Bought an old Stanley 4 1/2 - What level of refurbing?

[Bm101]

I think Custards comments you posted are applied to a Low Angle Jack are they not? (e.g. Lateral adjustment, cap iron, geometry)

Don't they apply to a thicker iron in a 4 1/2 then? Genuine question mind.
I'm not being negative or trying to put you off Bodgers. Not for me to say what works for you. For me personally, at that time it was the wrong move. And I know it's supposed to fit. It just doesn't fit my one.. When I bought it I didn't have a clue. I feel I have at least a little knowledge under my belt now. Still doesn't fit.
If you are ok filing the mouth, all good. Hopefully it will fit with no messing at all. Fingers crossed and it's an easy conversion. Was just trying to help in my little way. Hope you didn't feel I was banging on. I don't come on here for that. Best of luck.
Regards,
Chris

 

[custard]

I never did fit that pmv iron to that Record and despite the assurances that it will fit most stanleys/records. This one won't. Not without filing the mouth. Hence the cautionary note.

I think you're right Chris, this is what it says on the Axminster web site about the replacement Veritas irons for Stanley and Record planes,

These Veritas PM-V11 blades are thicker than the standard blade so the mouth of the plane may need to be opened up a bit. This is a simple process using a good quality file and the pawl on the end of the lateral adjust lever on older planes may have to be filed slightly to fit in the blade slot.

I've fitted a few replacement irons over the years and the only one I can recall that dropped straight in was an IBC replacement iron and cap iron into a 1940's Stanley Bedrock, everything else needed a bit of work on the plane with a file.

On the other hand, when you get a matched iron and cap iron from a really good manufacturer, like IBC or Veritas, then they'll mate beautifully. Where as there are plenty of Record and Stanley iron/cap iron combinations out there that need even more time fettling because there's a gap which allows shavings to get jammed between them.

I guess the moral of the story is that you pays your money and you makes your choice!

In terms of the actual performance difference between a Record/Stanley iron and a replacement, well a lot depends on the work you're doing and what timbers you're working with. If you're planing lots of Rosewood end grain or marine plywood edges or laminations glued up with UF adhesives, then you'll probably notice a clear benefit from PMV-11 or A2. But for long grain planing on softwoods or temperate zone hardwoods, then I don't think the difference is all that great. I normally refresh the edge of a plane iron after about ten minutes of constant planing. To put that in context, on a typical workpiece that's say 600 or 700mm long I might well average about 40 or 45 strokes a minute, so that means honing after roughly 400-450 strokes. Here's the rub, that rhythm of planing and honing is now so deeply ingrained that even if the plane iron was still performing after ten minutes I'd find it almost impossible not to hone...if only to give my arms a brief rest.

Given that a regular Record or Stanley iron meets that ten minute requirement I don't place much of a practical value on a longer performing steel.

When it comes to really heavy planing work, like flattening off a giant waney edged slab for a desk or a table, similar complications are in play. Then I'll prefer an old wooden jack for the majority of the work, and personally I'll take the benefit of the lighter tool and the slicker sole over any sharpness longevity advantages any day. Besides which, if I feel like a honing break after ten minutes planing puny little 600mm long furniture components, then I'm pretty desperate for a honing break after ten minutes grafting away on a two hundredweight slab!

The point I'm making is that in real world woodworking, as opposed to internet thought experiments, there are many other factors in play which muddy the water.

 

[Bodgers]

I think Custards comments you posted are applied to a Low Angle Jack are they not? (e.g. Lateral adjustment, cap iron, geometry)

Don't they apply to a thicker iron in a 4 1/2 then? Genuine question mind.
I'm not being negative or trying to put you off Bodgers. Not for me to say what works for you. For me personally, at that time it was the wrong move. And I know it's supposed to fit. It just doesn't fit my one.. When I bought it I didn't have a clue. I feel I have at least a little knowledge under my belt now. Still doesn't fit.
If you are ok filing the mouth, all good. Hopefully it will fit with no messing at all. Fingers crossed and it's an easy conversion. Was just trying to help in my little way. Hope you didn't feel I was banging on. I don't come on here for that. Best of luck.
Regards,
Chris

The Vertias low angle jack's blade is 4.7mm thick (which is pretty similar to my new Stanley SW LA Jack).

