# Replacement Plane Irons.



## woodbrains (7 Feb 2012)

Hello,

Has anyone done any comparison testing of replacement plane irons. Personally I favour Clifton/Victor irons and decided a while ago to replace all my planes' irons with the same. However, the cost of the little blighters is becoming really prohibitive; I think the first one I bought was 23 pounds and it wasn't that long ago. Currently they are 45 to 48 ish for 2 and 2-3/8 widths. Hock irons are, too, becoming rather silly, pricewise.

The Quangsheng replacements have the thickness I like and are really appealing in terms of finish and not least price, but I have an irritating niggle that buying these is rather un-patriotic, when the Sheffield made Cliffies should be given my patronage. Does any one think that the Clifton's are worth the extra, as well as supporting British industry? I could buy 3 Chinese irons for the price of one Clifton; am I mad to feel a little uneasy even considering the switch?

I spotted Ray Isles thicker irons on the WH website which are priced about right, in my mind. Has anyone any experience with these, compared to Cliftons and the rest. I don't mind doing a fair bit of fettling (back flatting etc.) if the steel is good, but if all I end up with is a similar product to the original plane iron, I think I might as well plump for the Quangsheng and live with my guilt. Or are there any other options?

Mike.


----------



## jimi43 (7 Feb 2012)

I think it is hugely personal and controversial to include the elements of patriotism and "slave" labour into the equation when deciding on a plane iron (or any other purchase come to that).

This is something for the buyer's conscience and beliefs which only the buyer can conclude.

If we take these aspects away for the moment, I would say that the British irons are superior and if price were not an issue, most here would choose those. Standard "Chinese" irons found in lesser examples of planes are total rubbish but the higher quality ones such as those from QS are very nice indeed. The one I tested was both easy to sharpen and seemed to hold an edge very well so far. It is T10 steel which appears to have all the benefits of the A2 steels but without the hassles.

As for further comparisons...check the search engine here, not sure if anyone has done a complete review of all of them side-by-side but someone will know.

Jim


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Feb 2012)

Working on the basis that you'd have to do an awful lot of planing to wear an iron out, the chances are that you'd only have to buy a replacement iron once in a lifetime for any given plane. Spreading the cost over a period of months would re-iron as many planes as most of us actually need in about half a year or so. 

If your existing irons are modern Stanley/Record thin things, then I think replacement is worth it. It made a noticable difference to my Record 07 (using a Clifton replacement, which I'm delighted with). If the existing irons are fairly thick, I'd be tempted to leave as is.

The old saying 'you never get owt for nowt' is very true. If you buy really good quality, you pay the price; but you only have to pay it once.


----------



## beech1948 (7 Feb 2012)

It is also the role of the manufacturer to provide goods at a price we can afford and a quality we can appreciate.

Recent price rises have driven into the market with little or no thought to Joe Public and our wallets. The Cliffie at £45 to £48 is now simply too expensive. Hock irons are at such a huge mark-up to US prices that they make it unpalatable to buy them at UK prices.

My choice for you would be to establish that the QS / AI irons are of suitable quality and then to choose whichever of these was the cheapest given equivalent quality. AI are at least UK based and make their irons.

I use both QS and AI irons. I can't tell which is which in a blindfold test. Results are identical and that's what counts. I have 3 LN planes and 1 LV and can see no difference in quality of result with either of them to the Stanley's with QS/AI blades. LN and LV are easier to use, easier to adjust and slightly more precise.

If UK manufacturing is not able to provide goods at the right price then we must go elsewhere. 

regards
Alan


----------



## woodbrains (7 Feb 2012)

Hi,

Thanks for the comments so far. I absolutely agree that the standard, thin (Record in my case) irons are well worth replacing and am keen to do so. I take the point that the irons are probably so seldom replaced that the cost over a lifetime is negligable, but it is not as if the cost can be spread over a lifetime; you have to cough up the cash all at once. This might be OK if taken in isolation, but we do not only need plane irons, there are router bits, spindle knives, drill bits etc. etc. so everything is a trade off.

I once made furniture professionally, and found it a difficult life to make and sell the things I designed, not least in part because the high prices that have to be asked to actually make a marginal living wage in this country made the things unattractively expensive. If we all bought cheap foregn imports, then we are all sunk. Ironically, because I no longer make furniture to make a living, I find it harder to justify buying premium British (or American) tools. I do want to enjoy woodworking in my spare time, so I'm not going to put up with rubbish either. It just pricks my conscence buying imported stuff, knowing it hurt me at the time, though.

I did but a QS low angle block plane to replace a broken Stanley. Wanted a LV or LN but couldn't afford it at the time. The Iron in the QS is remakable quality, so I'm sure replacing my irons with those would be worth while, but in the back of my mind I still wish i could have gotten the LN.

I think I will try Ray Isles irons and see if they do the trick.

Mike.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (8 Feb 2012)

Have had a couple of Ray Iles' irons (for a block and jack.) Seem decent. Less fettling than a Hock. Decent kit.


----------



## GraemeD (8 Feb 2012)

+1 for the Ray Iles irons. They sharpen easily and well, keep their edges as well as any O1 blade, and the backs on the two I've had have been flatter out of the packet than the two Hock blades I also tried. I read somewhere that Ray selectively puts the bevel on the "hollow" side after heat treatment has added any blade distortion, hence making the blades easiest to flatten - kind of like a Japanese hollow chisel. Seemed to work as far as I was concerned. These are now my first choice replacement blades due to the great balance between price and quality, and that is despite owning blades from all the usual makers like LN, LV and even Holtey...

Cheers
Graeme


----------



## Vann (8 Feb 2012)

You don't need to replace your thin Stanley/Record irons. You can stiffen them up considerably with decent cap-irons. Any of the 3mm thick cap-irons will make a significant difference: Clifton (2-piece); Lie-Nielsen; Quangsheng, etc.

If you're determined to fit thicker irons, I'd suggest that the Ray Ilse D2 irons may be too hard to sharpen unless you've got the right gear. Ray Ilse A1 irons, on the other hand, should be okay from that point-of-view, but don't have the grain structure of the Cliffies, so in theory won't hold an edge as well.
Quangsheng irons are said to be very good (as you've noted), but personally I've decided not to purchase Chinese products anymore (where there's a choice :roll: ). (Slave labour, market domination, dealing with repressive regimes, etc.  you know - all the usual suspects :roll: )

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## bugbear (8 Feb 2012)

jimi43":bc4byd00 said:


> I think it is hugely personal and controversial to include the elements of patriotism and "slave" labour into the equation when deciding on a plane iron (or any other purchase come to that).
> 
> This is something for the buyer's conscience and beliefs which only the buyer can conclude.
> 
> If we take these aspects away for the moment, I would say that the British irons are superior



Well done for ignoring patriotism... :lol: :lol: :lol: 

To directly answer the OP's question, the most detailed comparisons I know of are these two:

http://bladetest.infillplane.com/

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

Try not to get confused...

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (8 Feb 2012)

Basically if you are just interested in woodwork then it's not necessary to replace normal Stanley/Record blades as they tend to be perfectly OK and will normally last for many years - for longer than the life of most woodworkers in fact, unless they are seriously hand planing on a daily basis in the old fashioned way.
I'd concentrate on getting the best out of what you've got without spending loadsa dosh. 
Generally there is much more scope for improving performance by practice, perhaps over quite a long period of time, rather than by changing kit.


----------



## jimi43 (8 Feb 2012)

bugbear":3cqnj7nj said:


> Well done for ignoring patriotism... :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> BugBear



Thanks BB.

But seriously....most of us try to support the British market for obvious reasons but do any of us actually buy totally British in reality.

Anyone on this forum cannot possibly get to post without using something Chinese. Even the blinkin' power to run it is probably French! Only diplomacy and sanctions will prevent slave labour and while demand from the West is driven by cost....nobody is going to prevent this.

Perhaps..."if we set aside patriotism and "slave" labour for a moment"....might have been a better way of saying what I meant. :wink: 

But then you knew that anyway! :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## Richard T (8 Feb 2012)

I was reading a while ago about how Clifton make their irons. They start with a round bar. :shock: That's an awful lot of work. 
I can understand a perfectionist wanting to take the steel through the heat treating process from the very first working heat - ie all the heating involved with shaping as well as the heating to harden and temper and wanting to get a universally stable blade but anyone who has bought a piece of flat, ground, fully annealed O1 and made an iron from it will probably not be able to imagine making such a blank for themselves to start with. It's hours work even with power hammers, rollers and grinders. 

If you want an iron made this way in Sheffield - it's £48. That's pretty good I think. Cheap for the amount of work that has gone into it; whether that much work and time is nessassarryy however is debatable.


----------



## Gerard Scanlan (8 Feb 2012)

I agree with the comment about replacing the cap iron. I bought a Clifton cap iron from WH recently and I am really very impressed with the difference in the performance of my smoothing plane. Not only does it plane like a dream, the blade (just the regular 1980's stanley blade) has kept its edge razor sharp for over 10 hours of planing oak and walnut. In the past I was resharpening it after half an hour! I thought I needed to spend money on an blade and cap iron and Matthew at WH persuaded me to try a cap iron first and see if that didn't improve matters enough. How many sellers do that these days? He could have let me buy both and I would never have realised that the cap iron was the main contributor. 
However you are doubtlessly at a far more advanced stage in woodworking than I will ever reach and so for you an even better quality blade might be exactly what you need. Afterall everyone has different requirements, I would drop Matthew a line and see what he advises.


----------



## bugbear (8 Feb 2012)

jimi43":32qs53wm said:


> bugbear":32qs53wm said:
> 
> 
> > Well done for ignoring patriotism... :lol: :lol: :lol:
> ...



It's probably worth pointing out that it's not just a two-way choice between British and Chinese. Hock, Veritas, LN and Samurai all make worthy blades, in various countries.

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (8 Feb 2012)

Hi,

Already fully appreciate that a thick cap iron works wonders on thin blades and really only the Clifton 2 piece will do the job there; I know that won't go down well with some with sensitive feet! I like the thick iron combo though, too. Even thick cutting irons in Baily/Bed Rock style planes is less than half that of good old woodies or infills, so it stands to reason that a thick double iron combo will be the best solution.

As far as keeping the standard iron supplied with the plane, i'm afraid it just doesn't cut it (pun intended) Aside from the thickness issue, the steel just isn't up to the job. I have said this before, Baily planes were not designed for cabinetmaking in fine/difficult hardwoods, they are joiners tools for softwood and mild hard wood. We need to improve the cutting irons etc. to bring them up to approach the infills etc. that are cabinetmakers tools butt were priced out of the market when people chose the cheaper options. This is partly my point for the thread, I suppose.

Before the likes of Jacob swears blind that the standard bits of tin supplied in the planes originally are in fact good enough and do not need changing, I will say this; There are good technical reasons regaring the grain structure of the steel and how carbides are formed during manufacture which describe why the standard fare really isn't good enough. And from practcal experience I have found them to be lacking (as I suspect all the enlightened plane iron converters have already found) I have actually planed wood so ornery that the plane iron's edges have been 'turned over' like the burr on a scraper whilst planing and others so abrasive that 3-4 strokes dulled the iron so it would not cut any more. A2 is sometimes the only answer (D2 I suppose too) but anything is better than the standard rubbish.

The votes for Ray iles makes me think these will be worth a try over Quangsheng and pehaps I will be helping support a small British business to boot.

Mike.


----------



## humblewood (8 Feb 2012)

A bit late it seems, but here's another +1 for Ray Iles from WH.

Bob


----------



## Jacob (9 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":2aroqlrf said:


> .........
> As far as keeping the standard iron supplied with the plane, i'm afraid it just doesn't cut it (pun intended) Aside from the thickness issue, the steel just isn't up to the job. I have said this before, Baily planes were not designed for cabinetmaking in fine/difficult hardwoods, they are joiners tools for softwood and mild hard wood. We need to improve the cutting irons etc. to bring them up to approach the infills etc. that are cabinetmakers tools butt were priced out of the market when people chose the cheaper options. This is partly my point for the thread, I suppose.....


Bailey planes more general purpose rather than just for joiners. NB Cabinet makers are joiners too and most of the wood used by cabinet makers is not all that demanding e.g. mahogany.
Yes difficult woods need a different approach. Traditionally this is to progress to scraper, sand paper etc. Next most practical is to put a bevel on the face of a normal blade to increase the effective angle. 
My approach has been to buy just one plane (LV la smoother) which will go where other planes won't. Absolutely no point in going through the whole lot replacing blades or cap irons with expensive alternatives when just one plane will do it! 
I have back-up of course - scraper as mentioned above and ultimately the belt sander or ROS, but my Bailey planes with their thin blades do nearly all the stuff I do by hand.

I also think it is really bad that so many people are being persuaded that their tools are defective and that they should upgraded or replaced at great cost. It is simply untrue (in general, though any specific tool, including "top end" ones, may be less than perfect).
Dont' let them talk you into spending loadsa money unnecessarily!


----------



## bugbear (9 Feb 2012)

Jacob":2eu0g22l said:


> Yes difficult woods need a different approach. Traditionally this is to progress to scraper, sand paper etc. Next most practical is to put a bevel on the face of a normal blade to increase the effective angle.



That's all quite modern. *Traditionally*, a cabinet maker would simply use a high EP BD smoother. Prior to Bailey's design becoming ubiquitous, wooden planes were made with bedding angles more carefully matched to particular tasks.

There used to be a whole nomenclature for commonly used pitches, which was almost lost until the present, "New Golden Age" of handtools.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (9 Feb 2012)

bugbear":2bxk8ljc said:


> Jacob":2bxk8ljc said:
> 
> 
> > Yes difficult woods need a different approach. Traditionally this is to progress to scraper, sand paper etc. Next most practical is to put a bevel on the face of a normal blade to increase the effective angle.
> ...


I think scrapers and abrasives go back to the early stone age. 2 million years if not more.


> *Traditionally*, a cabinet maker would simply use a high EP BD smoother. Prior to Bailey's design becoming ubiquitous, wooden planes were made with bedding angles more carefully matched to particular tasks.
> 
> BugBear


For those that had them this was one tradition. The others made do quite adequately, in different ways


----------



## bugbear (9 Feb 2012)

Jacob":2fk6gg1o said:


> bugbear":2fk6gg1o said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":2fk6gg1o said:
> ...



High EP smoothers weren't deemed exotic, only to be used by the Woodworking Gods - they were normal common, and cheap. It's only the modern era where pitches other than 45 are deemed high faultin'.

BugBear


----------



## woodbloke (9 Feb 2012)

If you have a look at the wooden planes offered by Philly, he makes (or made) them with EP's up to and including 70deg - Rob


----------



## Cheshirechappie (9 Feb 2012)

So - how about this for a summary.

Site joinery and carpentry - Standard Bailey type, lowish cost so it doesn't matter too much if it gets knocked about or lifted by someone with magnetic fingers. Bog standard irons.

Bench joinery and carpentry - Maybe something a bit better, bailey pattern with a thicker iron.

Run-of-the-mill cabinetmaking in temperate hardwoods and milder tropical timbers - Bailey pattern, tuned a bit, with thicker irons of O1 steel, or maybe A2 for longer runs between honings.

Cabinetmaking in wilder-grained temperate hardwoods and demanding tropical timbers - Steel-soled infill planes with fine mouths, thick irons and maybe higher bedding angles. For really nasty timbers, A2 or even D2 steel. Perhaps even hand-made planes to uit the job with very thick irons a-la Krenov.

In other words, horses for courses.

(By the way, I see that Ray Isles offers both A2 and D2 steel irons on his website - just google 'Ray Isles' - I can't do links for some reason.)

(Edit to add a correction - Ray Isls offers both O1 and D2 steel irons, not A2.)


----------



## Jacob (9 Feb 2012)

Thats OK except that you dismiss work done with "temperate hardwoods and milder tropical timbers" as "run of the mill". In fact very fine joinery/cabinet making is done with all manner of materials. 
Most of the work you'd do with "wilder-grained temperate hardwoods and demanding tropical timbers" would still be done with ordinary planes; it's mostly preparation. Only when you get to finishing do you need something a bit better or a different technique, but this is true of many woods e.g. getting a good finish on anything at all knotty, even if it's rubbish like Leylandii.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (9 Feb 2012)

Jacob - perhaps my choice of words wasn't as nuanced as it might have been, but I wasn't trying to "dismiss" anything; just trying to make a distinction between the gentler-working timbers and the more difficult specimens.

I suspect that most of us amateurs won't do a great deal of cabinet work in some of the rarer and more costly exotics that some pros may have to do battle with, though we might meet some wild-grained pieces of quite common timbers from time to time. Besides, different approaches may work for different people. My summary was just an attempt to promote further discussion, really.

