Cheap brand plane experiences

[Paul Chapman]

Mind you, if Jacob had simply brushed the grit off the wood before planing it, we could have avoided all this twaddle. But I suppose that would have been too simple :?

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Cheshirechappie]

.....
This indicates that there may be some truth in Jacob's assertion that some older planes are harder than some newer ones.

No really? Well blow me down what a surprise! So I was right!

.....
I hope this satisfies Jacob's wish for hard data rather than armchair theories. ....

I had the hard data in front of me (scratched plane) so I wasn't looking any further, but you have backed this up with references, in the armchair fashion, to your own satisfaction I hope. Well done!

Well, that reply certainly says a great deal about you.

Had you bothered to read my long, boring missive a little more carefully, you would have deduced that it didn't prove anything one way or another. We do not know from what grade of cast iron your vintage planes are made, nor, indeed, do we know for sure which of the several grades of ductile iron LN or LV use, nor do we know what grade of grey cast iron Clifton start with before their annealing process. We cannot, therefore, prove anything one way or the other. We can only make the generalised comments I did in my post.

Now, for the benefit of all, how about a return to some semblance of woodworking sanity?

 

[Corneel]

Jacob reports about hisexperience with softish new planes. A bunch of armchair theorists try to prove him wrong. So he takes a chisel to scratch his own old and new planes to prove his point. But the bunch is not impressed.

And now you must conclude that you just don't know?

Just a question. To get a clear understanding of the situation.

 

[iNewbie]

Jacob reports about hisexperience with softish new planes. A bunch of armchair theorists try to prove him wrong. So he takes a chisel to scratch his own old and new planes to prove his point. But the bunch is not impressed.

And now you must conclude that you just don't know?

Just a question. To get a clear understanding of the situation.

Its his opinion they're softish or say they are soft -and he's entitled to his opinion. Doesn't meant they're soft though, when the data presented isn't in a scientific manner. Like....I gave'em all a scratch and this confirmed it.

I sometimes scratch my nads One ends up redder than the other though. Must be the angle of attack and the pressure applied. :roll:

BTW - this all Jacob's armchair theory and presented like its objective. Thought I'd bring reality in, there.

 

[Paul Chapman]

So he takes a chisel to scratch his own old and new planes to prove his point.

The only thing that's been proved is that if you plane wood that has grit or nails in it you are going to scratch the sole of your plane. But we knew that already, so what's everyone getting worked up about. Move on....... :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Corneel]

That's why I asked for a hardness tester. Arm chair theories are never conclusive. You have to go out in the field to do meassurements. Otherwise you won't know if your theory is relevant.

A punch and a meassured drop with a big hammer is also good. Then meassure the diameter of the indent.

 

[Jacob]

...
Had you bothered to read my long, boring missive a little more carefully, you would have deduced that it didn't prove anything one way or another. We do not know from what grade of cast iron your vintage planes are made, nor, indeed, do we know for sure which of the several grades of ductile iron LN or LV use, nor do we know what grade of grey cast iron Clifton start with before their annealing process. We cannot, therefore, prove anything one way or the other. We can only make the generalised comments I did in my post.......

Yes it was rather boring. But what I have proved beyond a shadow of doubt is that my Clifton plane is more scratchable..etc...etc.. see above, which isn't generalised at all - is in fact a very specific piece of empirical evidence, gathered in the field in a real world working situation and hence more relevant than any possible experiment or armchair theory. I don't know why you keep going on about it.

 

[Paul Chapman]

But what I have proved beyond a shadow of doubt is that my Clifton plane is more scratchable..etc...etc..

All you've proved is that you didn't brush the grit off your piece of wood before planing it (or maybe there were some nails you didn't pull out) :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Jacob]

......
Its his opinion they're softish or say they are soft -and he's entitled to his opinion. Doesn't meant they're soft though, when the data presented isn't in a scientific manner. Like....I gave'em all a scratch and this confirmed it. ......

It's not an opinion it's a fact - in the case of my planes etc etc..

 

[Jacob]

But what I have proved beyond a shadow of doubt is that my Clifton plane is more scratchable..etc...etc..

All you've proved is that you didn't brush the grit off your piece of wood before planing it (or maybe there were some nails you didn't pull out) :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

And that too. No scientific proof needed at all.