These replacement Stanley PMV11's are only 2.5mm thick, so there is a lot of difference.

Is it possible they have either changed since you bought it, or you had the wrong blade?

 

[Bodgers]

I guess the moral of the story is that you pays your money and you makes your choice!

In terms of the actual performance difference between a Record/Stanley iron and a replacement, well a lot depends on the work you're doing and what timbers you're working with. If you're planing lots of Rosewood end grain or marine plywood edges or laminations glued up with UF adhesives, then you'll probably notice a clear benefit from PMV-11 or A2. But for long grain planing on softwoods or temperate zone hardwoods, then I don't think the difference is all that great. I normally refresh the edge of a plane iron after about ten minutes of constant planing. To put that in context, on a typical workpiece that's say 600 or 700mm long I might well average about 40 or 45 strokes a minute, so that means honing after roughly 400-450 strokes. Here's the rub, that rhythm of planing and honing is now so deeply ingrained that even if the plane iron was still performing after ten minutes I'd find it almost impossible not to hone...if only to give my arms a brief rest.

Given that a regular Record or Stanley iron meets that ten minute requirement I don't place much of a practical value on a longer performing steel.

The point I'm making is that in real world woodworking, as opposed to internet thought experiments, there are many other factors in play which muddy the water.

For me it was worth a try. Total price of the plane and the blades is around £90 - which is £70 cheaper than say a 4 1/2 Bedrock pattern plane from Workshop Heaven. I have no experience with exotics (only pine, oak, beech, ABW and Sapele), so I don't have the best reference points for comparison.

It doesn't have to be anything amazing, but with this blade/chip breaker combo it might the best this type of plane can be for under £100.

 

[Jacob]

.....
For me it was worth a try. Total price of the plane and the blades is around £90 - which is £70 cheaper than say a 4 1/2 Bedrock pattern plane from Workshop Heaven. ....

Bedrock never really caught on. Basically cos its a crapo pointless design

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

The difference in thickness of the Stanley and Veritas replacement is negligible in practice when fitting to a Stanley plane. They are not the same as a LN or Clifton blade, neither of which are suitable for Stanley planes owing to their thickness (they can be used, but generally require modification to the plane).

Here are Japanese Smoothcut, Veritas replacement, and LN blades ...

There is little difference between the Smoothcut, which is the same thickness as a regular Stanley, and the Veritas replacement. Incidentally, the Smoothcut is a fabulous blade.

Whichever you choose, the final bevel angle needs to be around 30 degrees for longevity.

I have the Veritas PM-V11 blade in a couple of Stanley planes, and really like them for their easy set up as well as edge holding. They have the same buttery smoothness as O1 blades.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Bodgers]

The difference in thickness of the Stanley and Veritas replacement is negligible in practice when fitting to a Stanley plane. They are not the same as a LN or Clifton blade, neither of which are suitable for Stanley planes owing to their thickness (they can be used, but generally require modification to the plane).

Here are Japanese Smoothcut, Veritas replacement, and LN blades ...

There is little difference between the Smoothcut, which is the same thickness as a regular Stanley, and the Veritas replacement. Incidentally, the Smoothcut is a fabulous blade.

Whichever you choose, the final bevel angle needs to be around 30 degrees for longevity.

I have the Veritas PM-V11 blade in a couple of Stanley planes, and really like them for their easy set up as well as edge holding. They have the same buttery smoothness as O1 blades.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Thanks for clearing this up.

 

[Bodgers]

.....
For me it was worth a try. Total price of the plane and the blades is around £90 - which is £70 cheaper than say a 4 1/2 Bedrock pattern plane from Workshop Heaven. ....