Another thought that occurred is that A2 is a relatively modern innovation to wood cutting tools. I think it was Karl Holtey who first used it in the late 1990's, and everybody else jumped on the bandwagon. Prior to that, there was the old 'cast steel' plain carbon steel thick irons, either laminated or solid, and Bailey-type standard irons (the steel of which is metallurgically quite good - I'm sure I've got one stamped 'tungsten steel' or similar - but they're just too thin). So the cabinetmakers of old were tackling some pretty demanding timbers with plain carbon steel irons - but thick ones. (O1 is about the nearest modern equivalent to plain carbon steel, metallurgically.)


----------



## Jacob (9 Feb 2012)

Cheshirechappie":30co5ff8 said:


> ....... Bailey-type standard irons (the steel of which is metallurgically quite good - I'm sure I've got one stamped 'tungsten steel' or similar


All the old Records I've seen (I've got a few) have "Tungsten Steel" on the blades


> - but they're just too thin). So the cabinetmakers of old were tackling some pretty demanding timbers with plain carbon steel irons - but thick ones. (O1 is about the nearest modern equivalent to plain carbon steel, metallurgically.)


If they are too thin you have to ask why they all took them up so readily in preference to the thicker bladed woodies. I think the answer is mainly in the precision adjustment, which in the Bailey is unsurpassed. I was thinking this only yesterday - planing a 2" board edge in sycamore. 5 1/2 Record just makes it so easy - a little tilt adjustment one way to square the edge, then adjust for a fine straight cut down the middle etc. Had to finish off with a LV la Jack due to slight tear-out in one spot. LV a good cut but a clumsy beast otherwise - no real lateral adjustment at all except with a little hammer. Using a Bailey for preference is a no-brainer, until you reach it's limit. Then it's out with the ROS etc!


----------



## woodbrains (9 Feb 2012)

Cheshirechappie":kwcjxcmr said:


> So - how about this for a summary.
> 
> Site joinery and carpentry - Standard Bailey type, lowish cost so it doesn't matter too much if it gets knocked about or lifted by someone with magnetic fingers. Bog standard irons.
> 
> ...



Hi,

Couldn't agree more! Incidentally, I was taught by Krenov meeself (to a point, anyway). He almost never used sandpaper nor scrapers; everything was finished straight from his planes. The idea that a plane is only to remove material relatively roughly and then finished with scrapers and abrasives is false, I'm afraid. And I do think the notion was a direct result of planes becoming the perfunctory, mass produced items rather than fine instruments that they used to be and are now becoming again.

I do not own any LV LN or Clifton bench planes, so anyone who owns any of these will know exactly the reason why I want to upgrade. ( I do have a Veritas shoulder plane) I think my total set of bench planes cost no more than a single new one of the above, so i do not think I am wasting money replacing the irons and it definately is not to no good effect. The trouble is, I have so many of the blighters, and I do use them all, I think I could probably do with 6 irons or so, which could be costly if I use Cliftons and cap irons to boot.

I'm not a metallurgist, but the steel in the original irons is OK, but they were churned out like cookies, so all the fancy alloying agents were added to try to get the steel as good as hand hammered high carbon steel, without the effort. The tungsten was added to improve the grain structure, without the effort of hammering as done in Cliffie irons, to make them cheaper to produce. It did not necesarily make a better or even comparable product. And the thin irons had nothing to do with ease of adjustment, it just saved lots of money for the manufacturer. Norris and the like had fine adjustment in their planes with tremendously thick irons. I still think the best adjustment is with a wedged iron and a hammer, anyway!


Mike.


----------



## Jacob (9 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":1jamzwmj said:


> ....... And the thin irons had nothing to do with ease of adjustment, it just saved lots of money for the manufacturer.


Very unlikely. The tiny bit of steel saved would be nothing compared to the overall weight of the plane. Saving steel on the most critical component would be madness. It was a carefully considered design decision.


> Norris and the like had fine adjustment in their planes with tremendously thick irons. I still think the best adjustment is with a wedged iron and a hammer, anyway!
> 
> 
> Mike.


Norris adjusters look good but don't work too well. Bailey adjusters look rubbish but work brilliantly.


> Krenov ...The idea that a plane is only to remove material relatively roughly and then finished with scrapers and abrasives is false, I'm afraid.


I don't think anybody says that do they? Anyway you could argue that a plane is false compared to an axe, or a scraper, or nibbling with your teeth!
Over-finishing certainly can spoil things and nice clean cuts look good even if not perfect. 
But struggling, at great expense, to plane the impossible, is a mug's game!


----------



## Corneel (9 Feb 2012)

I must say that I agree somewhat with Jacob. With growing experience I am getting more and more fond of my simple Stanley's. There is no reason to replace the older irons, they are just good stuff, hold an edge for a long time and are easy to sharpen. I also have an older Record #5 with original blade and likewise performance. It hogs off thick shavings all day long. 

My smoother #4 has a Ray Iles O1 iron. That's also a good blade. Pretty thick, so I had to file the mouth. With this plane I always had some chatter during the start of a cut, and that was instantly cured with the thick iron. But now I think that was a bit of beginners problem too, somehow not engaging the plane on the wood in the right manner. I can't describe what I do different now, but I never have this problem anymore with any of my planes. Another smoother I like very much is an Ulmia Reform smoother also with a thin blade. It's an equally nice plane. The iron is bedded on wood and the plane has a Stanley like clamp, no wedge. Easy to adjust with a small hammer and light taps. This plane has a 49 degree bed.

At the other hand I also have a rather modern Stanley Handiman. That one is awfull on all ends, and the blade wants to fold it's edge. It's now on the back of the shelf and never used anymore.

For very difficult tropical wood I use a backbevel on my Stanley #4. Works wonders. When I still get tearout I use a scraper and a bit of sandpaper.


----------



## Jacob (9 Feb 2012)

Corneel":2qa0ohwx said:


> .......I always had some chatter during the start of a cut, and that was instantly cured with the thick iron. But now I think that was a bit of beginners problem too, somehow not engaging the plane on the wood in the right manner. I can't describe what I do different now, but I never have this problem anymore with any of my planes..........


Exactly. Chatter just means you are doing it wrong - you can't blame the plane, though some are more prone to chatter than others, which means more attention to technique is required.
The big attraction of the thick blade modern planes is that they are silly person proof - almost!



> more and more fond of my simple Stanley's.


IMHO they aren't that simple. Quite the opposite - a sophisticated and highly developed design. Like a lot of good design they get taken for granted from sheer familiarity.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (9 Feb 2012)

Chatter was something I experienced, and not just at the start of cuts, when I was even younger and less experienced a woodworker than I am now. Only on hardwoods, specifically beech. A finer cut solved that problem then, but at the expense of taking a lot longer over the job. Since I've had the Cliffie iron in the plane, I've never had any chatter problems.

My engineering experience leads me to believe that chatter occurs because of lack of stiffness in the blade. (In centre-lathe turning, chatter is usually cured by stiffening up the tool and toolholder in some way.) So stiffer (i.e. thicker) iron, less likelihood of chatter. (My woody jackplane never chatters, even when set to the point that I can barely push it - the iron is nigh-on 1/4" thick at the business end.)

Out of interest, does anybody with more knowledge of plane history than I (in other words, pretty much everyone!) know how thick the irons of pre-war Bailey-type planes were relative to the modern offerings? And what grade of steel was used?


----------



## Corneel (9 Feb 2012)

The prewar Baileys were just as thick as the new ones. No idea on the metal type.

And I am not going to replace my almost full length prewar Stanley 7 iron. It's perfect. It can take big cuts too in maple, beech and oak without even a hint of chatter.

Something Jacob also mentions often is setting back the frog so the iron rests on the sole too. That will help with any chatter tendencies.
The smoother I like with a narrow mouth though so the thicker Ray Iles cold be helpfull there.


----------



## ali27 (9 Feb 2012)

Guys what are the opinions on the laminated samurai blade as 
replacement for a standard stanley blade? It's as thick as the 
stanley blade, but has real heard steel at the cutting edge, I 
believe 66-68HRC. 

Brent beach did some testing and found that this blade was 
almost as durable as A2 steel. Best performing blade in the
high carbon steel category.

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

Anybody else try this one.

Sharpening should be very easy as the soft steel is easily
abraded and there is only a very thin layer of very hard steel.
I think Jacob you used this one right?


----------



## woodbrains (9 Feb 2012)

Cheshirechappie":cfkd7que said:


> Chatter was something I experienced, and not just at the start of cuts, when I was even younger and less experienced a woodworker than I am now. Only on hardwoods, specifically beech. A finer cut solved that problem then, but at the expense of taking a lot longer over the job. Since I've had the Cliffie iron in the plane, I've never had any chatter problems.
> 
> My engineering experience leads me to believe that chatter occurs because of lack of stiffness in the blade. (In centre-lathe turning, chatter is usually cured by stiffening up the tool and toolholder in some way.) So stiffer (i.e. thicker) iron, less likelihood of chatter. (My woody jackplane never chatters, even when set to the point that I can barely push it - the iron is nigh-on 1/4" thick at the business end.)
> 
> Out of interest, does anybody with more knowledge of plane history than I (in other words, pretty much everyone!) know how thick the irons of pre-war Bailey-type planes were relative to the modern offerings? And what grade of steel was used?



Hi,

Nail on the head again, thicker irons mean less/no chatter, thin irons with poor cap irons invite chatter. This is not really debatable, it is backed up by the experience of many well respected craftsmen. Plane pine all day long with a 'standard' plane and you will wonder what the fuss is but change to some twisty elm and you will wonder if planes could ever work here. Like the many who have resorted to all manner of power sanding tools because planes don't work. I am not a beginner by any means, I have been involved with wood all my life and cut my teeth with my dad's old Record 04 and a beaten up wooden coffin smoother. Even as a pre teenage lad, I worked out that the coffin smoother with its thick iron and rock solid blade seating gave superior results. Of the planes I own now, the few with the thicker irons and the heavier cap irons work better. They just do.

The Hock irons that Krenov uses are plain O1 steel, but thick with a substantial cap irons. He made the blades seat at the regular pitch of the Baily's we are talking about but they work better; night and day different. I'm not saying that really cranky grain can be tamed with one, but you can go degrees more ornery than the point where a standard Baily gave up the ghost. Why? conventional wisdom says that all should be equal unless you introduce high bed angles or resort to scraping, but they work better. Thick irons, thick cap irons, firm blade bedding and SHARPER O1 steel versus thin irons screwed to a bit of tin which warps the blade assy so it can't be clamped to the bed firmly enough and an edge which becomes duller sooner. It is a no brainer, really.

Jacob, did I misread you owning a BU smoother/jack, which you reserve for more demanding woods? Thick iron with a firm bed support right to the cutting edge; I think you are secretly agreeing with me.

I have a 1910 patent Stanley Bailey N08 with original sweetheart iron. It is thin too, I don't think they were ever made to be thicker than we see now.

Mike.


----------



## woodbrains (9 Feb 2012)

Corneel":98e3qjln said:


> And I am not going to replace my almost full length prewar Stanley 7 iron. It's perfect. It can take big cuts too in maple, beech and oak without even a hint of chatter.
> 
> Something Jacob also mentions often is setting back the frog so the iron rests on the sole too. That will help with any chatter tendencies.
> The smoother I like with a narrow mouth though so the thicker Ray Iles cold be helpfull there.


Hi,

Maple, beech and oak aren't what I would call difficult timber, though from time to time you find examples that are. If this is the sort of timber you use, And there is nothing wrong with that, then you may well get by with your standard No7. Esp if you finish with your finely set smoother, Ray Iles equipped.

The idea of moving the frog backwards so the iron rest on the plane body is flawed in that the wider mouth will cause more tearout, negatin any benefit in doing so. The bevel down blade probably won't get much more, if any, support in doing so, anyway. Thicker blades rule for so many reasons.

Mike.


----------



## Vann (10 Feb 2012)

Cheshirechappie":2g31y7at said:


> Out of interest, does anybody with more knowledge of plane history than I (in other words, pretty much everyone!) know how thick the irons of pre-war Bailey-type planes were relative to the modern offerings? And what grade of steel was used?


I can't tell you anything about the grade of steel, but when it comes to thickness...

The majority of my ..ahem, _accumulation_ of planes are Records from the 1931 to 1959 period. Using 'cutter' types as outlined in David Lynch's recordhandplanes site:

_The first profile of the cutter had a straight top with angled sides and marked "RECORD, Made in England, Best Crucible Cast, Tungsten Steel" from 1930 to mid 1950's._ I have several of these measuring from 1.85mm to 2.40mm thick (as measured with a 'verynear').

I have no examples of the second type.

_The third profile had the curved top with angled sides and marked "RECORD, Tungsten Vanadium Steel, Made in England" from 1959. _I have measured two of this profile. Both measure 1.95mm thick.

Finally, I have two more of the same profile but without any wording. Both are from Record SP4 planes, made 1992-95, and both measure 2.25mm thick.

While I don't think this is a big enough sampling to draw firm conclusions, it does suggest that Record may have thinned down their irons at one stage, but beefed up the thickness again towards the end.

Anybody got too many Stanleys to measure?

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Corneel (10 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":1kfzzziu said:


> Why? conventional wisdom says that all should be equal unless you introduce high bed angles or resort to scraping, but they work better. Thick irons, thick cap irons, firm blade bedding and SHARPER O1 steel versus thin irons screwed to a bit of tin which warps the blade assy so it can't be clamped to the bed firmly enough and an edge which becomes duller sooner. It is a no brainer, really.



You forget to mention one pretty important part: the blade clamp. That one presses down the thin iron and thin capiron on the frog. When you have the screw tight enough, there is no problem to clamp it absolutely flat on the frog. The curve in the capiron helps to get the pressure exactly where you want it, just behind the edge. It's a smart design. Of course the older Stanleys and Records present a lot more bedding surface then the newer ones.

With a back bevel and the Ray Iles iron in my #4 I have no problem with crossgrained quarter sawn Jatoba. I have a big stack of that stuff. It's hard work though and I prefer the local woods. My maple has a lot of wavy grain, which can be a challenge too.


----------



## Vann (10 Feb 2012)

Corneel":297hiv9g said:


> You forget to mention one pretty important part: the blade clamp. That one presses down the thin iron and thin capiron on the frog. When you have the screw tight enough, there is no problem to clamp it absolutely flat on the frog. The curve in the capiron helps to get the pressure exactly where you want it, just behind the edge. It's a smart design.


I'm not sure I agree. The blade clamp only applies pressure at 2 points: near the top of the cap-iron (under the cam); and on the bend near the base of the cap-iron (under the leading edge). The cap-iron transfers these forces to the cutting iron near the top (again under the cam); and immediately above the cutting edge. There is little or no force holding the middle of the iron against the frog.

When the iron hits a hard spot, the resistance forces the cutting edge back minutely and the iron pivots around the base of the frog lifting the centre portion off the frog momentarily - chatter!

A thicker iron better resists this pivoting/bending. A thicker, flat cap-iron helps hold down the centre of the cutting iron. With a two-piece cap-iron the force from the lever-cap on to the bottom piece of the cap-iron (the _deflector_) is transferred to the cutting edge and to a point about 1 inch above the cutting edge (where the deflector meets the main part of the cap-iron) holding this whole area flat against the frog. The Stanley-Bailey bent cap-iron simply does not do this well.

Or at least that's my theory...

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Corneel (10 Feb 2012)

Maybe you are right. Everything is possible in this world. :lol: 
I'm going to look hard at a Stanley plane tonight to see exactly what you mean.

But in the mean time, my message to any readers of this thread: The standard Stanley/Record with the standard blade is a very capable plane. So first try it to see if it doesn't accidentally meet your requirements, before ordering an expensive replacement iron.


----------



## David C (10 Feb 2012)

If you check, I think you will find that all chipbreakers (except Stay Set) bend the blade. This causes two point contact with the frog. Top and bottom of the slope. The lever cap* does not *flatten the middle of the blade, to touch the frog surface. This can be demonstrated with cigarette papers or telephone book paper. Later Stanley frog surfaces are very badly machined and frequently need attention. Hollowness of width at the bottom of the slope is an invitation to chatter.

It is clear that thicker blades, properly hardened, work better and stay usable longer than the standard Stanley blade, produced from the seventies onward. Mine are about 1.8mm thick. Early Stanley propaganda said the advantage of the thin blade was less or no grinding. It said nothing about performance!
Thick chipbreakers will improve the performance of thin blades.

There is a lot of rubbish talked about Stanley soles being good enough to work out of the box. The first year and a half of my career was blighted by a 5 1/2 with a faulty sole. Working it on coarse belt sander paper stretched over a planer table, transformed performance. Hollow soles which are quite common will not plane a straight edge.......