 

[Jacob]

.....
A punch and a meassured drop with a big hammer is also good. Then meassure the diameter of the indent.

Not as good a test of the scratchablity of a sole with a nail, as scratching it with a nail.

 

[Graham Orm]

Is this the right room for an argument?

 

[G S Haydon]

So my scratches might be imaginary then? Or should I simply believe the evidence of my eyes?

Lost the plot here, what with all these armchair theorists burbling on.
My original suggestion was that the cheap planes, for all their defects, might have the advantage of the harder surface apparent in older Stanleys and Records. It is quite a significant advantage and part of the reason there are so many old planes about in very good nick (until they are dropped of course).
I might just buy a Faithful 10 and see for myself.

I think this would be a nice idea. It would be good to have another opinion on them.

 

[G S Haydon]

Hi Graham, I think you nailed it when you said the smaller 4s and 5s are useful in the faithfull range, I used my record no.4 and the axminster no.5 on some 3/4" pine endgrain the other evening, it was an absolute pleasure to use both planes, there was no discernible difference between the 2 with regard to finish/ease of use. the axi made short work of removing the cupping on a pine board too, with or across the grain was no issue at all, all in all I'm very pleased with my cheap no.5.

I'm going to look at the axi/faithfull block planes, I get the feeling you can go particularly wrong with something that size, again, with your comments, I wonder if the length/weight of the plane has more to do with the errors you saw than the actual castings? 1.5mm bow is a lot, from what I've seen of the record no.4 and the axminster no.5 there's no discernible error in the sole, if there is it's negligible, either that or I just wouldn't know a decent planed bit of board if it jumped up and smacked me in the face.

I think they could be worth a go. They do a #4 and a block plane for less than £30 on the bay I think.

 

[Spindle]

Let's be honest - if someone were to scratch a few plane soles with a nail by way of an experiment you can guarantee that the nail will have been sharpened incorrectly :roll:

 

[iNewbie]

......
Its his opinion they're softish or say they are soft -and he's entitled to his opinion. Doesn't meant they're soft though, when the data presented isn't in a scientific manner. Like....I gave'em all a scratch and this confirmed it. ......

It's not an opinion it's a fact - in the case of my planes etc etc..

Um, no. See, each item would need to be tested via a fair system - like the Janka scale. You could be pressing harder and at a different angle and achieve a different result for each item. Its not rocket science.

 

[Jacob]

......
Its his opinion they're softish or say they are soft -and he's entitled to his opinion. Doesn't meant they're soft though, when the data presented isn't in a scientific manner. Like....I gave'em all a scratch and this confirmed it. ......

It's not an opinion it's a fact - in the case of my planes etc etc..

Um, no. See, each item would need to be tested via a fair system - like the Janka scale. You could be pressing harder and at a different angle and achieve a different result for each item. Its not rocket science.

Q. How do you tell the difference between a soft and a hard boiled egg?
A. Send them off to a laboratory for testing and properly presented scientific data quantified on the Janka scale.
Otherwise, you know, you could be just so utterly wrong. :roll:

Interesting thread - not least because it demonstrates how little people understand of scientific method and why they are so enthralled by microns, bevels, thous, pseudo science and jargon in general.

PS I've ordered a Faithful 10 as I've never had one (Amazon cheapest). I'm looking forwards to giving it a good scratch and will report back.

 

[Vann]

I sometimes scratch my nads One ends up redder than the other though. Must be the angle of attack and the pressure applied. :roll:

So you're obviously doing it wrong. You should get Jacob to do that for you - he'll know how. Trouble is, he'd probably get stuck into them with an oilstone (hammer) :shock: :shock: .

Cheers, Vann.

 

[t8hants]

:roll: new balls please!

 

[iNewbie]

Q. How do you tell the difference between a soft and a hard boiled egg?
A. Send them off to a laboratory for testing and properly presented scientific data quantified on the Janka scale.
Otherwise, you know, you could be just so utterly wrong. :roll:

We're not talking about soft/hard boiled eggs though - which are easily verifiable. Ones going to be very hard while the other is going to be very soft. Your comparison is more like a wood plane to a cast plane. Your subjective test/assumption of scratching, isn't. Get it?