsaw. (hammer)


Well, I'm 'in the weeds' so to speek, or on the fringe of the weeds, and use a chainsaw often enough to be fairly proficient but not often enough to not be scared to death by it...consequently I have all the safety gear. Of course that PPE wont stop a gum tree falling on top of me! Sorry to hear about your uncle!

cheers
Richard


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (9 Nov 2017)

AFAIK in the UK a chainsaw ticket (licence) is only required if it is commercial use. There's a guy at my boat yard who is a tree surgeon, any chainsaw work I get him to do, I never touch the things.
Paddy


----------



## essexalan (9 Nov 2017)

Both my LNs, one bronze and one iron, have the Bailey style CB and adjustment is a lot smoother than any Stanley/Record I own. I did try the newer LN CB with a 45 degree bevel honed on it but found no advantage. That said a Record #6 I bought from Ray Iles runs them a pretty close second and feels almost as "tight". Problems I have encountered on Record/Stanleys have been badly machined frog faces, CB hump not symmetrical, rough under side on the lever cap and a lever cap that was about 1/4" longer so it overhung the CB hump, ignoring all the usual wear and tear. All easily corrected but the last one had me stumped for a while. That said they will all do the job it is just the quality of engineering of the LN is a magnitude better than Stanley/Record at a price.


----------