Over the years I have discovered more and more of the subtle manufacturing flaws which prevent planes from working really well. These can generally be fixed. This is one of the topics covered on my tool tuning courses which start in May.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## woodbloke (10 Feb 2012)

David C":1r70r9oc said:


> There is a lot of rubbish talked about Stanley soles being good enough to work out of the box. The first year and a half of my career was blighted by a 5 1/2 with a faulty sole. Working it on coarse belt sander paper stretched over a planer table, transformed performance. Hollow soles which are quite common will not plane a straight edge.......
> 
> best wishes,
> David Charlesworth


In the mid-70's when I started at college, we were in one of the workshops and one of the lads called me over as no matter what he did, he couldn't get his new Record No5 to cut...nothing! He tried extending the blade to it's full extent and the thing would only just touch the wood. He was a bit puzzled and called me over and I couldn't work it out either til I put a straight edge across the sole...it was a genuine banana plane with a gap in the middle of about 2mm. It went straight back to the shop whence it came :wink: - Rob


----------



## bugbear (10 Feb 2012)

David C":ghemv2yt said:


> Early Stanley propaganda said the advantage of the thin blade was less or no grinding. It said nothing about performance!



Indeed - one of Baileys's patents contains the following telling phrase "...whilst I can avail myself of the *economy* of thin steel for the plane-irons" (my emphasis).

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (10 Feb 2012)

ali27":1rvfc840 said:


> ....samurai blade ......
> 
> Sharpening should be very easy as the soft steel is easily
> abraded and there is only a very thin layer of very hard steel.
> I think Jacob you used this one right?


Yes it's OK and sharpens easily. Probably keeps an edge longer but not significantly. I keep trying these things but they never are quite as wonderful as they say!


woodbrains":1rvfc840 said:


> .....
> Jacob, did I misread you owning a BU smoother/jack, which you reserve for more demanding woods? Thick iron with a firm bed support right to the cutting edge; I think you are secretly agreeing with me.......
> Mike.


I thought I should try one. Its the LV la smoother. It cuts really well. When my other planes start tearing out I use this one, just now and then, for finishing. 
Only need the one though - I don't see the point of converting them all to smoothers!


woodbrains":1rvfc840 said:


> ....
> The idea of moving the frog backwards so the iron rest on the plane body is flawed in that the wider mouth will cause more tearout, negatin any benefit in doing so. The bevel down blade probably won't get much more, if any, support in doing so, anyway. ...
> Mike.


If you look closely at a normal Bailey plane you will see that 2 to 3 mm of the back of the blade is supported on the back of the mouth - if the frog is set back precisely (plus a gnats more). Best with a single 30º bevel, next best rounded, worst hollow ground with micro bevel; each step leaves more blade unsupported and more prone to chatter. I think closing the mouth on a normal plane is a bit of a myth, but having it spot on makes a huge difference.


Corneel":1rvfc840 said:


> ...
> 
> You forget to mention one pretty important part: the blade clamp. That one presses down the thin iron and thin capiron on the frog. When you have the screw tight enough, there is no problem to clamp it absolutely flat on the frog. The curve in the capiron helps to get the pressure exactly where you want it, just behind the edge. It's a smart design. ....


Agree


Vann":1rvfc840 said:


> Corneel":1rvfc840 said:
> 
> 
> > ....With a two-piece cap-iron the force from the lever-cap on to the bottom piece of the cap-iron (the _deflector_) is transferred to the cutting edge and to a point about 1 inch above the cutting edge (where the deflector meets the main part of the cap-iron) holding this whole area flat against the frog. The Stanley-Bailey bent cap-iron simply does not do this well.
> ...


You are probably right, but it does it well enough!


David C":1rvfc840 said:


> If you check, I think you will find that all chipbreakers (except Stay Set) bend the blade. This causes two point contact with the frog. Top and bottom of the slope. The lever cap* does not *flatten the middle of the blade, to touch the frog surface.


 Doesn't matter as long as it is firmly nipped in the edge area _and_ supported by the back of the mouth


----------



## Gerard Scanlan (10 Feb 2012)

Thank you for all the fine tuning advice. As with all things the longer you spend doing something and the more critically you look at the more you learn. It is then really terrific reading about the fine points of adjustment and being able to put them to immediate use. It also amazes me how quickly you accept an improvement as the norm and probably explains why woodworkers are always on the look out for that everlasting razor-sharp edge that can be rehoned in seconds when it eventually dulls.

I am a little puzzled by the recent convex honing debate that crept in here too. Paul Sellers recently relaunched this, yet James Krenov advocated the opposite - concave with micro-bevel. In my ignorance I now believe it is whatever you can do fast as after all we want to be making sawdust, not swarf, all day.


----------



## Jacob (10 Feb 2012)

Gerard Scanlan":2e49lj55 said:


> ...
> I am a little puzzled by the recent convex honing debate that crept in here too. Paul Sellers recently relaunched this, yet James Krenov advocated the opposite - concave with micro-bevel. In my ignorance I now believe it is whatever you can do fast as after all we want to be making sawdust, not swarf, all day.


You have to make up your own mind and not take anything for granted - particularly if it came from Krenov!

Hollow ground with a micro bevel is a poor way to sharpen as it leaves you with the most fragile edge compared to the other options. But it's easy for beginners (if they have a grindstone of course) so probably a good simple way to get started. Old Jim was very much the amateur, as he often said himself.


----------



## woodbrains (10 Feb 2012)

Jacob":8se5tqgs said:


> ali27":8se5tqgs said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":8se5tqgs said:
> ...



Hi,

So are you saying the sole of the plane under thefrog should be a little forward of the frog ramp to contact the blade in the bevel!? Cheeses, how are you supposed to advance the blade. This would only work for one blade depth setting; you couldn't advance it to take a thicker cut and reducing the cut would lift the blade off the sole so the support was all on the frog as per usual. No. If you are strange enough to want to move the frog backwards, it should be level with the sole. However, you will get no advantage in doing this, because the sole portion of the ramp will be lost in the gap under the bevel and not add any support, unless you have want to take such an enormously thick shaving that the blade back could actually contact that part of the plane. No. all you are doing is gaping the mouth and it is by no means a myth that a finely set mouth prevents tearout. Planes without cap irons RELY on the principle that the downward pressure in front of the mouth prevents the shaving lifting ahead of the cut which is what tearout is. Cap irons mitigate the problem slightly, but not so much as you can have a mouth opening of the order you would need, to have the frog level with the rear mouth opening.

Regarding taking Krenov's advice with a pinch of salt: I spent 9 months with the guy; he was cantankerous and opinionated and sometimes rude but the most inspirational character you would like to meet and an authority on planes. It is unlikely that disagreeing with him on the finer points of planing would do you any favours. His little handmade wooden planes performed at least as well as any LN and degrees better than more standard fare. If thick irons, heavy cap irons and rock solid blade seating with a micro fine mouth did this for him, then it is churlish to question the point of it all. It works with the back up of solid evidence for Pete's sake. Removing even one of the fine details and the whole system falls apart. By calling himself amateur, he meant that he would not take professional expedients, but would always do the most appropriate thing that he thought correct. Don't confuse the true meaning of amateur, which means something done for the love of it, with not being an expert, which he most definately was. And if Mr Charlesworth says somthing works for a reason, then it would be just as churlish to disagree with him.

Regarding Samurai irons: too expensive these days to be a serious consideration. I got one about 14 years ago; they are thin, which would improve with a 2 piece cap iron--but why bother when you can get something thicker for no more money. The surface grinding on the back was as coarse as I have seen and 'cause the steel is so hard, a bear to polish out. Also, I'm fairly sure that they should only be ground and honed with just one flat bevel, so the softer lamination gives maximum support to the hard lamination, as per a regular Japanese iron. Those who favour secondary bevels might be losing some of the advantges of these blades. I don't much like them, but maybe I have a bad one.

Mike.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Feb 2012)

Thanks to everyone who replied to my question about Bailey-type plane iron thicknesses. Seems they have varied a bit, but there's not much correlation between thickness and year of manufacture - between about 1.85mm and 2.4mm seems to be the range. For what it's worth, I measured my Cliffie iron, and it's a very consistent 2.94mm across the blade about 1/2" behind the cutting edge, so call it 3mm. Given that blade stiffness is proportional to the cube of blade thickness, that's a significant improvement, and experience from a number of people would seem to bear that out.

As to material, I've been doing a bit of rootling about in my old engineering textbooks, and thinking about the markings that Vann reported on his older irons - 'Crucible Cast Tungsten Steel', 'Tungsten Steel' and 'Tungsten Vanadium Steel'. The analysis of modern O1 steel is Carbon 0.85-1.00%, Silicon 0.40% max, Manganese 1.10-1.35%, Chromium 0.40-0.60%, Tungsten 0.40-0.60%, Vanadium 0.25% max, the balance Iron. An older reference gives about the same analysis without the Vanadium. It therefore seems entirely possible that (post-war) Stanley and Record irons are BS 4659 BO1 steel (that's what we generally call O1), the reference stamped on the blade may be just a bit of marketing 'polish', like a car manufacturer putting alloy wheels and go-faster stripes on a bog-standard hatchback. The pre-war situation is more confused, because British Standards didn't (generally)cover steel grades then.

Metallurgically, the addition of tungsten causes the formation of Tungsten Carbides with some of the carbon in solution, so improves hardness. Vanadium has a similar effect, and both slow grain growth during the hardening process, so should promote a finer-grained steel than a pure carbon steel. I'm speculating now - it may be debatable how pronounced this effect is, and how much it is negated by the tempering process to remove brittleness. I'm not sure that O1 (or 'Ground Flat Stock' as it's often sold) gives noticably higher hardnesses in practice than, say, Silver Steel, or the old plain carbon 'Cast Crucible Steel'.

(For anybody daft enough to want to research this further, instead of getting some wood shavings made, the main reference I used is 'Engineering Metallurgy' by Higgins, Volume 1, fifth edition, 1983.)

So the conclusion is the old and newer Bailey irons are basically O1 steel, or something very close to it. Thickness varies, but they are thinner, and therefore significantly less stiff, than modern Clifton/Isles/Hock irons. As others have pointed out above, stiffness can be improved by using a close-fit cap iron, and other measures like ensuring a firm, rock-free bedding against the frog will help too.


----------



## Jacob (10 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":2ovvrsi0 said:


> ...
> So are you saying the sole of the plane under thefrog should be a little forward of the frog ramp to contact the blade in the bevel!? Only in the sense of being positively in line - with a bias towards being advanced rather than being behind Cheeses, how are you supposed to advance the blade.


No prob. If you slide the blade down the frog ideally there should just be a fleeting contact with the mouth as it goes past. A thou or something. Done by feel and sighting


> .This would only work for one blade depth setting; you couldn't advance it to take a thicker cut and reducing the cut would lift the blade off the sole so the support was all on the frog as per usual. No. If you are strange enough to want to move the frog backwards, it should be level with the sole. However, you will get no advantage in doing this, because the sole portion of the ramp will be lost in the gap under the bevel and not add any support,


Wrong. Have a look at a plane. About time you did!


> unless you have want to take such an enormously thick shaving that the blade back could actually contact that part of the plane. No. all you are doing is gaping the mouth and it is by no means a myth that a finely set mouth prevents tearout. Planes without cap irons RELY on the principle that the downward pressure in front of the mouth prevents the shaving lifting ahead of the cut which is what tearout is.


So they say but `I don't believe it


> Cap irons mitigate the problem slightly, but not so much as you can have a mouth opening of the order you would need, to have the frog level with the rear mouth opening.
> 
> Regarding taking Krenov's advice with a pinch of salt: I spent 9 months with the guy; he was cantankerous and opinionated and sometimes rude but the most inspirational character you would like to meet and an authority on planes. It is unlikely that disagreeing with him on the finer points of planing would do you any favours. His little handmade wooden planes performed at least as well as any LN and degrees better than more standard fare. If thick irons, heavy cap irons and rock solid blade seating with a micro fine mouth did this for him, then it is churlish to question the point of it all.


Big if. Would like to see the evidence


> It works with the back up of solid evidence for Pete's sake. Removing even one of the fine details and the whole system falls apart. By calling himself amateur, he meant that he would not take professional expedients, but would always do the most appropriate thing that he thought correct. Don't confuse the true meaning of amateur, which means something done for the love of it, with not being an expert, which he most definately was. And if Mr Charlesworth says somthing works for a reason, then it would be just as churlish to disagree with him.


They are normal people just like you and me and can get things wrong the same as we do. The "cult of expertise" is not good and is unconstructive. "Gurus" should have tomatoes thrown at them at regular intervals. If in doubt, stick two fingers up! Churlish of _them_ if they think they are immune from disagreement.


----------



## woodbrains (11 Feb 2012)

Cheshirechappie":nclahxiu said:


> Thanks to everyone who replied to my question about Bailey-type plane iron thicknesses. Seems they have varied a bit, but there's not much correlation between thickness and year of manufacture - between about 1.85mm and 2.4mm seems to be the range. For what it's worth, I measured my Cliffie iron, and it's a very consistent 2.94mm across the blade about 1/2" behind the cutting edge, so call it 3mm. Given that blade stiffness is proportional to the cube of blade thickness, that's a significant improvement, and experience from a number of people would seem to bear that out.
> 
> As to material, I've been doing a bit of rootling about in my old engineering textbooks, and thinking about the markings that Vann reported on his older irons - 'Crucible Cast Tungsten Steel', 'Tungsten Steel' and 'Tungsten Vanadium Steel'. The analysis of modern O1 steel is Carbon 0.85-1.00%, Silicon 0.40% max, Manganese 1.10-1.35%, Chromium 0.40-0.60%, Tungsten 0.40-0.60%, Vanadium 0.25% max, the balance Iron. An older reference gives about the same analysis without the Vanadium. It therefore seems entirely possible that (post-war) Stanley and Record irons are BS 4659 BO1 steel (that's what we generally call O1), the reference stamped on the blade may be just a bit of marketing 'polish', like a car manufacturer putting alloy wheels and go-faster stripes on a bog-standard hatchback. The pre-war situation is more confused, because British Standards didn't (generally)cover steel grades then.
> 
> ...



Hi,

I think you are more or less correct, a few things I have read over the years bears this out, though I have not gone into metal science too deeply. You more or less re-itterate what I briefly said earlier. tungsten is added to improve grain structure that would normally be achieved in carbon steel by the hammering process. Removing the need for hammering is a cost cutting excercise which was my point. The blades were thin to save steel, they could be stamped out more easily whereas thicker irons probably would have had to be cut then edges ground. Thinner blade blanks would requre less energy to harden and temper, all economies, there is no advantage at all for the performance of the plane with thin irons, all manufacturing expedients.

However, as far as I see it adding tungsten causes some other issues. The grain structure might be improved over stock, untreted carbon steel, but the carbides actually tend to have an affinity to clump together in the steel and are not as uniformly distributed as might be liked. So there are in effect strands of carbide throughout the steel which I think causes non-uniform hardness and brittleness throughout the steel which is partly why the performance is patchy. Vanadium also forms carbides, but really is only beneficial in HSS and only make sharpening plane irons problematic. They may hold an edge longer than carbon steel but it wont be as sharp to begin with. Evidently, any more than about 1% carbon in steel has no benefit in hardness and most importantly toughness and the excess carbon is only there to be available to form carbides, otherwise it will just remain as graphite. I might be wrong, but I think re-heating and hammering over and over helps include more carbon in the metal matrix, so a slightly higher percentage of carbon is achieved, whereas carbide forming alloyants have to be added to acheive the same in the standard blades. I'm not saying that these are not sophisticated alloys, they are and probably could only be acheived with ultra high tech apperatus available today, but they don't do what we need for a fine blade, which is toughness above all. The fascination with high Rockwell scale numbers is only useful to a point. Rc 68 or something found in a Japanese iron for example, is only part of the story. The repeated hammering and folding of the metal by the blacksmith imparts toughness and therefore better edge retention than would be acheived by a similarly hard alloy steel stamped from a sheet. The edge of the latter would simply crumble under pressure as it will be brittle.

Mike.


----------



## woodbrains (11 Feb 2012)

Jacob":2y8h7n52 said:


> They are normal people just like you and me and can get things wrong the same as we do. The "cult of expertise" is not good and is unconstructive. "Gurus" should have tomatoes thrown at them at regular intervals. If in doubt, stick two fingers up! Churlish of _them_ if they think they are immune from disagreement.



Sorry Mr Charlesworth, I didn't want to put you in the line of fire, someone is having a tantrum.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (11 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":10orda33 said:


> Jacob":10orda33 said:
> 
> 
> > They are normal people just like you and me and can get things wrong the same as we do. The "cult of expertise" is not good and is unconstructive. "Gurus" should have tomatoes thrown at them at regular intervals. If in doubt, stick two fingers up! Churlish of _them_ if they think they are immune from disagreement.
> ...


Not a tantrum. Just defending the right we all have to disagree with anybody and everybody!
It's not churlish at all.