Bedrock never really caught on. Basically cos its a crapo pointless design

WoodRiver/Quengsheng...
Lie Nielsen...

 

[Jacob]

.....
For me it was worth a try. Total price of the plane and the blades is around £90 - which is £70 cheaper than say a 4 1/2 Bedrock pattern plane from Workshop Heaven. ....

Bedrock never really caught on. Basically cos its a crapo pointless design

WoodRiver/Quengsheng...
Lie Nielsen...

Just cashing in on the fashion. Nobody needs them.
I bought a Clifton 4 to find out what the fuss was about. Adjusting the frog is not particularly easy - you still have to re-set the blade. The difference between that and the normal set up is very insignificant. It was a dud design to start with, but stays fashionable.

 

[nabs]

the frog design used in bedrocks is a better solution for adjusting the position of the frog than you get with a standard bailey design. The fact is that the most of Stanley's customer concluded that this was an improvement they did not need/were not prepared to pay extra for and consequently they did not buy as many.

so 'pointless' - arguably, but a 'dud' - no - they were in production until WWII so clearly some people appreciated them.

 

[Mr T]

Just cashing in on the fashion. Nobody needs them.
I bought a Clifton 4 to find out what the fuss was about. Adjusting the frog is not particularly easy - you still have to re-set the blade. The difference between that and the normal set up is very insignificant. It was a dud design to start with, but stays fashionable.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous there Jacob. It is definitely easier to adjust the frog on a bedrock. My question is how often you need to do this, is it worth the extra for an adjustment you make once in a blue moon?

Chris

 

[Cheshirechappie]

For newer members of the forum, or those reading from afar, I should perhaps point out that Jacob is the forum's Official Grump. As far as he is concerned, woodwork was going along just fine until some pillock invented the Bronze Age, and it's been downhill ever since. Especially that new-fangled, fashionable 'steel' stuff for cutting tools. Nowt wrong with flint - and Jacob still knaps his own.

Thus, newer recruits to the forum would be well advised to just get on with the joys of Finding Out For Themselves, and if they wish to try out cutting tools with bedrock soles, or bevel-up planes, or cutters made from steel, or even - heaven forfend - Modern steels - they are perfectly at liberty to do so. There ain't no law agin it yet - though Jacob's working on that !

 

[Jacob]

Just cashing in on the fashion. Nobody needs them.
I bought a Clifton 4 to find out what the fuss was about. Adjusting the frog is not particularly easy - you still have to re-set the blade. The difference between that and the normal set up is very insignificant. It was a dud design to start with, but stays fashionable.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous there Jacob. It is definitely easier to adjust the frog on a bedrock. My question is how often you need to do this, is it worth the extra for an adjustment you make once in a blue moon?

Chris

If you only adjust the frog when the blade is out for sharpening then the bedrock has no advantage at all. With both designs you have to re- adjust the blade and if you are using the plane much the blade is going to be out frequently.
Old bed rocks are fairly uncommon, presumably because not many people valued them enough to want to spend the extra. PS though I see they are rare enough to get collector prices on ebay £150 + :shock: - which isn't about their usefulness!

 

[nabs]

someone at Sargent had already came up with a better design in 1903 that meant you could adjust the frog without the adjusting the set and Stanly thus had to come up with an (inferior) alternative. Mind you the Sargent planes are even rarer than bedrocks)

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... 824954.pdf

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Jacob, I agree with you that the Bed Rock design is overplayed. I rarely vary the position of a frog once I have established where it is needed. There are some planes - the Veritas Custom is an example - where the mouth is instead adjusted. This is helpful for clearing shavings. For these planes, too, I usually set the mouth size and leave it alone.

However, this is missing the point about LN, Veritas, and Clifton. They are simply better made than Stanley and Record planes. This does not necessarily mean that they perform better - there are many issues involved in setting up a plane, and poorly done will turn a LN into a dog. Conversely, done well will turn a Stanley into an exceptional user. This is not a given, but the LN is better prepared by the factory to use out of the box.

