How to store Handplanes?

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

David, that's simply rhetoric. All you say is I am in a minority because I disagree with you. You do not offer evidence or an argument "why" one is better or worse.

What you attribute to Chessirecappie was his supporting my post that the "faulty" LN chipbreaker issue was in fact due to a screw.

When you state that they are many happy Stanley users compared to LN/LV users is to ignore that there are probably few woodworkers who have used all these planes as much as I have. The samples you want to use as proof are likely very biased in one direction or the other. In other words, there should be more Stanley users that voice improvement with a chipbreaker simply because that is what they own. Stating that "because the people who designed "improved" don't even know what entry level capability is" just confirms what I am saying. Now I do know a bit about these chipbreakers, and I can discuss the pros and cons.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[G S Haydon]

I know Derek & D_W are crossing swords heavily here but I do have experience of the LN style cap iron. As Derek pointed out in the review the LN cap iron screw is not knurled as the LV & Stanley types and it's very thin. I found it less easy to set set accurately. I've had no issue setting the Stanley or Older LV style at all.

Considering how long the Bailey has been in production and how many professional users chose it I would have thought that Stanley would of changed it if there was a significant flaw. Or forced to by negative feedback. Various other things were tweaked over time but the cap iron concept was broadly the same.

That's not to say the LN style can't work well, it's just my planed surfaces, the setting of the cap iron or the plane in use was not improved by using the LN cap iron.

 

[D_W]

Derek, I still don't think you're getting it. I'm saying that you're in the minority talking about stanley cap irons moving when set because literally nobody else has ever said it's a problem. I am assuming that chappie is talking about a stanley cap iron that has a physical problem ( a burr ) that is easily corrected.

For what it's worth, about half of the old cap irons I get have had some kind of wear or abuse that needs to be corrected. I don't describe the type as being defective because of a burr or rust pitting that ill handling has caused.

I would bet that the majority of recent woodworkers have used both old and new types. The trouble is most of the woodworkers who have used both types recently are in the same group as I'd say are unqualified to give an opinion about what cap iron design is better. Most have probably been told that the cap iron should be thick so it acts like a thick iron. That sentiment is farce because it's dependent on a perceived flaw that comes from improper setup. That goes back to the discussion of is it more important to design a good plane, or is it important that it's good for beginners. I don't know, if I were selling planes, I guess I'd want one that was good for beginners. That gives us heavy planes that have a lot of friction and have some of the parts taken out.

As far as you're mentioning the people who designed the improved LV chipbreaker, or LN's, who did that? I haven't read your article in a long time, and I can't say I recall ever hearing who was in charge of improved chipbreakers.

You know more about chipbreakers than the average user. I know more about them (in terms of using) than anyone I've talked with perhaps with the exception of Warren. I have used every type in every type of plane that I can think of except the stay set, so I don't discuss the stay set type (the fact that it doesn't move as the iron is honed is not very appealing to me). i have used others in:
* chinese planes
* japanese planes
* european planes
* english and american planes (all types, improved or not - and I have used LVs, LN's, Hocks, and of course the vintage types).

You might not like the statement that I am further ahead than you are with cap irons, but it is the case and always has been. As you recall, you were insistent when the topic came up that a cap iron is only the same as a 55 degree frog but that other angles of planes are necessary for more difficult wood. I am assuming you have revised your stance on that by now. If you are only taking thin shavings with a plane, you are not going to get the full picture of anything other than thin shavings (and the stanley cap iron leaves nothing on the table with those, either).

After using all of the above from rough work to finish, I've settled on the original stanley design as being the best design in the context of actual work, and the best to set (and most ready to work when new).

I discount the engineered machines and discussions about "making an iron" twice as thick and all of that stuff because it is pointless in actual use of a plane that's properly set up. I'd gladly debate what the manufacturers think they know about cap irons and their use in actually using hand tools, too, but it seems exceedingly hard for them to even state what they know.

 

[D_W]

That's not to say the LN style can't work well, it's just my planed surfaces, the setting of the cap iron or the plane in use was not improved by using the LN cap iron.