> Regarding taking Krenov's advice with a pinch of salt: I spent 9 months with the guy; he was cantankerous and opinionated and sometimes rude but the most inspirational character you would like to meet and an authority on planes. It is unlikely that disagreeing with him on the finer points of planing would do you any favours. His little handmade wooden planes performed at least as well as any LN and degrees better than more standard fare. If thick irons, heavy cap irons and rock solid blade seating with a micro fine mouth did this for him, then it is churlish to question the point of it all.


I take it you have replaced all your planes with little knobbly Krenov jobs? If not, why not?
I'm sure he was inspirational - in fact we all know that as he obviously inspired many. But then you have to move on.


----------



## Corneel (11 Feb 2012)

Regarding the sole supporting the blade instead of the frog.

I meassured the thickness of the sole in my 1920's Stanley #7, and in a UK made Stanley #4. It's only 2.5mm thick. It's much thicker at he other ends of the plane, but just there where the frog comes down, they ground the sole to this 2.5 mm.

So the length of steel at 45 degrees of the sole is 2.5 / sin(45) = 3.5 mm.

The iron is 2.2 mm thick.
When we calculate the length of the bevel when the primary is 25 degrees, we find 2.2 / sin(25) = 5.2 mm.
When we calculate the length of the bevel when the primary is 30 degrees, we find 2.2 / sin(30) = 4.4 mm.

Conclusion: The sole has no role in supprting the iron

Regarding clamping a thin iron to the frog:
I see absolutely no light between the clamp downed iron assembly and the frog while using the thin irons in a good old vintage Stanley
I do see a little tiny bit of light when using the thicker Ray Iles iron in a much newer Stanley.
I don't wittness real chatter while using my Stanley planes, like I once saw in a wooden plane with a wobbly bed for the blade. That was bad, in the middle of a stroke on a hard piece of wood I got these rather deep lines of a chattering iron. You can see that sometimes happen with a scraper blade too.

My conclusion: I think flexing of the iron on a well bedded Stanley frog isn't really much of an issue. The issue is much more how well the frog is fabricated.


----------



## Corneel (11 Feb 2012)

Wait a second, I made all kind of stupid mistakes in that calculation. I'll do a retry.


----------



## Jacob (11 Feb 2012)

> Conclusion: The sole has no role in supprting the iron


Wrong. 0/10 must try harder! :lol:


Corneel":oscjba1e said:


> Wait a second, I made all kind of stupid mistakes in that calculation. I'll do a retry.


Instead of doing that why not take out the frog, put the blade in situ as for a fine cut - *and have a look at it!* :shock:


----------



## Corneel (11 Feb 2012)

Here is a quick picture in Paint. It shows that the bevel length is only part of the solution.







The length x = bevellength * sin (20) = 5.2 * sin 20 = 1.77.

So the new conclusion: Yes the sole plays a role in supporting a thin iron, even at a low grinding angle of 25 degrees.

BTW, a thick iron has a much longer bevel. The Ray Iles iron is 2.9 mm thick, so it has a bevel length of 6.86mm. In that case the value x becomes 2.3mm. The support of the sole is almost non existant in this case.


----------



## Corneel (11 Feb 2012)

Yes I know what you mean Jacob. I tried but maybe it was too dark in the shop. I didn't see anything down there.


----------



## Jacob (11 Feb 2012)

Corneel":2zdpcy9e said:


> Here is a quick picture in Paint. It shows that the bevel length is only part of the solution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Instead of doing that why not take out the frog, put the blade in situ as for a fine cut - and have a look at it, Measure it too whilst you are at it. :roll:


----------



## Corneel (11 Feb 2012)

It's freezing in the shop and nice and warm here behind the computer. :ho2


----------



## woodbrains (11 Feb 2012)

Hi,

So now the sole _isn't_ slightly forward of the frog to provide contact in the bevel. I swear you just make it up as you go along. It is highly unlikely that this portion of the rear mouth opening is even in the same plane as the frog ramp anyway, unless you take the trouble of some fettling with a file, etc. and let's face it you haven't done that, either.

A 3mm thick replacement is nearly 3 1/2 times more rigid than a standard one so doesn't require any dubious frog setting so you can close up the mouth like you should to prevent tearout without fear of chatter. Couple this with a 2 piece cap iron which doesn't curve the blade when you nip up the cap screw and you have better frog contact and even more rigidity. Can't see the downside nor any reasonable argument against.

Mike.


----------



## Richard T (11 Feb 2012)

Dear Corneel,

If you substituted the iron in your diagram with one with a rounded bevel, the distance at "X" would be shorter and Jacob would be very happy ... so don't!  :-$


----------



## woodbrains (11 Feb 2012)

Richard T":ytc3xe8d said:


> Dear Corneel,
> 
> If you substituted the iron in your diagram with one with a rounded bevel, the distance at "X" would be shorter and Jacob would be very happy ... so don't!  :-$



No, He 'rounds them under', so X would be bigger wouldn't it?


----------



## Jacob (11 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":izevtrap said:


> Hi,
> 
> So now the sole _isn't_ slightly forward of the frog to provide contact in the bevel. I swear you just make it up as you go along.


I swear you just misunderstand it on purpose as you go along! It wants to be in line, even the very tiniest gnats testicle amount forwards so that the back of the blade is in definite contact with the mouth


> It is highly unlikely that this portion of the rear mouth opening is even in the same plane as the frog ramp anyway,


Er - well they seem to be by and large


> unless you take the trouble of some fettling with a file, etc. and let's face it you haven't done that, either.
> 
> A 3mm thick replacement is nearly 3 1/2 times more rigid than a standard one so doesn't require any dubious frog setting so you can close up the mouth like you should to prevent tearout without fear of chatter. Couple this with a 2 piece cap iron which doesn't curve the blade when you nip up the cap screw and you have better frog contact and even more rigidity. Can't see the downside nor any reasonable argument against.
> 
> Mike.


For one plane yes a good idea. Convert it into an uber smoother. A no4 ideally? Or buy a LV la smoother, which is what I did. Or get by with scrapers. Stanley 80 is good. Hand-held bits of old saw blade will do it.
One uber smoother is enough . No point in converting all your planes into smoothers! Madness, expensive and you lose the thin blade advantage of ease of sharpening.


----------



## Jacob (11 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":owij66su said:


> Richard T":owij66su said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Corneel,
> ...


Only if you round under from an edge angle the same as shown 25º. In fact with a normally rounded bevel "X" would be much the same as a 30/25º twin bevel - just smoothed over. Rounding under isn't that radical, even if it does scare everybody sh|tless!!


----------



## Vann (11 Feb 2012)

Corneel":18py8ahm said:


> Regarding the sole supporting the blade instead of the frog.
> 
> I meassured the thickness of the sole in my 1920's Stanley #7, and in a UK made Stanley #4. It's only 2.5mm thick. It's much thicker at he other ends of the plane, but just there where the frog comes down, they ground the sole to this 2.5 mm.


I too was a "the sole provides no support" believer until I did a similar exercise on CAD, and had to eat my words  



Corneel":18py8ahm said:


> Regarding clamping a thin iron to the frog:
> I see absolutely no light between the clamp downed iron assembly and the frog while using the thin irons in a good old vintage Stanley.


You make not see any light, but there is nothing holding the assembly against the frog in this area*, so it is free to lift off whenever the cutting edge strikes churlish grain.

*except the rigidity (or lack thereof) of the flimsy iron and cap-iron.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Corneel (12 Feb 2012)

In theory you are right Vann, in practice though, this light and thin iron can handle a lot of tough stuff.

I've seen claims though that the thick iron's edge lasts a lot longer because it doesn't vibrate so much.
Somebody should rig a high speed camera to a handplane, just to see what really happens at the edge. :idea:


----------



## Jacob (12 Feb 2012)

Corneel":1gio4wte said:


> In theory you are right Vann, in practice though, this light and thin iron can handle a lot of tough stuff.
> 
> .....
> ....


Exactly. It'd be more interesting if the theoreticians came up with explanations of why these things do work in spite of the (demonstrably incorrect) theory! Didn't somebody once theorise that bumble-bees can't possibly fly?
To much theorising and not enough woodwork in my opinion!


----------



## woodbrains (12 Feb 2012)

Jacob":2tq3z5j1 said:


> Corneel":2tq3z5j1 said:
> 
> 
> > In theory you are right Vann, in practice though, this light and thin iron can handle a lot of tough stuff.
> ...



There is nothing thoeoretical about it, the results I get with my planes are demonsterably better than can be acheived by standard ones, by hugely significant amounts. And we have explained why these things work ad-infinitum; it is simple thick irons vibrate less, firmer blade bed reduces vibration also and finely set mouths reduce tear out and all this is helped by extremely sharp blades. There is no wizardry or magic, just 4 basic ingredients. Since we have already established that your irons cannot be sharp even, since Norton India stones are too coarse, I would expect the rest would be lost on you. If you spent less time arguing and got a fine stone so you could actually get a sharp edge, then maybe you might start to see the light.

Incidentally, no one theorised that bumble bees couldnt fly. That was just a feeble argument invented by the god squad for the proof of 'his' existence, because science at the time could not work out the aero dynamics etc of what was going on with that sort of flight. It is all fully understood now anyway, but that is a moot point. It is self evident that bumble bees can and was always could fly as an observable fact, you just have to open your eyes. True on so many levels!

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (12 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":1hkubc0c said:


> ,,,,, it is simple thick irons vibrate less, firmer blade bed reduces vibration also


my planes do not chatter or vibrate. According to the general theory this is impossible.


> and finely set mouths reduce tear out ......


May well do but this is not an option with the normal Bailey pattern


> .... Since we have already established that your irons cannot be sharp even, since Norton India stones are too coarse,


They are as sharp as I want them to be. I can go to a black washita (ed - arkansas) or strop on leather if I feel the need. They can be sharpened just as sharp as the alternatives, probably sharper than A2 steel by all accounts


> ........
> Incidentally, no one theorised that bumble bees couldnt fly. That was just a feeble argument invented by the god squad for the proof of 'his' existence, ......
> Mike.


New to me that god bit. I believe some physicist somewhere did admit to being flummoxed by it - i.e. he couldn't work out how it was possible. I think he knew that is was possible however. 
You are in a similar position - you can't see how it is possible for ordinary planes to work at all well; fair enough I'm not too sure myself. So you assume they don't. You are wrong!


----------



## woodbrains (12 Feb 2012)

Hi,

Washita stones are not fine stones either and are more or less white or marbled in colour. Since the use of these was 'new' to you until they were metioned to you on this forum relatively recently, you obviously don't use them any way. It is clear you really do not know what you are talking about.


----------



## Jacob (12 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":2mr2vi0o said:


> Hi,
> 
> Washita stones are not fine stones either and are more or less white or marbled in colour. Since the use of these was 'new' to you until they were metioned to you on this forum relatively recently, you obviously don't use them any way. It is clear you really do not know what you are talking about.


Sorry meant black arkansas. I've got both, amongst many other options. You are wrong about white washita - this is very fine, for woodwork purposes at least, though not enough for the knife enthusiasts.
It's about practical working methods, not ultimate sharpness for enthusiasts.
In seriously practical terms I haven't found anything to improve on a double sided norton for most purposes and an unknown but much finer man made stone for the extra fine edge when required. Plus stropping for even finer.
Reality woodworking, not fantasy sharpening.


----------



## GazPal (12 Feb 2012)

Jacob":1blxhuls said:


> It's about practical working methods, not ultimate sharpness for enthusiasts.
> 
> In seriously practical terms I haven't found anything to improve on a double sided norton for most purposes and an unknown but much finer man made stone for the extra fine edge when required. Plus stropping for even finer.



I couldn't agree more.

------------ 

Prior to the internet - speaking from experience - the vast majority of post 60's joiners and carpenters here (UK) used Norton stones (Combination or singles), with lower numbers using/adding Arkansas and the various slates & sandstones (Water stones) to their arsenal (Most often bench joiners and cabinetmakers). This doesn't mean Norton is best, but does indicate the fact they're wholly practical for everyday professional use. The main thing is to use whichever sharpening mediums and methods you find most practical for chosen applications and forget about arguments over who's dad is biggest.

Precisely the same stands for tool set-up.


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2012)

Chatter gets mentioned a lot on these plane threads. But I've never really had it, even in the past before I was taking much interest in hand tools (was using them but "just doing it"). Idle boast? Does this means my planes are fettled to perfection? Seems unlikely to me
I think I've go it - it's not about the planes at all, it's this:







A huge and heavy bench!
I've often wondered about the fashion for those lightweight continental style benches, they always look flimsy to me, with the absence of an apron as a big weakness. I think they may be the cause of chatter - just not stiff or heavy enough. It's all very well having end vices, sliding deadmen, woodscrew leg vices, 100s of doggy things, you name it, but if the thing isn't stiff and heavy enough it's no good.
And no need to waste time and money on all the trendy plane modifications; it's not about the planes - it's the bench.


----------



## Corneel (13 Feb 2012)

That's a nice bench, You decorated it nicely. 8)

My bench is the Roubo type, like it has been repopularised by Chris Schwarz. A different concept but the same idea. Heavy, and stable. No apron but it gets it's stability from thick legs morticed deeply into a thick top. BTW, the other type of bench he promotes in his book is your kind of English joiners bench.

Not all continental benches were light duty affairs. The old ones are big heavy beasts, made of beech. Again, a different design. But very usefull when well executed.


----------



## Corneel (13 Feb 2012)

This morning I decided to do a small test. 

I have a small piece of jatoba. Quarter sawn with crossgrain. Meaning that every growringth comes with a grain reversal. It is a hard wood species. A good candidate for some testing.

First I tackled it with the UK made Stanley #4, equiped with Ray Iles iron. The frog is set back so the iron rests on the sole too. This iron is so thick I had to file the mouth, back when I bought it. The iron is freshly sharpened, the mouth is tight and the chipbreaker set close to the edge.

It didn't perform badly. Fluffy shavings and almost no tearout. Just a few troublesome spots remained rough.

Having demonstrated that this board is a bit too much for a standard smoother, I got the original Stanley iron from a drawer. Sharpened it up to a 8000 grit waterstone, no strop. Then I put a backbevel on it, freehand, but I guess it's about 10-15 degrees. Installed it in the plane which I didn't change at all. I only had to tighten down the screw for the blade clamp.

And then I planed the board and made it wonderfully smooth with no tear out. There was a bit of chattering on the start of the stroke, but just a little bit of skewing cured that.

This was not an easy job for this plane iron. Hard wood, tearout prone, and the backbevel increases the pressure on the edge even more. But it managed.

I wanted to post some pictures but my camera didn't pick up the tear out nor did you see the difference after it was removed. It is more a thing you feel, then what you can see.


----------



## Gerard Scanlan (13 Feb 2012)

I am glad you did this test Corneel. Are you saying that the original thinner stanley blade did a better job than the Ray Ilses?
I do agree with Jacob that the bench has a lot do with the performance of hand tools. It is often overlooked because not many people are making beasts of benches anymore and the tool makers can sometimes blind us with science. A metalurgist in a world of woodworkers can sometimes appear to be the one eyed man in the country of the blind


----------



## bugbear (13 Feb 2012)

Gerard Scanlan":tdefdz21 said:


> I am glad you did this test Corneel. Are you saying that the original thinner stanley blade did a better job than the Ray Ilses?



Yes "but". The important change was a back bevel (hence higher effective EP) which reduced tear out, which is what you'd expect.

This is why one always has to be careful when testing to minimise variables.

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (13 Feb 2012)

Indeed. The back bevel was what made the iron work. But in this thread some people thought that a thin blade would cause chatter. With this test I "proved" that chatter is'n't really a big problem. With a bit of skill (skewing and putting pressure on the plane in the appropriate spots), this thin blade performed very well in this tough wood. Even with a backbevel, which would promote chatter!

But. Another but. Playing a bit more and I found out why I had replaced this iron in the first place. I got tramlines and on inspecting the edge carefully I found some fresh nicks. So the edge life of these recent Stanley blades isn't great. 

My conclusion, after just one simple test. A replacement blade isn't a bad idea in your smoother. It helps to close up the mouth while you still keep the sole support behind the edge. And the steel quality of the Ray Iles O1 blades is very good (Hock is great too, I know from some other blades).
But, don't go rushing out and buy replacement blades for all your Stanley planes! Especially the older blades from Stanley and Record are very good. In a Jack and a Jointer they perform marvously.

I don't really have a stake in this game. I just want to help you save some money.


----------



## bugbear (13 Feb 2012)

Corneel":307sja3a said:


> Indeed. The back bevel was what made the iron work. But in this thread some people thought that a thin blade would cause chatter. With this test I "proved" that chatter is'n't really a big problem. With a bit of skill (skewing and putting pressure on the plane in the appropriate spots), this thin blade performed very well in this tough wood. Even with a backbevel, which would promote chatter!
> 
> But. Another but. Playing a bit more and I found out why I had replaced this iron in the first place. I got tramlines and on inspecting the edge carefully I found some fresh nicks. So the edge life of these recent Stanley blades isn't great.
> 
> ...