What will not change, however, is making the Stanley or Record adjust as smoothly as the LN et al. Nor will it reduce backlash (even when we learn to accept it), or a flatter sole ready to use in a predictable manner from new.

One pays for the privilege of having a ready-to-perform plane, but that is the choice of the buyer - for which one pays the price - and should not be material for criticism.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[David C]

I agree with Derek, but here are a couple of extra points.

The large machined frog support is a huge advance compared to the small badly machined support in later Bailey planes.

For a beginner, fixing the frog of a bailey can be a task requiring many repeats.

The relative lack of available frog twist in the bedrock is a great advantage.

best wishes,
David

 

[patrickjchase]

IMO the Stanley irons are thick enough to begin with. If they needed to be thicker for "optimum performance" then they would have been made that way, particularly in the BedRock line which were beefed up in other respects. I've never had a chatter problem with a Stanley iron that couldn't be fixed by properly tuning the plane.

Yep.
The whole "refurb aftermarket PMV11..etc" is just a funny little hobby in it's own right and has no bearing on woodwork and tool use.
It's a branch of the steam punk fashion movement.
This intriguing but very silly triangular diagram says it all! Fantasy!

Your argument here is every bit as nonsensical as the ones that people advance to explain why thick irons are a must-have upgrade. It turns out that there are blinkered extremists on both sides of this particular discussion.

There has been significant progress in the last century plus of metallurgy, and steels like CTS-XHP (PM-V11) reflect that. We have traditionally been forced to trade off wear resistance and edge-taking, because the hard carbides that boost the former tend to compromise the latter. Modern fabrication processes like hot isostatic pressing (HIP) "raise the curve" of that tradeoff, i.e. they improve the wear resistance that can be achieved at any given edge quality and vice versa.

The folks who fetishize 19th century steels and manufacturing processes are the true "steampunk fashionistas" of our community, in more ways than one.

Clearly stating my opinion: Classic Stanley irons work and work well. You can achieve higher wear-resistance with a modern iron, and that may or may not matter to you (there are fair arguments both ways), but you don't need one to "eliminate chatter" or "improve the performance" of your plane. You just need to learn to use your tool to achieve that. I fully anticipate that I shall now be flamed from both sides .

 

[patrickjchase]

Yes.
Not that improvements aren't possible but they seem always to be so tiny, marginal, unconvincing and not worth the price, usually high.

Have you actually used PM-V11 irons for any length of time, or is this just your religious fervor talking?

 

[patrickjchase]

.....
For me it was worth a try. Total price of the plane and the blades is around £90 - which is £70 cheaper than say a 4 1/2 Bedrock pattern plane from Workshop Heaven. ....

Bedrock never really caught on. Basically cos its a crapo pointless design

Hmm, something we agree upon.

As an engineer I really like the Bailey design precisely because it's efficient. It's as robust as it needs to be to do its intended job well, and no more. IMO BedRock was a retrograde step, because it added cost and weight to fix an issue that didn't exist to begin with.

It also made the frog adjustment less usable IMO, by "coupling" it to the depth adjust. Moving the frog along its inclined ramp in the BedRocks changes the depth, but then restoring the depth to the desired value changes the mouth, which leads to another iteration with the frog adjust, etc. Give me a "flat" mouth adjustment as on the Bailey or the LV planes any day.

 

[patrickjchase]

I think you're being a bit disingenuous there Jacob. It is definitely easier to adjust the frog on a bedrock. My question is how often you need to do this, is it worth the extra for an adjustment you make once in a blue moon?

I disagree. It is easier to *move* the frog once on a BedRock, but it is not easier to *adjust* it to a final desired position.

The reason is of course that in BedRock the frog and depth adjustment are coupled in a way that forces you to iterate between them to precisely dial in your desired setting. Designs in which the frog adjustment operates purely along the long axis of the plane (like, say, Bailey or the Sargent patent) don't have that issue.