That is spot on what I'm saying. You know how to use the cap iron properly, and any perceived problem that can be marketed at you can be deflected.

I vaguely recall the knurled screw controversy, but always tighten a stanley cap iron screw with a stanley lever cap and haven't thought further about it. Something I was also disappointed to find in millers falls planes (one of those being one where the lever cap wasn't the right length to hold down the cap iron properly - but 6 other millers falls planes have been fine) was that the end of their lever cap doesn't always fit in the screw slot on the cap iron. I don't think the fact that the end of the lever cap fits perfectly in the stanley screw is by chance).

Most of the woody cap iron screws are smooth, IIRC, but they have a long throw of spring and too much tension to tighten them by hand.

 

[D_W]

David, that's simply rhetoric. All you say is I am in a minority because I disagree with you. You do not offer evidence or an argument "why" one is better or worse.

What you attribute to Chessirecappie was his supporting my post that the "faulty" LN chipbreaker issue was in fact due to a screw.

When you state that they are many happy Stanley users compared to LN/LV users is to ignore that there are probably few woodworkers who have used all these planes as much as I have. The samples you want to use as proof are likely very biased in one direction or the other. In other words, there should be more Stanley users that voice improvement with a chipbreaker simply because that is what they own. Stating that "because the people who designed "improved" don't even know what entry level capability is" just confirms what I am saying. Now I do know a bit about these chipbreakers, and I can discuss the pros and cons.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Ok, I went out and reread your article. I have not once ever set the cap ion on a stanley plane at an appropriate distance to subsequently find that under tension, it changes an appreciable distance. That's dozens of that style. It's never occurred. I have no idea what the problem may be with your iron or what occurs when you're tightening it, but using that one as a sample of one to give advice on all of them is bad form.

I have also never heard someone who knows where to set the cap iron say that's occurred with them on a stanley plane. I have heard one thing consistently once people learn to set them - that the plane works better than they ever could've imagined, and now they can spend their money somewhere else (which if one is intending to go up the ladder in woodworking is probably along the lines of carving tools and joinery and moulding planes - or wood).

 

[G S Haydon]

The woodies cap iron have a nice big screw so although the sides are flat you can finger tighten real nice. The LV does offer and improvement on the screw. I can add enough pressure with my fingers that hardly and screwdriver tweak is needed. However the Stanley style is still offers very easy use.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

David, there is an easy way of ending this silly sparing. All you need to do is describe what you consider to be important in a chipbreaker - how would you design the "perfect chipbreaker" .... from form/shape, angles, set up ability, etc. All else you write is otherwise simply opinion without substance. This discussion will continue along these lines until you define what it is should be under the microscope. That is what I write about - I give you a chance to agree, criticise, disagree, whatever. Do the same.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[D_W]

Derek, a perfect metal plane cap iron and iron would be stock stanley bailey. If someone doesn't like the rigidity, i believe the veritas bench plane has a slightly thicker version ( I haven't used it, it's really about the only type of currently made plane I haven't used - I've used everything else, from japanese planes to planes made by terry gordon).

A perfect cap iron for wooden planes would be a different design, exactly as the old wooden cap irons are made. they have the curved front and they are ideally designed to work with a wedge. The cap would work with an iron that is hollow along its length since the bed is wood and it can move. The hollow ensures that even if the bed moves a little bit, there will still be a three point fit on the plane more or less. The cap iron may flex the iron, but it doesn't matter, the iron is already biased hollow to begin with.

That would be it. I'm convinced that beginners would have a little bit of a problem with wooden plane caps, as they've got a lot more spring and can require some tuning to set predictably.

Anything different than either of those is only different. I remove broken or defective cap irons from the discussion, they're not designed to consider defects.

They are ideal because they are the closest to being properly set up, and they work as well or better than anything else in the hands of someone who knows how to use them.

This isn't an engineering discussion, we've seen plenty of those where the "best" is supposedly differentiated in a small article outside the context of regular work. That kind of stuff is irrelevant and yields us things like heavy planes and surface grinding to .001", both of those seem nice if you push a plane a couple of times. They also yield dumb things like thick irons that only cover up deficiencies that beginners have, or plane designs that can't support an iron close enough to the edge.