I think people are looking for yes/no answers (or loudly asserting yes/no positions) in this thread. The truth is more complex. Planing issues are complex, and there are many factors that affect plane performance. Addressing them ALL (e.g. Holtey) is probably overkill for most circumstances.

But in the middle ground, it probably doesn't matter wether you use a thicker blade, better cap-iron, flattening sole, more rigid bench, or whatever - it's just a question of wether the aggregate improvement exceeds the threshold for the difficulty being addressed.

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (13 Feb 2012)

Yup. I think that kind of wraps it up.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Feb 2012)

The original question was, "Has anybody done a comparative test between plane irons".

We've had lots of interesting discussion, but so far the answer seems to be "no".

Until someone uses the same plane, on the same bench, planing the same wood with the same technique and changing only irons (sharpened in the same way and set the same way in the plane), that comparative test of irons has not been done.

For what it's worth, my opinion (note - opinion) is that if all else is the same, a thicker iron is likely to be a better performer than a thinner one. That is not to say that a thin iron will not do a job, and do some jobs well. I'm sure it's quite possible to rig some smart way of holding a razor-blade in a plane and getting it to work (though getting it to work well for a prolonged period might be more challenging), but that wasn't the original question.


----------



## woodbrains (13 Feb 2012)

Hi,

There is no doubt in my mind that a thicker iron/thicker cap-iron combo will improve performance, I've been doing it long enough to know. I built my bench from 4 inch thick, 7 feet long beech top, on a frame of 4by4 legs and 6 by 2 stretchers with glued and pinned mortice and tenons holding it all together, not exactly light weight. I Know how stable the bench needs to be and flat, too. The principle is similarly applied to stability and weight in the plane irons too, there should be no weak links in the chain.

Corneel, If a regularly sharpened Ray Iles iron can approach the performance of a stock iron with a EP of 55 degrees, and have better edge retention, doesn't that confirm what I've been saying all along? And why only stick to the improvements on smoothing planes? I want edge jointing to be equally good for more invisible and stronger glue lines. And I want my Jack to retain it's edge for longer than half a dosen strokes before sharpening. All of my planes were second hand and cost pounds. Adding new irons to boost performance is not like I'm saying I should bin the lot and buy a full set of LN's to get the results I know is achievable. The original question was which irons, performance versus cost is the likelyest option. I WILL be changing my irons, without a doubt, and I look forward to the improved results that I will inevitably get.

Mike.


----------



## Mike Wingate (13 Feb 2012)

I have been using Stanley/Record bench planes for the last 50 years. I teach D&T and specialize in Resistant materials with a bias towards wood. The school planes work, but the quality of the blades is poor, with the students not appeciating how to properly set and use them. I have taken great pride in getting the standard Record/Stanley blades to shave hair. They are prepared with either a flatbed rotating oilstone, or a water cooled Tormek, followed by diamond stones, a ceramic stone and some leather strops. So far so good. I build guitars and work with ebony and other exotic timbers. I bought a Japanese laminated steel blade which copes very well with the ebony, but it was a pig to flatten the back. I recently bought 2 more to fit to my own planes. Then a Rob Cosman combo. This is the best ever blade I have used. I bought some Quangsheng blades and chipbreakers. They are excellent. All my own planes and some of the school planes now have a quality blade with a thick chipbreaker. Some have neccesitated the removal of a small ammount of metal in the mouth or off the frog to get it to work. But it was worth it. All my own personal planes and some of the school ones have been fettled and rehandled and are a joy to use, as is y QS 62 with a new handle. So Cosman blades are the best, but QS are value for money. If I was to start all over again I would buy QS planes from Workshop heaven.


----------



## jimi43 (13 Feb 2012)

> .............I have taken great pride in getting the standard Record/Stanley blades to shave hair



I thought this level of punishment was banned in schools now but it's nice to see at least one teacher prepared to buck the system in the name of discipline! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :wink: 

Jim


----------



## Mike Wingate (13 Feb 2012)

After watching utube videos of people sharpening their blades with ceramic stones and shaving hair, I bought a pair and was amazed that not only would they put such an edge on a knife blade, but that they would improve the performance of a Stanley/Record blade, never mind the QS and Cosman. It is just a trick to impress upon the kids what a tool will do, and to respect the tool and let it work for them. I neglected to mention that the Japanese Laminated blades are slightly brittle. The Cosman combo is the best for me, but as I can buy 3 sets of QS blades and chipbreakers for the same price, that makes them the best value blade for a Stanley/Record bench plane 3 through to 7 inc 1/2's.


----------



## Corneel (13 Feb 2012)

Well as long as you stay with O1 steel, I have very good experience with the edge life of Ray Iles, Hock, Quangsheng AND older Stanley and Record blades. My older ones are prewar or early postwar. 

Threads like this are probably read by a lot of lurkers too, beginners, people looking for advice about plane tuning. Some advocate to always bin the iron, and buy a replacement iron. I wanted to add a counter voice saying, try before you buy. Maybe the standard iron in the standard plane does a good job allready in the kind of wood you use. Saves a bunch when you don't need to buy new stuff all the time.


----------



## woodbrains (13 Feb 2012)

Hi,

I am a teaching assistant in D&T at present. Since I have been at school (less than 1 year) I have helped a new interest in hand skills and have generated enough interest to have pupils attend a WW club at lunchtimes, some who have had to drop D&T as a subject but still like making things. All girls Grammar School, too.

Did you import the Rob Cosman blade set from Wood River, or do they have a UK supplier?

Mike.


----------



## Mike Wingate (13 Feb 2012)

While it is sharp, the Stanley/Record blades can do a great job, but they do not retain their sharpness as do the QS/Cosman and Samurai blades. The addition of the thicker chipbreaker is not essential, but all my personal planes and a few school ones have them. I bought the Cosman blade and chipbreaker from Classic Hand Tools.


----------



## David C (13 Feb 2012)

Rob Cosman IBC matched set can be got from Classic Handtools.

The blades are 3.6mm thick, the C/B is also thick. Very good grinding everywhere.

The backs are very flat, so the preparation time is very short.

Fantastic product.

David Charlesworth


----------



## woodbrains (13 Feb 2012)

David C":vsqdl1wi said:


> Rob Cosman IBC matched set can be got from Classic Handtools.
> 
> The blades are 3.6mm thick, the C/B is also thick. Very good grinding everywhere.
> 
> ...



Hi,

Thanks David,

I might just have to give one a try.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (13 Feb 2012)

One anoying aspect of thick irons is increased backlash. Another is increased grinding time, when it's time for grinding again. Very thick irons need filing of the mouth (no problem for me, but some people shy away from it). And they cost quite a bit of money, sometimes more then the plane itself. I'd rather have an extra plane then an exchange iron. 

The Stanley blade I tried this morning is indeed a dud. But I have other rather new Stanley blades that last quite a while and are easy to sharpen. The older ones are just perfectly allright compared to Ray Iles, Hock and QS. My jointer and jack are sharp for a long time. Just like my home made Krenov planes with Hock and my one and only QS block plane.

So it's not a black and white thing. There are pros and contras.

Oh and I want to add some smileys, just to show I don't take it all too serious.
 :wink: :deer


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2012)

I've ordered a Clifton stayset thing. I'll let you know if I can tell the difference! 
I've tried quite a few of the tooly chart toppers so far, without being wildly impressed. The biggest disappointment being the honing jig. It all went a lot better after I saw the light on that one!


----------



## woodbloke (13 Feb 2012)

Jacob":zvc3228q said:


> I've ordered a Clifton stayset thing


Someone else wasted his hard earned :lol:...make sure you tidy the 'shop floor Jacob so you can find the bit that drops off when it bounces under your paint(ed) bench - Rob


----------



## woodbrains (13 Feb 2012)

Corneel said:


> One anoying aspect of thick irons is increased backlash. Another is increased grinding time, when it's time for grinding again. Very thick irons need filing of the mouth (no problem for me, but some people shy away from it). And they cost quite a bit of money, sometimes more then the plane itself. I'd rather have an extra plane then an exchange iron./quote]
> 
> Yes, the backlash is annoying, but then the backlash in a standard set up is too great for my liking anyway. The extra is a small tradeoff for better cutting performance. It just supports my thoughts that the Bailey design was never the greatest in the first place, but it is what we are left with without going to the extremes of a Holtey and the likes. If only someone would make an affordable infill we might have some real choice. I always think a little filing of the mouth is sometime necessary, even if it is open enough to begin with. Often they are not square across the sole and a little relief angle to allow the shavings to emerge with small mouth setting is beneficial too.
> 
> Mike.


----------



## woodbrains (13 Feb 2012)

woodbloke":3ruwliqf said:


> Jacob":3ruwliqf said:
> 
> 
> > I've ordered a Clifton stayset thing
> ...



Hi,

Steady Jacob, you might have caught something :evil: 

Just be open minded, don't try the thing expecting it to fail, you might be surprised and don't forget, the extra support means you don't need to keep the frog so far back, so close the mouth up and you will get double the benefit. If you don't like it, I will buy it from you for the full price, so you won't have wasted your money. I think you will keep hold of it, though.

Mike.

PS. Never had the end fall off myself, even holding the iron breaker down. Perhaps I've just got magnetic fingers.


----------



## Jacob (14 Feb 2012)

Jacob":ci6rnig9 said:


> I've ordered a Clifton stayset thing. I'll let you know if I can tell the difference!
> I've tried quite a few of the tooly chart toppers so far, without being wildly impressed. The biggest disappointment being the honing jig. It all went a lot better after I saw the light on that one!


Turned up this morning, that was quick!
Works very nicely, needs a bit longer for comparison though.
I just noticed my old USA Stanley no7 has a laminated blade. You can't see anything when you hand hone but it really shows up with belt sanding - a distinct boundary with slightly yellower colour to the hard layer. I guess it must have been holding an edge longer but can't say I've noticed.


----------



## Jacob (14 Feb 2012)

It's looking promising! The most obvious thing is how different the plane feels in use - quieter and somehow more solid. I've been swapping it between a 4½ , 5½ and 7. Obvious home for it is the 4½, as a smoother.
It seems to do better than the LV la bu smoother!


----------



## woodbrains (14 Feb 2012)

Jacob":vertg8wj said:


> It's looking promising! The most obvious thing is how different the plane feels in use - quieter and somehow more solid. I've been swapping it between a 4½ , 5½ and 7. Obvious home for it is the 4½, as a smoother.
> It seems to do better than the LV la bu smoother!



Hi,

Welcome to the So Solid Cap iron Crew. :mrgreen: They really do work wonders and as recommended by many, fitting a new cap iron is the best place to start with tuning a plane; it gives a noticable benefit without too much outlay. Have you moved the frog forwards yet? It is worth experimenting with. The little extra support given by the rear mouth is negated by the firmer blade clamping and a finer mouth will give much improved control to reduce tearout.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (14 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":2y9ou6yb said:


> Jacob":2y9ou6yb said:
> 
> 
> > It's looking promising! The most obvious thing is how different the plane feels in use - quieter and somehow more solid. I've been swapping it between a 4½ , 5½ and 7. Obvious home for it is the 4½, as a smoother.
> ...


Yes it works. I've been smoothing a small sycamore table top about 22x41". Not very hard I know, but poor quality with knots and bark intrusions. Takes quite a lot of concentration to avoid tear outs so I carried on with belt sander and ROS in the end. 
But I could see the possibility of an all planed top. Trouble is it takes only one dig into the surface then you have to take the whole lot down, so a smoother has to be 100% reliable. This means frequent honing, but thats no prob with freehand convex bevel, and the stayset drop-off thing helps a bit. Haven't dropped it - Rob must just be a very clumsy boy! 
So if I get another one for one of my no4s I will have 2 good smoothers and perhaps sell on the LV.
Hmm!


----------



## woodbrains (14 Feb 2012)

Jacob":223697u3 said:


> woodbrains":223697u3 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":223697u3 said:
> ...



Hi,

I have two No 4 smoothers myself, one with a 10 degree back bevel on the blade. You can tame most any tear out with that combo and a planed table top is definitely achieveable and in my mind desirable. I don't doubt the LV smoother is a fine tool and coveted one myself, but a 58 degree blade to make a low angle into a high angle always seemed a bit nuts to me- got to be hard to push that wedge. An EP of 55 degrees is easily done in Bailey planes and needs a blade with an included angle of ony 35 deg, so not too tiring to use and readily availible.

Enjoy :ho2 

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (14 Feb 2012)

Yes a backbevel works wonders. I've planed acres of some weird Russian kind of maple with lots of grain reversals and knots and so on, for my kitchen. The backbevel saved my day more then once.

And when everyone goes into new chipbreakers, I might buy one too sometime :mrgreen: .


----------



## bugbear (15 Feb 2012)

Cheshirechappie":3bm1vvi6 said:


> The original question was, "Has anybody done a comparative test between plane irons".
> 
> We've had lots of interesting discussion, but so far the answer seems to be "no".



I guess you missed my links to two such studies. Reread the thread.

BugBear


----------



## nanowire (15 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":25lsh9w8 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have two No 4 smoothers myself, one with a 10 degree back bevel on the blade. You can tame most any tear out with that combo and a planed table top is definitely achieveable and in my mind desirable. I don't doubt the LV smoother is a fine tool and coveted one myself, but a 58 degree blade to make a low angle into a high angle always seemed a bit nuts to me- got to be hard to push that wedge. An EP of 55 degrees is easily done in Bailey planes and needs a blade with an included angle of ony 35 deg, so not too tiring to use and readily availible.
> 
> ...



So, if one has a spare no4, is a 10 deg back bevel something you recommend? I have some birch that don't respond well to a sharp no4 as it is now.


----------



## Jacob (15 Feb 2012)

nanowire":2xfyfgx6 said:


> woodbrains":2xfyfgx6 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...


It'll work as a smoother/scraper but will need sharpening every few minutes. The LV does it better and keeps an edge longer. 
My recent experiment with clifton cap on 4½ thin blade seems good so far and keeps an edge better than the back bevel thing. It's cutting more than scraping, which makes the difference I guess


----------



## woodbrains (15 Feb 2012)

nanowire":2o6sdkkq said:


> woodbrains":2o6sdkkq said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



Hi,

It is easy to remove the back bevel if you don't like it, so give it a try. Hone a 25 deg primary as usual and just ligtly hone an edge at about 5 or 10 deg on the back. Only about 1/2 to 1 mm is needed otherwise the cap iron will not fit correctly, and you will find it difficult to adjust the plane. It doesnt take long to re hone after that, just alternate from one side then the other each time it needs doing, so maintaining a very short back bevel. Interchangeble irons are a good way to go, if you dont have 2 smoothers.

Regarding being a scraping action, it technically isn't as you would have to go to a much higher EP for that. Many infills of old were available with higher pitches, York pitch (50 deg) was a favorite and they were still planes all the same. We are just trying to emulate the same here. if it gets you out of a difficult spot, then don't question the technical reasons, just enjoy the fact that it works. 

Mike.


----------



## woodbrains (15 Feb 2012)

bugbear":1gqui6yt said:


> Cheshirechappie":1gqui6yt said:
> 
> 
> > The original question was, "Has anybody done a comparative test between plane irons".
> ...



Hello,

Thanks for the links, they seem like very thorough tests and I am wading through the info. It seems that LN A2 blades were actually more fragile than O1 with poorer edge retention, which is a surprise. (Not tried one myself) But Hock A2 showed none of the defects (Have one of those) Also, Clifton aside getting a scathing comment about the surface finish when new, seems to be no better than other carbon blades in terms of wear, but remakably, continued to perform better, due to the irons THICKNESS. It also seems that sharpening media has a marked effect on specific blades performance. Some got sharper with media that others did not, if you follow. i.e. some blades got a better edge with Chrome Oxide when others better with diamond paste and poorer results when reversed. Thought provoking stuff.

Mike.


----------



## nanowire (15 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":15jf803g said:


> nanowire":15jf803g said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":15jf803g said:
> ...




Will give it a try. Also a good reason to fettle that old no4 that I yet haven't had reason to fix  Thanks.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Feb 2012)

Righty-ho then, Bugbear, following your curt instruction at 9.03am, I have re-read said thread. I probably didn't read the links before because they referred to 'infill planes', and thought it might not be directly relevant to Bailey-type planes.

Nonetheless, there is some interesting stuff in there. I was surprised how close in performance the O1 and A2 irons were, given the hype in the woodworking media, and as Woodbrains said earlier, the Clifton iron seemed to doing quite well enough to continue work when the tester ceased testing it.

The conclusion seems to be that M2 HSS lasts longest, but needs diamond lapping to create a fine enough edge for woodworking to start with. Maybe with the ready availability of diamond honing stones in recent times, it's time for HSS to make the transition from metal-cutting to wood-shaving. (It probably won't be long before someone is doing comparative tests of M2 and M42 Cobalt-bearing HSS!)

