Record & Stanley, Laminated Plane Irons

[custard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[swb58]

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

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

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

 

[Phil Pascoe]

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

 

[custard]

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

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

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

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

Absolutely no discernible difference!

What about a Lie Nielsen with super thick A2 steel?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bugbear]

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

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

BugBear

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

 

[MusicMan]

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

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

There will be randomness due to the storage conditions.

Keith

 

[richarddownunder]

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

You USE a Holtey :shock: =P~

Interesting thread by the way!

Cheers
Richard

 

[nabs]

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

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

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

 

[custard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[nabs]

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

 

[Trafalgar]

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

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

 

[bugbear]

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

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

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

BugBear

 

[Trafalgar]

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

 

[bugbear]

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

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

BugBear

 

[Trafalgar]

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

 

[nabs]

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

 

[custard]

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

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

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

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

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Mike.

 

[nabs]

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

Any old iron(s):

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

filing evidence (bottom corner of bevel):

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

stanley (solid steel)

MF (solid steel)

WS (solid steel)

 

[custard]

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