I am doing just the same as you are, I have discounted the only problem you've described with a stanley cap iron because i've never seen it anywhere else. If you are the only person to have that problem, it's not something we need to use as a measuring stick.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Just for the avoidance of doubt, my comment about the burred cap-iron screw was not intended to be 'for' or 'against' anybody's point of view. It was just a simple statement of an experience, that's all.

The intention was to point out that some problems can be very simply solved, though the cause may not necessarily be obvious to all. I spotted the burr because half a lifetime of engineering experience has made me aware that such things happen, and a feel with a finger-end found it. It may not be at all obvious to a newcomer, especially one with not much practical experience, that such a tiny burr could cause a problem, so I thought it worth the post just to make the possibility of that particular fault more widely known. That's all.

 

[D_W]

Just for the avoidance of doubt, my comment about the burred cap-iron screw was not intended to be 'for' or 'against' anybody's point of view. It was just a simple statement of an experience, that's all.

The intention was to point out that some problems can be very simply solved, though the cause may not necessarily be obvious to all. I spotted the burr because half a lifetime of engineering experience has made me aware that such things happen, and a feel with a finger-end found it. It may not be at all obvious to a newcomer, especially one with not much practical experience, that such a tiny burr could cause a problem, so I thought it worth the post just to make the possibility of that particular fault more widely known. That's all.

I took it exactly as you intended it.

Do you think the burr was a manufacturing problem, or was it something where someone put a ding in it?

All but one of the movers that I have had...make that two, the second was a shepherd kit poorly made. So other than that, all but one that have moved when set have been older wooden plane cap iron sets and they are not in perfect original condition. All of those are remedied by removing grip from places that shouldn't have grip (smoothing the fit between the screw and the back of the iron, generally).

This type of tuning is important in woodies. A woody that's got a wedge with sticky finish on it can move the cap iron on the plane since the bed and wedge have a stronger grip than the cap fit. That's also easily solved just by cleaning the surface of the cap, waxing it, and waxing the back of the iron.

On some of the older ones, there is damage to the iron itself that needs to be filed off.

When they're functioning, none of any type from any generation should move when the screw is tightened, and thus that whole idea should be tossed unless even one that's not in disrepair is still moving.

 

[David C]

How old is D_W to have acquired such an encyclopedic knowledge of planes?

Anyone who wishes to return to a standard Stanley iron has got to be crazy. The introduction of Hock irons was one of the best improvements to a Stanley plane in the last century.

I was given a new Sheffield Stanley no.5, in about 2000, shortly before the factory closed. (Given by Stanley). It is dreadful and the sole is so hollow in length that it will not plane a straight edge.

David Charlesworth

 

[D_W]

38 David. I've acquired knowledge of them by, well, acquiring and using them. If I get a type that I don't favor, I sell it. I went through about everything before I settled on what is the most reasonable for someone to use in a full cycle of planing (from rough lumber to finished) and eventually settled on making planes instead of buying them. Though I just can't at this point make a better smoother than a stanley 4. I'll leave the heavy "premium" boat anchors to other people (i've had most of the popular ones, and then made myself infills).

The "hock" improvement is very weak compared to just using the cap iron properly (I thought it was an "improvement" when I was a beginner, but don't now - I still have some A2 and hock carbon irons, though - just not many). The majority of woodworkers somehow think that avoidance of sharpening is a good goal, and that everything is a see through shaving (which a stanley is quite capable of without issue, even if it's just sharpened with a washita stone). I don't see any practical improvement in the alloyed or harder irons unless someone is an incompetent sharpener. I see the opposite, actually. I see irons that prefer waterstones, which are also not the improvement that they're claimed to be....except for in the hands of incompetent sharpeners.

Using a 2000 year production stanley as proof that stanley planes are difficult to use is reaching to say the least. They probably made at the very least, hundreds of thousands until just after world war II, and aside from the small adjuster wheel on the early ones, I can't find much fault with any of the decent ones. I thought I could when I was a beginner, and I bought a near full menu of lie nielsen planes.