Anybody got any Bailey-type planes with High Speed Steel irons?


----------



## Jacob (15 Feb 2012)

TBH I thought those tests were verging on the bonkers.
The only meaningful test is on the shop floor (or bench). 
Though this isn't easy - you can't plane the same piece of wood twice. 
I've managed to plane a whole table top without any tear out at all. Moderately difficult wood. Mainly the 4½ plus Clifton cap, but back up from the Veritas la bu smoother. They are very different mainly due to width and camber, the Veritas having the steeper camber giving narrower but deeper cut. This makes them sort of incompatible as they leave such a different footprints.
Current theory is that I ought to upgrade a 4 and a 3 with clifton cap irons. Given the same camber they'd work as a team of three with progressively smaller footprints. It's the surface finish I'm after, not the flattening or levelling. 
Then if I ebay the LV that'd pay for all the bits and a night out too! No brainer; bye bye LV, hello bits from Sheffield!
What's really good about the Record + cliffy cap iron, is the very rapid blade extraction and replacement for frequent quick honings - very necessary with smoothing. Clunk click and it's out. Click clunk and it's back. Unless you are Rob of course, then there would be a short intermission while he scrabbled about on the floor looking for it!
The LV is a right faff in comparison - no lever, knurled knob instead, the adjuster comes up with the blade and has to be separated, the blade is thick and takes longer to hone, putting it back is the same faff in reverse, but it keeps an edge a bit longer.


----------



## woodbrains (15 Feb 2012)

Jacob":30bs09zj said:


> TBH I thought those tests were verging on the bonkers.
> The only meaningful test is on the shop floor (or bench).
> Though this isn't easy - you can't plane the same piece of wood twice.
> I've managed to plane a whole table top without any tear out at all. Moderately difficult wood. Mainly the 4½ plus Clifton cap, but back up from the Veritas la bu smoother. They are very different mainly due to width and camber, the Veritas having the steeper camber giving narrower but deeper cut. This makes them sort of incompatible as they leave such a different footprints.
> ...




Hi,

In truth the tests are very academic and the best test is using the things. However, I can't fault the testers for being as objective as they have been and it does give some weight to some of the things that we find out in our more subjective testing/experience. Otherwise, we will all have opinions that can never be verified with any certainty and these forums might as well be on metaphysics for all the good the knowledge is worth. I'm glad some people have the time and patience to do such things.

I'm glad you are liking the Clifton cap irons. The veritas BU smoother is not necessarily the best tool for smoothing cranky grain, as supplied from the factory though. The firm blade seating and thick iron will help lots, but a low angle and 25-30 blade bevel gives an EP not optimal for wild stuff. (I'm assuming you are still using the stock blade and grind) Try increasing the honing angle a bit at a time 'til the tearout is reduced but the effort needed to push the plane is not too great, then you might like the thing better. I guess about 40deg-45deg will do the trick, but raise it up gradually until it does what you need.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (16 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":2j6apvrp said:


> ......... The veritas BU smoother is not necessarily the best tool for smoothing cranky grain, as supplied from the factory though. The firm blade seating and thick iron will help lots, but a low angle and 25-30 blade bevel gives an EP not optimal for wild stuff. (I'm assuming you are still using the stock blade and grind) Try increasing the honing angle a bit at a time 'til the tearout is reduced but the effort needed to push the plane is not too great, then you might like the thing better. I guess about 40deg-45deg will do the trick, but raise it up gradually until it does what you need.
> 
> Mike.


I've been honing at about 45º and have cambered it, perhaps too much. At the mo it cuts like a super scrub plane i.e. perfectly but with narrow, relatively deep peelings. I have to admit - it goes where all the others fail, but I use it only in reserve as necessary, because I don't like it somehow. Perhaps because the adjustment is so ineffective and blade removal process so fiddly. It hones OK freehand though. I thought the A2 steel would be difficult, but it isn't.
And it's a lot of money locked up in a stupid plane!


----------



## Gerard Scanlan (16 Feb 2012)

I am pleased to read that experienced woodworkers are discovering what a difference the two piece clifton cap is making to the performance of their planes. I was astonished at the improvement it made to my plane, but was open to the idea that it might just be me that was easily surprised. 
It is great that someone went to all the bother and expense of testing plane blades but as in all tests there are always comprises. The blade that scores best in a test may fail on the next few strokes, one that performs a little less well may go one twice as long. A blade that goes blunt fairly quickly may sharpen up really quickly and give the best cut. So it is perfectly correct to say if a woodworker who planes wood all day long is in favour of a particular blade he is unlikely to be wrong for the work he is doing.


----------



## bugbear (16 Feb 2012)

Jacob":3u6py1ha said:


> I've been honing at about 45º and have cambered it, perhaps too much. At the mo it cuts like a super scrub plane i.e. perfectly but with narrow, relatively deep peelings.



Doesn't sound correctly tuned for smoothing to me. I suggest widening (shallowing, is that a word) the camber,

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (16 Feb 2012)

bugbear":1m4hjddu said:


> Jacob":1m4hjddu said:
> 
> 
> > I've been honing at about 45º and have cambered it, perhaps too much. At the mo it cuts like a super scrub plane i.e. perfectly but with narrow, relatively deep peelings.
> ...


 I agree; the camber should only be slight--just enough to prevent track marks, but ideally the whole width of the blade (or a little less, it is hard to hit that ideal) should make a shaving, that gets thinner towards the edges. I think for a smoother, this should be less than a thou difference from centre to edges as the depth of cut is only likely to be a thou or two. Obviously I don't expect anyone to measure this amount, but it is a good idea to have in your head when honing a camber, as a subjective guide. Typically, it will only take about 3 strokes on the finishing stone, with a little extra pressure exerted towards each edge, to give the desired camber. This is using waterstones,which cut relatvely quickly, oilstones will take longer, you will have to gauge that for yourself.

If you really don't get on with the BU smoother, then I'm just sorry you didn't try the heavier cap irons sooner, it would have saved you some hassle.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (16 Feb 2012)

bugbear":11gfys3g said:


> Jacob":11gfys3g said:
> 
> 
> > I've been honing at about 45º and have cambered it, perhaps too much. At the mo it cuts like a super scrub plane i.e. perfectly but with narrow, relatively deep peelings.
> ...


There is no "correct" tuning.


----------



## Mike Wingate (16 Feb 2012)

I am very impressed with the 50 degree blade in my QS LA jack plane for dealing with awkward grain.


----------



## bugbear (16 Feb 2012)

Jacob":1tu8y088 said:


> bugbear":1tu8y088 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1tu8y088 said:
> ...



A wider camber would still help, correct or not. Try it!

BugBear


----------



## mtr1 (16 Feb 2012)

I like the QS T10 iron I have in my QS jack, holds an edge really well. I liked it so much I bought one for my record No 4 smoother, the record get picked up more than the LN No 4 with its crappy A2 blade that just crumbles if you wave it in front of timber. Might put the QS iron in the LN...

Never tried one of the two piece cap irons, they must be good if Jacob likes them, are they really that good?


----------



## Karl (16 Feb 2012)

mtr1":38s6cz0s said:


> Never tried one of the two piece cap irons, they must be good if Jacob likes them, are they really that good?



They're great - even better when in a Clifton plane 8)


----------



## jimi43 (16 Feb 2012)

mtr1":3888mggz said:


> I like the QS T10 iron I have in my QS jack, holds an edge really well. I liked it so much I bought one for my record No 4 smoother, the record get picked up more than the LN No 4 with its crappy A2 blade that just crumbles if you wave it in front of timber. Might put the QS iron in the LN...
> 
> Never tried one of the two piece cap irons, they must be good if Jacob likes them, are they really that good?



In my opinion too...the Clifton caps are really that good....but I have said that all along.....but it's only an opinion and I certainly wouldn't want to force that opinion. It's what works for you. I also hear that the QS one piece cap irons which are substantially thicker are also great upgrades to the standard setup though I have yet to try one.

I have however tried the T10 QS iron in my panel infill and that's where it is going to live from now on...it's blinkin' marvellous. My experience of A2 has been less than happy...

Jim


----------



## woodbrains (16 Feb 2012)

Hi,

The compartive blade testing links that Bugbear posted seem to direct that LN A2 blades are not up to much and LV are not significantly different, which would verify what the last few posts seem to be saying. In brief, the testers conclude that the claim that they hold their edge longer and better withstand abasive materials is not borne out, the edges are easily chipped in use, even when increasing the bevel angle when sharpening. However, they also conclude that Ron Hock's A2 cryo irons do in fact show improvements over O1 steel. I have a Hock iron in my 05 jack and one in a block plane and always thought them to be worthwhile, so it is obvious there are differences in the way these steels are produced. Does LN and Veritas cryogenically treat their irons? Maybe this is the determining factor.

Have a QS iron in a smoother for the last few days. Seems a little harder than the Clifton's for example as takes a little longer to sharpen. So far seems to be holding up well, but too soon to say for sure, Will know in a few more days I think. They are very good quality in terms of factory finish, though. I can't think of any better that I have used, though Veritas will probably be at least as good, judging by the scraper plane and shoulder plane I have of theirs.

Mike.


----------



## Paul Chapman (16 Feb 2012)

Karl":3l37sg43 said:


> mtr1":3l37sg43 said:
> 
> 
> > Never tried one of the two piece cap irons, they must be good if Jacob likes them, are they really that good?
> ...




+1

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Paul Chapman (16 Feb 2012)

mtr1":1betsr2o said:


> LN No 4 with its crappy A2 blade that just crumbles if you wave it in front of timber.



What angle are you honing the blade, Mark? A lot of people find that A2 blades crumble if honed at 30 degrees or less. You could try honing at a slightly steeper angle.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## mtr1 (16 Feb 2012)

30 ish, I will try with a steeper angle tomorrow Paul, 38? Or higher?


----------



## Paul Chapman (16 Feb 2012)

mtr1":1j4qvsii said:


> 30 ish, I will try with a steeper angle tomorrow Paul, 38? Or higher?



I only have one LN plane (the #9) and hone that at about 35 degrees and it seems OK.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (16 Feb 2012)

mtr1":x1gr0r48 said:


> ...
> Never tried one of the two piece cap irons, they must be good if Jacob likes them, are they really that good?


Nah they are total carp basically. TBH I'm just fishing for freebies - samples for "review" etc. I've only ever had one - a little tin of "Honerite Gold Haemorrhoid Fluid", and that was carp too! I ended up sharpening chisels with it. Mind you they were all free of piles at the end of the day.
Everybody else gets them why not me? :roll:


----------



## woodbrains (17 Feb 2012)

Paul Chapman":2ru2g63m said:


> mtr1":2ru2g63m said:
> 
> 
> > LN No 4 with its crappy A2 blade that just crumbles if you wave it in front of timber.
> ...



Hi,

Does fly in the face of the notion that A2 is tougher than carbon steel. Perhaps this is why there has been a wholesale introduction of all Veritas and LN lines in O1 steel more recently. I have heard that David Savage recommends LN planes as the best but advises people swap out the original blades to Cliftons :shock:

Mike.


----------



## Paul Chapman (17 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":1i73x0xf said:


> Paul Chapman":1i73x0xf said:
> 
> 
> > mtr1":1i73x0xf said:
> ...



This point about the angle to hone a blade made from A2 is even recognised on the LN website when discussing their A2 and 01 plane blades http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?grp=1490 They make the point that A2 should be honed at 30 degrees or higher but 01 can be honed at 25 degrees or lower. 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (17 Feb 2012)

Around about 30-35deg is fine for A2, anything less than that and the edge will crumble, as the sole of my block plane will testify  - Rob


----------



## ali27 (17 Feb 2012)

Guys I want to sharpen my plane blades on natural stones and have 
experienced that some steels just don't work on natural stones. 

I think I need an iron that has a very high hardness, (66HRC) and it should only 
be white steel which means not containing tungsten, chromium. These are
too tough for the natural abrasive. 

Anybody know where I can buy a white steel plane iron, preferably laminated, 
high hardness as a replacement blade for my stanley? The samurai blades have a high 
hardness laminated steel, but it's blue steel, don't think my natural stone would work for that.

Thanks.

Ali


----------



## woodbrains (17 Feb 2012)

ali27":2780y27t said:


> Guys I want to sharpen my plane blades on natural stones and have
> experienced that some steels just don't work on natural stones.
> 
> I think I need an iron that has a very high hardness, (66HRC) and it should only
> ...




Hi,

Why do you think you need high hardness? Toughness (which is quite hard to quantify) is the most desirable property we need. You can have a very hard blade that brakes down when the edge is put under pressure, so in effect is less useful than its hardness may suggest. This is the reason why the A2 blades mentioned above are not as resilliant as they might be until the honing angle is increased. Carbon steel might only be about Rc 60 but will be sharper and quicker to hone when needed, so you are more likely to do it and hence the blade will perform better. The Quiansheng blades are harder, maybe Rc63 64, but I think T10 steel does contain some tungsten.You should still be able to sharpen them on your stones, though.

When you say natural stones, you do not say whether they are oil or waterstones. I'm assuming oil stones. Still should not be a problem, though it will take longer. Don't forget, many stock plane irons have a little tungsten in them and some vanadium too, but are designed to be sharpenable with the usual stones available to woodworkers. Things like D2 and other HSS reqire ceramic or diamond stones.

I had a Japanese laminated blade that I used to sharpen on oilstones before I converted to water. They sharpened just fine. It begs the question, are you using a progression of grits to sharpen? A fine stone which is needed for the final polish will cut too slowly to be seen to do anything if you are using that to hone a dull blade. I used to use a medium, then fine India and then put a fine polish on with some Welsh mica slate or a hard Arkansas. First two not natural, obviously, but an indication of the grit sizes needed to go from a used dull to razor sharp. i don't know what stones you are using, but I suspect you are starting too fine.

Mike.


----------



## Alf (17 Feb 2012)

Ali, forgive me, but that sounds a little buttocks-backwards. Surely you get the tool for the job (in this case, the tool steel), then tailor the sharpening to the tool, not vice versa? :|


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 Feb 2012)

Ali27 - about the only grades of toolsteel that will give you Rc66 are the very high carbon ones, 1.2 - 1.4%C. They'll give Rc68-69, but only when hardened 'right out' under ideal conditions - held in a furnace at carefully controole hardening temperature to soak right through, and quenched fast in something like 10% brine solution. Old files used to be made from such steel, and they may be your best be if you want something that hard. First anneal your old file by heating to about the colour of cooked carrots, then allow to cool VERY slowly. File to shape, then harden as described.

However, as woodbrains has explained above, it's likely to be far too brittle at that hardness to keep an edge for any length of time. Tempering back will help a bit (boiling in water for half an hour or so would give you about Rc65 or so), but tempering to a point where the steel will be usefully tough will drop hardness to about Rc62 or thereabouts.

Another steel readily available is 'Silver Steel', which is 1.1%C, with just a bit of chromium in it to stabilise the structure when hardening. Hardened right out and left untempered (or boiled in water as above) will give Rc65-66 under ideal conditions. You can buy Silver Steel in most good engineers' merchants, but usually only as round bar.

Why do you need a plane iron that hard anyway?


----------



## Jacob (17 Feb 2012)

I think ali needs to do a bit more woodwork and a bit less tool fiddling.
Ali - don't worry about these stones which don't seem to work, stick with the ones which do. You will "grow" into the other ones eventually.


----------



## ali27 (17 Feb 2012)

Guys for me it is all hobby. I find working with natural water stones(japanese,
chinese) far more fun than using synthetic waterstones.

The reason I want high hardness plane blade is because my standard stanley
and qiansheng plane blade don't sharpen at all on my hard natural waterstones.
They can't get the any amount of slurry out of the natural stones. It feels like 
absolutely nothing is happening, no swarf nothing. The plane irons glide over
these stones without any polishing. 

I don't feel that the qiansheng blade is much harder than the regular stanley iron to be honest.

I use 1000 grit and 4000 grit before the final polishing stone. The edge is already
very sharp at this stage and the 8000 grit gives an ever sharper edge. Sometimes I skip
the 4000 and create a tiny microbevel 5 degrees higher. So this is not a problem.

The problem with the hard natural waterstone is that its hardness does not allow 
for the regular plane blades to get slurry out of it. Now I could just create slurry by rubbing 
a diamond stone on the natural stone for a few seconds or using a slurry stone,but
I don't like it that way. I want plane irons that can get the slurry out of the stone. And
even then the natural abrasive particles can't really sharpen/polish the tougher steels, which
is why I want a white steel plane blade. 

It's just a hobby thing, I don't do serious woodworking.

Thanks.

Ali


----------



## ali27 (17 Feb 2012)

Jacob":1ix0dakd said:


> I think ali needs to do a bit more woodwork and a bit less tool fiddling.
> Ali - don't worry about these stones which don't seem to work, stick with the ones which do. You will "grow" into the other ones eventually.



Jacob, for me it's all hobby. 

