Record & Stanley, Laminated Plane Irons

[custard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[custard]

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

And when ground back you can see the lamination line,

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

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

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

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

 

[iNewbie]

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

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

Theres also a mention on here of a Sheffield Mill

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

 

[nabs]

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

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

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

 

[D_W]

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

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

 

[bugbear]

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

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

BugBear

 

[custard]

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

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



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

 

[custard]

Notice anything in regard to hardness?

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

 

[custard]

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

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

BugBear

That's a very sophisticated observation.

=D>

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

 

[nabs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[swb58]

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

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

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

 

[D_W]

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

 

[D_W]

Notice anything in regard to hardness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[D_W]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[swb58]

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

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

 

[essexalan]

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

 

[Phil Pascoe]

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

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

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

 

[D_W]

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

 

[nabs]

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

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

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

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

 

[AndyT]

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

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

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

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

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

cleaning-old-planes-t66480.html

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