Ali


----------



## Jacob (17 Feb 2012)

Ali what is this "slurry" thing? I've never hankered after "slurry" in all my life as a woodworker. Am I missing something? I doubt it somehow. :roll:


----------



## ali27 (17 Feb 2012)

Cheshirechappie":13t56sty said:


> Ali27 - about the only grades of toolsteel that will give you Rc66 are the very high carbon ones, 1.2 - 1.4%C. They'll give Rc68-69, but only when hardened 'right out' under ideal conditions - held in a furnace at carefully controole hardening temperature to soak right through, and quenched fast in something like 10% brine solution. Old files used to be made from such steel, and they may be your best be if you want something that hard. First anneal your old file by heating to about the colour of cooked carrots, then allow to cool VERY slowly. File to shape, then harden as described.
> 
> However, as woodbrains has explained above, it's likely to be far too brittle at that hardness to keep an edge for any length of time. Tempering back will help a bit (boiling in water for half an hour or so would give you about Rc65 or so), but tempering to a point where the steel will be usefully tough will drop hardness to about Rc62 or thereabouts.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your reply.

I love to use japanese natural stones, but my plane irons don't sharpen well
on them. That is why I am looking for plane blades that work well on the hard
natural stones.

Thanks for the details, but I personally can't do those things, would not be
able to do it righ and too afraid anyway!

Brent Beach tested the laminated samurai blade(blue steel) which has a hardness of 66-68HRC 
and his conclusion was:

Pro Reasonably priced blade with very good performance.
Wears like high carbon steel (no chip outs, high quality edge throughout sharp to dull 
cycle), but almost as durable as most A2 steel blades.
Con Nothing really. The best performer in the group of high carbon steel blades.

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

Unfortunately this steel is blue steel number 1. This is what is in that steel:

carbon 1.3 to 1.4 
chromium 0.28 to 0.3 
Tungsten 2.0 to 2.2 

Now I am no expert at all, far from it. I just do know that my japanese natural
waterstones don't sharpen my stanley and qiansheng blades well. The reason
I am looking for a high hardness white steel plane iron is because it is 
al carbon without chromium and tungsten, which makes it easy to sharpen and the
high hardness will get slurry out of the hard japanese natural waterstones. 

Now it might be possible that the chromium and tungsten in the
laminated samurai plane blade is no problem if one uses synthetic
stones in the beginning and finishes on the japanese natural stone. First 
doing 1000 and then 4000 grit synthetic and finish on the japanese natural 
stones. Perhaps this way it might work.

Ali


----------



## ali27 (17 Feb 2012)

Jacob":ore335a7 said:


> Ali what is this "slurry" thing? I've never hankered after "slurry" in all my life as a woodworker. Am I missing something? I doubt it somehow. :roll:



Jacob, not sure if I am using the right word, but basically I want the stone to produce
a tiny bit of mud. With my natural stones this doesn't happen when I sharpen the standard
stanley and the QS plane blade on them. So I then use a small stone and rub it on the 
natural stone to get some mud, slurry.

Ali


----------



## woodbrains (17 Feb 2012)

Hi,

Sorry I assumed you were using oilstones, it was the most likely guess from you initial info. Jacob uses oilstones, that is why he doesn't understand about creating a sluury.

I think what you have got now is a bit of a Western/ far Eastern conflict going on. Japanese plane irons in traditional form for their traditional use were quite hard as it was a testament to the quality of the blacksmith who made the irons as to how hard they could be made. However, Japanese woodwork was done in the main with softwood and hardwoods similar to cedar, so high hardness to the expense of some toughness was OK. If you want to buy Japanese planes and chisels, then you can have the blades that will suit your criteria. However, I don't think these are really the best suited to Western needs, which is why I think you will struggle to find what is essentially a Japanese plane iron made in a Western format i.e. to fit Bailey pattern planes. It seems to me that you either have to go wholly down the road of Japanese tradition or get some synthetic waterstones to sharpen the more Westenised plane blades. I think Japanese woodworking could be fun.

There is one puzzle I have though; White paper and blue paper steels are not new and could be sharpened by Japanese craftsmen using traditional stones, so I'm wondering why you are having trouble? Are your stones actually any good (just asking, don't want to sound condecending here, you understand) Could the use of a Nagura stone help create a slurry? Are you soaking the stones long enough? Do you actually need the slurry to be so evident? The blades may well be getting sharp without the slurry. If you can get them sharp, then dont worry too much.

The other thing that puzzles me is this; Japanese blades have more soft steel in them in the form of the back than the actual hard cutting edge. This has to be abraded by the stones too. I think there is something wrong with the assumption that you could only remove metal if it is hard.

Mike.


----------



## ali27 (17 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":2veuhl66 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Sorry I assumed you were using oilstones, it was the most likely guess from you initial info. Jacob uses oilstones, that is why he doesn't understand about creating a sluury.
> 
> ...



Answers in bold.

Ali


----------



## woodbrains (17 Feb 2012)

Hi,

Wasn't suggesting you did have Japanese blades, but logically, if a Samurai brand is blue paper steel and Trad Japanese irons have historically been made from this steel, it is axiomatic that you should be ably to sharpen your Samurai with the stones you have. It was the logical progression I was making, not assumptions on your blade arsenal.

It is not possible for an abrasive to cut something that it is softer than, slurry or no, otherwise you could touch up tungsten carbide router bits on waterstones and you cannot. If a stone can abrade steel of Rc 66 on a Jap blade along with it's 50 somthing backing, it will also sharpen Rc 59-61 Western blades and Rc. 63 Quangsheng ones. It abslutely must.

I'm not trying to be obstructive, you understand, but I'm trying to work out what is going on. It is a puzzle to me, too.

Are you sure that your western blades are not being sharpened? a slurry might take a long time to develop and is not actually essential to sharpening, just an indication of new abrasive particles being exposed. You did say your stones are quite hard.

Mike.


----------



## ali27 (17 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":3kqsc4tj said:


> Hi,
> 
> Wasn't suggesting you did have Japanese blades, but logically, if a Samurai brand is blue paper steel and Trad Japanese irons have historically been made from this steel, it is axiomatic that you should be ably to sharpen your Samurai with the stones you have. It was the logical progression I was making, not assumptions on your blade arsenal.
> 
> ...



Ali


----------



## The Wood Butcher (17 Feb 2012)

Sorry fellow, you're trying to square a circle. It doesn't really matter to the steel what you like to sharpen with, if what you have doesn't sharpen it. Start a slurry or get some appropriate sharpening medium for your tools and get on with it.

The simple fact is that the harder material will abrade the softer material every time.

For once I am in complete and full agreement with Jacob, even though I own most of the things he hates such as honing jigs...


----------



## woodbrains (17 Feb 2012)

Hi,

I don't think you are going to get a Stanley compatable blade with the characteristics that you want, even if this would do the trick, which I am beggining to doubt very strongly. To my knowledge, even the Japanese plane blades with Rc hardness of 66 are blacksmith made and hence very expensive. I think they will be more likely to be blue paper steel rather than white, too. Blades of this hardness have to be hammered and folded many times to give them any degree of toughness, even for relatively soft wood and you would probably need to commission a Japanese blacksmith to make you some to fit Western planes. I really think looking for a blade of a certain hardness and in a steel which does not contain certain alloys so limiting and probably futile, I would really consider just using artificial waterstones and all of a sudden your arsenal of blades will become useful. The technique of using them is identical, so I can't see any lack of enjoyment in using them.

There is another thing to consider; your stones are possibly gash. Natural Jap stones of the best kind are phenominally expensive, several thousand pounds, in fact. Unless you have invested heavily, it is highly possible that some rather poor quality stones are marketed under the banner of traditional and natural, when it is more likely a marketing ploy to offload poor quality stuff. I don't think sharpening stones should be so picky as to only sharpen Rc.66 but not Rc66 that has some tungsten in it. The sedimentary rock/clay, whatever the abrasive is distributed in should be soft enough to relase the cutting particles readily. This is the whole point of waterstones. If it is not doing that I can only conclude that you should keep your blades and ditch the stones for something that works.

Mike.


----------



## ali27 (18 Feb 2012)

Should be in the buy/sell department, but since this topic
is hot at the moment I'll ask here. Anyone want to sell their samurai 
replacement blade 50 or 60mm wide? Please pm me.
The thing is so expensive nowadays, was like 30 pounds max a few 
years ago.

I was checking the Lie Nielsen site for their replacement blades. I could
not find any information on what hardness those blades. My guess would
be around HRC 62 for their high carbond blades. What about A2?
Anybody got more info?

Ali


----------



## woodbrains (18 Feb 2012)

ali27":38gkjejc said:


> Should be in the buy/sell department, but since this topic
> is hot at the moment I'll ask here. Anyone want to sell their samurai
> replacement blade 50 or 60mm wide? Please pm me.
> The thing is so expensive nowadays, was like 30 pounds max a few
> ...



Hi,

LN A2 blades are Rc 60-62. it is stated somewhere on the plane blade testing link Bugbear tipped us off to. this is the sort of hardness to be expected for western planes. we require more toughness than hardness for the materials we work. Any harder and you need the lamination of Jap blades and the Samurai is the only one I know of and still a bit brittle for my liking.

I don't know if it is against the rules buying and selling in the general forum. Perhaps you should post in the WANTED section just in case your entry here is deleted.

mike.


----------



## woodbloke (18 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":1brbg5nk said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think what you have got now is a bit of a Western/ far Eastern conflict going on. Japanese plane irons in traditional form for their traditional use were quite hard as it was a testament to the quality of the blacksmith who made the irons as to how hard they could be made. However, Japanese woodwork was done in the main with softwood and hardwoods similar to cedar, so high hardness to the expense of some toughness was OK. If you want to buy Japanese planes and chisels, then you can have the blades that will suit your criteria. However, I don't think these are really the best suited to Western needs, which is why I think you will struggle to find what is essentially a Japanese plane iron made in a Western format i.e. to fit Bailey pattern planes. It seems to me that you either have to go wholly down the road of Japanese tradition or get some synthetic waterstones to sharpen the more Westenised plane blades. I think Japanese woodworking could be fun.
> 
> ...



Without wishing to go too much off topic, you're right in saying that a lot of Japanese joinery was and is done in softer woods, but traditional Japanese furniture (e.g. tansu) were and are, made in hardwood. To say as well that Japanese planes and chisels are not suited to Western needs is nonsense...if you have a look at this site you'll see a vast array of blacksmith made plane blades and planes for different types of timber, including those for hardwood. Whilst I don't use Japanese planes, all my Japanese chisels were obtained from Workshop Heaven and are hardened to RC65 and I have no problems in obtaining a razor edge, which is one of the reasons I use them, having tried an array of Western chisels in the past. 

Edit - looking at the site, there now appear to be replacement Japanese blades to fit Stanley & Record planes - Rob


----------



## ali27 (18 Feb 2012)

woodbloke":38vkfjm2 said:


> woodbrains":38vkfjm2 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



Rob, those blades are from Tsunesaburo. Same blades that Axminster sells as
''Samurai laminated blade''.

Ali


----------



## Jacob (18 Feb 2012)

woodbloke":tc73we4z said:


> ....
> 
> Without wishing to go too much off topic, you're right in saying that a lot of Japanese joinery was and is done in softer woods, but traditional Japanese furniture (e.g. tansu) were and are, made in hardwood. To say as well that Japanese planes and chisels are not suited to Western needs is nonsense...i.........


British joinery is mostly softwood too, with hardwood for luxury stuff. 
The oak tradition is an invention (Morris et al) as it was highly in demand for structural use, boat building etc.

I've got a smoothcut blade and you can tell the difference when you are honing - the rounded bevel way at least - the hard edge feels hard and as you dip, the soft backing drags on the stone.
Doesn't seem radically different in use though.


----------



## woodbrains (19 Feb 2012)

woodbloke":2cyxp4u2 said:


> woodbrains":2cyxp4u2 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



Hi,

Without generalising too much, there was not as great a tradition in Japanese furniture as was with the Chinese and Koreans. The Tea Tansu was really the most notable thing and indeed some made of hardwoods. For the most part Japanese woodwork was in softer stuff, so the demands on planes etc was different to Westen cabinetmaking tools. It was and is possible to have Japanese blacksmiths make blades and saws for hardwoods, but this is expensive.

i don't doubt you can sharpen your Japanese chisels to razor edges, the stones we use are designed to do so. the difference is, the bulk of those chisels is soft steel to reinforce the hard edge, as we know. Such a hard edge without the lamination, put to the use of a Western cabinetmakers tool, is likely to be too brittle. It is not by chance that the tools we use are hardened and tempered to Rc 59-62 ish. it is from a long tradition of what has worked best for us. To get a harder blade, it would have to be laminated like the Samurai brand that has been mentioned. My only concern was, it is very unlikely that there are others available to fit stanley pattern planes. It is unfortunate, but if a certain brand of stones will only sharpen a certain hardness of steel and no/few blades are made to this hardness in the pattern that is required, it is logical to replace the stones and use the irons that are available. It will be a fruitless and frustrating task otherwise. I have heard an expression, 'there are 2 types of waterstone, the ones you can afford and the ones you cannot'. The latter being the natural variety, the former artificial. I do have to remark that all indications are that, the natural stones we have been taking about are not of good, usable quality. I'm not trying to be obstructive, I really wish I thought different, but sometimes it is best to cut losses and invest in different tools that work for the conditions that we find ourselves.

Mike.


----------



## woodbloke (19 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":4px6z4dz said:


> i don't doubt you can sharpen your Japanese chisels to razor edges, the stones we use are designed to do so. the difference is, the bulk of those chisels is soft steel to reinforce the hard edge, as we know. Such a hard edge without the lamination, put to the use of a Western cabinetmakers tool, is likely to be too brittle.
> 
> Mike.



Agreed, the edges are brittle, which is why they need to be used with a much greater degree of care than Western style chisels. Thus far, I've not had any damage to an edge and that's using them on Oak and harder timbers. What does help enormously is to hone them with a single bevel to give more support to the hard steel edge...my bench chisel that get severely thumped :shock: with a geno have a single bevel at 30deg and those used exclusively for hand work (i.e. paring and dovetails) have a single bevel at 25deg. Another forum member, Derek Cohen (Derek of Oz) is also a huge fan of Japanese chisels and the Aussie timbers that he uses then on a just a mite harder than the normal run of the mill stuff we have in the UK. I also don't use waterstones but use instead the 3M films from WH - Rob


----------



## Jacob (19 Feb 2012)

woodbloke":4jvd02wx said:


> ........... What does help enormously is to hone them with a single bevel to give more support to the hard steel edge........


True for all planes/chisel. A compromise being the convex bevel - as found often on Jap chisels.
Worst of all is hollow ground with a thin honed bevel at the edge. Quick though - but lazy!


----------



## jorgoz (19 Feb 2012)

Jacob":1wn5yulh said:


> True for all planes/chisel. A compromise being the convex bevel - as found often on Jap chisels.
> Worst of all is hollow ground with a thin honed bevel at the edge. Quick though - but lazy!


 
Where did you get this from ? :roll: In rule, japanese chisels are never convex sharpened the way you sharpen, but as flat as can be, apart from carving chisels that is. 

Sometimes when a new japanese plane blade is used and it is on the harsh side, the edge is ever so slightly feathered by drawing it back on the fininshing stone a couple of times to temper the harshness/brittleness of the steel/bevel. This stops however when the the blade is 'tamed' and then again they revert to a perfectly flat bevel.

Sorry for the serious off topic drifting of the OP question.


----------



## Jacob (19 Feb 2012)

jorgoz":36s7tuey said:


> Jacob":36s7tuey said:
> 
> 
> > True for all planes/chisel. A compromise being the convex bevel - as found often on Jap chisels.
> ...


1 seen em (actually in an antique tool museum display). not saying they are all convex, just that it's not unknown.
2 it's been posted up several times - usually along the lines of "look what somebody has done to this old jap chisel, tut, tut" but in fact probably done by an old jap
3 others have reported seeing jap demos with chisels with convex bevels
4 there is absolutely no earthly reason why they shouldn't be convex - if that's how the sharpener chooses to sharpen, and common sense tends to find a way. And it's easier.
5 if, as you say, it works for carving chisels, it'll work for any chisel or plane blade. Aren't all chisels "carving" chisels? What else do you do with them, poke the fire?

It's one of the weirder features of woodwork that so many little gurus keep popping up saying "this is the correct, one true way that things are done, etc", completely ignoring that others are doing it quite successfully in different ways.
Scepticism is good for you. More people need to try it.



> ....In rule, japanese chisels are never convex sharpened the way you sharpen, but as flat as can be, apart from carving chisels that is.....


Where did you get that from, and why would they draw the distinction?


----------



## jorgoz (19 Feb 2012)

Sceptisism is a definite plus, never take any one's word for it, 's why i reacted to your statement. 

That it would work for carving chisels is a kind of logic for me, though my logic might be un-logic to others, as you might have experienced.  Try carving a concave shape with a straight beveled chisel. For a large concave shape it might just work, but the smaller the concavity gets the more you would benifit from convexity in the bevel, i think.

A tool museum is not really a place to see tools in their proper working condition, should be, but mostly i think they aren't. And when it comes to Japanese tools, to little info circulating in Europe. The amount of Japanese literature about them is astounding if you see how little is available in English, German, French or another language.

It might have been posted on forums, but in total those mentions would be only a very small fraction of japanese chisels/planes/tools circulating on this globe. 

Who's giving those demo's ? 

I always like to learn new skills/insights to improve my woodworking. That you are a strong believer in the convex bevel is good for you, it works for you, but don't force your views upon others, it's not for everybody. Not saying you do, but that's how it comes to me.


----------



## Jacob (19 Feb 2012)

Yes flat bevel not good for curved carving, but not vice versa - curved bevel perfectly OK for any normal chisel op. given a good edge at the usual 30º or whatever.

The demo was at one of the shows - Brian and others told me about the chisels.




> That you are a strong believer in the convex bevel


"strong believer" is over stating it somewhat. I just observe that it works OK


> but don't force your views upon others,


More a case of defending myself vigorously against forceful opposition


> it's not for everybody......


Why not? It used to be.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Feb 2012)

I don't think Jacob is suggesting that the back of a bench chisel should be anything other than flat. He's just referring to whatever shape the bevelled surface might have.

I don't think the shape of the bevelled face matters very much, as long as there's enough metal to support the cutting edge. More metal, more support. A convex bevel leaves more metal in place than a hollow-grind one, so might offer more support to the cutting edge under demanding use. For very fine hand paring without mallet use, finer bevel angles offer less resistance to cut, and need less metal supporting the edge because they don't have to deal with shock loads. You couldn't chop a mortice with that arrangement, though.


----------



## jorgoz (19 Feb 2012)

Jacob":1ic53f9u said:


> More a case of defending myself vigorously against forceful opposition


The harder you shout the more resistance you'll get. Just do what you do best and who wants to learn from you will ask.



> it's not for everybody......Why not? It used to be.


Well, as you said yourself, there is not only 1 'correct' way of doing things.


----------



## GazPal (19 Feb 2012)

The convex bevel helps support the back/rear of the chisel's harder leading edge and also absorbs shock during use. Use of the convex bevel is a traditional sharpening method which allows the laminated steel and iron blade to flex as a unit whilst preventing the harder steel from shattering.


----------



## jorgoz (19 Feb 2012)

That convexity is so small compared to a flat bevel it probably makes very little difference strenght wise, imho.


----------



## GazPal (19 Feb 2012)

jorgoz":1ksjv9dh said:


> That convexity is so small compared to a flat bevel it probably makes very little difference strenght wise, imho.



Japanese blade smiths and blade polishers (Sharpeners) tend toward a preference for convex bevels. They're pretty sure convexity aids edge strength in high stress blades. Every little extra support helps.


----------



## Jacob (19 Feb 2012)

jorgoz":1hpxx3ms said:


> That convexity is so small compared to a flat bevel it probably makes very little difference strenght wise, imho.


It's a lot better than hollow ground (weakest) and depending on how convex it is, it approaches flat (strongest).


----------



## David C (19 Feb 2012)

The joiners are at it again. 

Ludicrous miss information.

Toshio Odates book "The surface from the cutting edge to the top of the bevel must be perfectly flat. (This is particularly important for chisels.....)".
This is a direct quote from a man who did a traditional apprenticeship in Japan.

Why dont you guys stick to what you know about instead of misleading the greater public?

David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (19 Feb 2012)

David C":3kv94q7c said:


> The joiners are at it again.
> 
> Ludicrous miss information.
> 
> ...


Does he say why? If he (or anybody else) can't come up with a good reason then it has to be dismissed as one of those funny little woodwork myths.
Also it seems to be widely accepted in the west that chisels should have two bevels. Can't both be right?
Another lot say hollow ground plus micro bevel. Are they right too?
I'm quite happy with the compromise position i.e. a convex bevel. Neatly in between, and also makes sharpening easier.

If you google "japanese convex bevels" or variations thereon, all sorts of interesting stuff comes up. You may be surprised!


----------



## GazPal (19 Feb 2012)

David C":3dix9rie said:


> The joiners are at it again.
> 
> Ludicrous miss information.
> 
> ...




Joiner? You're sadly miss-informed on that score David, as I'm a cabinetmaker by trade, although there's certainly no shame in being a joiner/carpenter and I was more than capable of shifting between cabinetmaking, carpentry, joinery and luthiery before retirement following the onset of Rheumatoid Arthritis. I happen to know more than a little about Japanese smithing and - although I don't profess expert status - I do know enough to hopefully pass on and help others. The source of my information is via Japanese craftsmen such as Takaiwa Setsuo, Shinozaki Masanori, Ogawa Kanekuni and Fujishiro Okisato, among others and primarily following quite a number of years communication with the above artisans. Although primarily Togi and smiths many old timers carried precisely the same skills across to tool manufacture during the post WWII ban on gendai-to ownership and manufacture between 1945 - 1953.

The surface between hardened edge (yakiba) of hard steel (kawagane) and rear of ground bevel (shinogi) in the soft - low carbon - steel (shingane) can be flat or possess a slightly convex cross-sectional radius, but the additonal mass afforded by a curved surface helps reinforce the cutting edge - as mentioned in an earlier post. It's a method also employed in the crafting of Japanese knives which are sharpened using a single bevel.


----------



## woodbrains (19 Feb 2012)

GazPal":2bwp2uzj said:


> The surface between hardened edge (yakiba) of hard steel (kawagane) and rear of ground bevel (shinogi) in the soft - low carbon - steel (shingane) can be flat or possess a slightly convex cross-sectional radius, but the additonal mass afforded by a curved surface helps reinforce the cutting edge - as mentioned in an earlier post. It's a method also employed in the crafting of Japanese knives which are sharpened using a single bevel.



Hi,

There it is again; additional mass afforded by a curved surface? Is there heck! A curved surface has less metal behind the cutting edge than a flat surface, where the honing angle is the same. think about it!

Also, Japanese smiths did not fully finish their tools. they do not dictate how the craftsman fettles it, fitting the handle, mushrooming on the hoop, flattening the back or honing. This is down to the craftsmen themselves.You might as well ask farriers how to race a horse at the Grand National. Spurious, bringing smiths into it. All the info i have ever read, training I have had, has all stated that Japanese chisels and plane irons are sharpened with a flat bevel, giving maximum strength to the hard steel edge. There is an almost religious discipline involved in doing so, the stiving of perfection.

Odate is one of the few living Craftsmen, who was apprenticed in the traditional Japanese way. I really think we should pay him the repect he deserves.

People who 'round under' their bevels don't do it because it gives a better result, let us face it, I'm rather sick of them saying it does. They do it because it is easier than trying to hone a flat. It requires less skill. It is that simple. It may work for them, I don't know, but it cannot be said to be better. It does not provide a stronger edge as steel must be removed in the area that would be flat, if the bevel was kept flat, so it is weaker. It is also slower to do, as metal is only removed at the point of tangency that is in contact with the stone at any one time. A flat is always in contact with the stone, so metal is continuously being removed during each stroke. There is no advantage of curved bevels, only expediency and any that offer advice to others as this being the way to do it should qualify their statement to this effect.


There are certain contributers here who, in recent posts, have alluded that Alan Peters, James Krenov and Toshio Odate do not know what they are talking about. In this thread, even David Charlesworth's comments have been dismissed as incorrect. I suggest these people stop railling against the wealth of hard earned wisdom that has generously been shown them and, frankly, get real.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (20 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":25korfhz said:


> .........
> People who 'round under' their bevels don't do it because it gives a better result, let us face it,


True. Not "better" but quicker and easier.


> I'm rather sick of them saying it does.


They don't. I think you have read something into it which isn't there


> They do it because it is easier than trying to hone a flat. It requires less skill. It is that simple.


Exactly. It's easier. You've got it. Glad you pointed that out - this is why it's good for beginners especially. IMHO of course!


> It may work for them, I don't know, but it cannot be said to be better.


It does work (we aren't insane) . Nobody says it produces a better edge. It produces a good as any other freehand method edge, but the main argument is, as you say, that it is easier


> It does not provide a stronger edge as steel must be removed in the area that would be flat, if the bevel was kept flat, so it is weaker. It is also slower to do, as metal is only removed at the point of tangency that is in contact with the stone at any one time.A flat is always in contact with the stone, so metal is continuously being removed during each stroke.


No that's a bit specious. It's quicker because you can put more effort into it as after the intitial 30º start you dip the handle and there is no need to be careful and/or accurate


> There is no advantage of curved bevels, only expediency


Expediency, yes - you've got it!


> and any that offer advice to others as this being the way to do it should qualify their statement to this effect.


I think I have done so over the years. No claims that it produces a better edge - just that it is expedient, quick, easy etc. "Practical", in a word.


> are certain contributers here who, in recent posts, have alluded that Alan Peters, James Krenov and Toshio Odate do not know what they are talking about. In this thread, even David Charlesworth's comments have been dismissed as incorrect. I suggest these people stop railling against the wealth of hard earned wisdom that has generously been shown them and, frankly, get real.
> 
> Mike.


Generously? I had to buy the books! It's not free you know! 
I am sure they certainly do know what they are talking about but there is a regrettable tendency to treat many of these "authorities" as infallible gurus. Even Krenov himself was anxious to distance himself from that - if you read that long interview on the net wherever it is. They are all fallible human beings, just like me and you.


----------



## jorgoz (20 Feb 2012)

Jacob, I googled japanese convex bevels as you suggested and first thing that i noticed was that there are more threads from foodies (knife enthusiasts) than there are from woodworkers. The results from woodworkers where more guessing at the flat/convex issue. 

With knives it's a kind of a given that they would sharpen with convex bevels as it is nion impossible to sharpen with a flat bevel due to the thinness of the material and the length of those thin blades. We woodworkers have thicker material to work with. Chisels or thick plane irons jig themselves out, but it takes more concentration and muscle control to sharpen to a flat bevel. This for me is a valid reason to sharpen to a flat bevel, which i do, as it tilts the woodworking experience into another level. Muscle memory, the training of the muscles to act in a particular way and over time it becomes natural, which is an experience you loose in the convex bevel sharpening way. 

Flat or convex are both valid ways to have your bevels. Concave is a general no-no in the knife world, except for boning knives. Concave is an easier way to sharpen chisels/plane blades that's for sure, and if that's how a lot of people want to sharpen, then so be it. The results are very sharp edges that might be a bit more fragile, but we are talking a couple of percent imo and in a practical sense for me this becomes a non-issue. We're working wood, not putting space rockets together. It's starting to get to academic for me. 

David C, do you think if Toshio Odate apprenticed with a master craftsman who would have sharpened with to a convex bevel, we would be talking differently when it comes to Japanese woodworking tools ? It's only one man, a major figure who brought Japanese woodworking tools to the West certainly, but still only one man, who by the way i have a lot of respect for. Mesirow/Herman in "the care and use of japanese woodworking tools" even talk about power grinding japanese kanna blades which is probably a good way to weaken a japanese blade. To little good English literature about japanese ww tools imo. 

The convex bevel in some instances gives to many variables, less control over the mater in hand. For example. You own a BU plane, right ? When trying to tame gnarly crossgrained wood, i think it would be better to know what angle your actual cutting angle is. With flat or concave bevels it's easily controllable and you can continue to increase the angle until you get a clean cut with the least amount of tear-out. With the convex not so, you're more guessing what your actual cutting angle is and every time you resharpen, this angle will vary. Not by a large amount but still it will vary and you loose an amount of control. 

I've got some wood to work so i'll be signing of here.


----------



## GazPal (20 Feb 2012)

woodbrains":ewz5p3mw said:


> GazPal":ewz5p3mw said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



I suggest you re-assess your comments assuming a supposed lack of informed knowledge on the basis that someone has not written/had a book published, nor sought public recognition for what has been a life long vocation as a craftsman. As far as I am aware, all of the Japanese craftsmen I referenced are still alive and kicking, but let's not try and delude ourselves that certain Japanese smiths solely produce swords, knives, or chisel and plane blades/irons. Some do, but this is not the case with the majority. 

Concerning your assertion regarding lack of mass within a convex bevel. Grind angle is typically flat and mass behind the cutting edge would certainly be lost if it were made convex whilst maintaining the same primary and secondary bevel angles, BUT this differs to a convex edge geometry where the entire grind is convex by nature and singular/without the use of primary and secondary bevels. The convex arc itself reinforces the edge and mass can be reduced without loss of strength/resilience. Think in terms of mortise chisels and how their normal convex grind provides a stronger/longer lasting edge than if a flat grind were adopted and a secondary bevel employed. Yes, honing angles differ to those used with paring and normal bench chisels (Bevel edged & firmer), but the same convex bevel approach can be taken with all types to effectively create similar strengthening results.

One point of fact omitted previously is that I - and those I've trained over the past 30 plus years - typically employ a flat grind on all blades barring mortise chisels. I do on occasion employ hollow grind if the mood takes me and prefer this approach in terms of paring chisels. Such sharpening preferences don't prevent me from employing convex grinds, nor do they lead me to rubbish the preferences of others. To each his/her own and if it works well, use it, but let's try not to get tied up in my dad's bigger than your dad types of debate. There's no true right or wrong answer.


----------



## David C (20 Feb 2012)

Gaz Pal,

Apologies for the error. I have great respect for all the skilled trades. 

Your views on the bevel shape of Japanese chisels are most interesting. I have never seen a convex bevel referred to in the little literature I have been able to find. The craftsmen I have encountered all use a flat bevel.

Can you suggest any documentary support for the convex bevel in Japanese tradition?

(It might be worth mentioning that all the "flat" bevels I have seen, are in fact minutely convex, but this is due to the difficulty of maintaining an exact angle by hand).

David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (20 Feb 2012)

David C":7jv85t7e said:


> ......
> (It might be worth mentioning that all the "flat" bevels I have seen, are in fact minutely convex, but this is due to the difficulty of maintaining an exact angle by hand).
> 
> David Charlesworth


Exactly.

Apparently (I wasn't there) there was a Japanese demo at a show last year where you were in attendance too David, you may recall. 
Several people noted the convex bevels on his chisels! (I am told)
Did you go over to him and point out the error of his ways, by any chance! 

I think it's time this argument ceased and everybody accepted that convex bevels are perfectly OK if done properly.


----------



## GazPal (20 Feb 2012)

David C":3d8w3xuj said:


> Gaz Pal,
> 
> Apologies for the error. I have great respect for all the skilled trades.
> 
> ...



Never a problem David.  By the way my first name's Gary. There is a genuine dearth of translated literature on Japanese smithing and tool sharpening technique (Crafts in general) in spite of quite a diverse quantity in existence, but yet to be translated and published for our benefit. I'll have a rummage around for the literature I do have containing information on the use of convex bevels behind cutting edges and should be able to provide ISBN numbers, etc., but much of what is available is subject to the translation skills employed via the publishers.

The most common and readily sourced information can be found in literature concerning the traditional crafting of Japanese weaponry, i.e., "The Craft of the Japanese Sword" Leon & Hiroko Kapp & Yoshindo Yoshihara, ISBN 0-87011-798-X

The nature of the convexity mentioned is minute, bordering upon flat/a level plain and Japanese craftsmen tend to say it is flat, but the nature of the lamination process (Eastern, Middle Eastern and Western methods) tends to benefit from a little additional support directly behind an open leading/cutting edge. Another example of how convex support for the edge metal can be found if studying other forms of laminated cutting tools, the most common being tools such as scythe and masonry chisels. I've a few examples among my father's selection of masonry carving chisels and there may even be an old laminated scythe blade in one of the old outbuildings.


----------



## cutting42 (20 Feb 2012)

Jacob":3ce227ot said:


> I think it's time this argument ceased and everybody accepted that convex bevels are perfectly OK if done properly.



Oh, please!!!!!!

How about you accepting that flat bevels and secondary bevels are perfectly OK if done properly?


----------



## Jacob (20 Feb 2012)

cutting42":2y9zm7o1 said:


> Jacob":2y9zm7o1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oo pleese!!!! 
I always have. Take my post only yesterday (7 up from here): "No one claims that it produces a better edge - just that it is expedient, quick, easy etc. "Practical", in a word."


----------



## cutting42 (20 Feb 2012)

Jacob":26c2hdrh said:


> cutting42":26c2hdrh said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":26c2hdrh said:
> ...



But it has to be said you are very keen on reducing anyone who does it a different way to the status of time waster, silly person or just wrong. As I have mentioned before.................
.............
..
actually I can't be bothered any more, I give up, go ahead on your mission to convert the world and good luck to you.


----------