I've tried just about every type of chisel and every type of sharpening stone, too. Not surprisingly, since I'm not just taking wood off of a planer and smoothing it with several different planes, I've settled on chisels that professionals used as being those most practical for someone who has the skill to sharpen without gadgets and stones that need constant rubbing with diamond plates (though I still have them).

There are very few people who know more about plane design than I do, I don't cater advice to beginners with any of it. If someone doesn't like that statement (about plane design), they can lump it. I've made western wooden, japanese wooden and infill planes thus far (single and double iron in both), as well as moulding planes.

Pay close attention to what Brian Holcombe says when he talks about using his planes in the context of dimensioning. I could tell he was annoyed by the "improvement" of A2 irons, low angle jack planes, etc, and put two properly made planes in his hands. He's working his way away from all of the "improvements", too, as he gets further along, and moving to the things people used when they actually did something other than set up all of their planes as smoothers.

(charley never believes me about having all of this stuff, either, so you have some company. Ask me about making furniture, and I can attest what time I've spent learning about tools, I haven't spent on furniture. I don't know much about it and don't pretend to, and only generally make furniture on need, not want)

 

[Trafalgar]

It's hard for one to imagine that it all wasn't a settled issue after you'd bought 'near the full menu' of Lie-Nielsen planes.

Not sure what you're searching for D_W but good luck finding it.

 

[D_W]

It's hard for one to imagine that it all wasn't a settled issue after you'd bought 'near the full menu' of Lie-Nielsen planes.

Not sure what you're searching for D_W but good luck finding it.

Ultimately, I wanted to make my tools, I guess, and ditch the power tools. When I started to use a stanley plane in heavy work against a lie nielsen plane, it was clear that the stanley plane had less friction, was more practical to resharpen quickly, and generally made rough to finish work easier. The LN planes were heavier, flatter and quicker to shed their wax, etc, and that was that. Less work to use the stanley planes for the same result.

A similar, but larger jump occurred when I went from metal planes to wooden ones for everything but smoothing.

I could never get what I wanted in a wooden plane until I started to build them. Part of the problem there is that it's difficult to diagnose and fix an old double iron plane if you don't know how it was made, but I'm sure now I could buy *many* old planes and make a new wedge for them and have something locked up like a vault and quiet like my planes are.

Given it's the tools for me, charlie, and wanting to make them, i guess it's the same thing that makes you nutty for furniture - you don't need to make it, and I don't need to make tools. I have the same desire to make furniture that you do for tools. I'll make it if I need to, but most of the time, i don't really have any interest in the end result, and if I don't have a customer, then why bother? I like the planes, I'll figure out what to do with them later - it's not hard to find a place for them to go, even if you ask for the cost of materials, and I do certainly like to put them in the hands of people who are using what is effectively an awful setup for hand dimensioning.

 

[David C]

Well, I'm 64 and have been using planes since I was about 9 years old.

The manner in which you state your prejudices is really quite offensive. (I believe in USA quite means very) ~;-)#

There never seem to be any experiments which might give us results to support your opinions.

If you really think "the Hock improvement is very weak" you definitely inhabit cloud cuckoo land.

I published, many years ago, results of an experiment where I planed up an 8 foot by 22 inch European, air dried Beech bench top.

I needed three 1970s Stanley blades to take a finishing pass. (Alan Peters used to sharpen 6 at a time so that he could keep working). A Hock blade got the job done with one sharp blade.

I repeat Hock blades were the best thing to happen to Stanley planes, in the latter half of the 20th century. The 60 1/2 block plane would be another good example.

Generally the people who don't like A2 steel are those who cannot sharpen effectively.

I nearly mentioned James Krenov, but I suspect you don't rate him either.

The English Cabinetmakers of the last century sought infill planes to surface their difficult exotic timbers. These had thick blades, and thick cap irons. Odd eh.

David Charlesworth

 

[mouppe]

David C, I'm completely in agreement with you. I wish the mods would step in and put an end to his presence here.

 

[D_W]

Well, I'm 64 and have been using planes since I was about 9 years old.

The manner in which you state your prejudices is really quite offensive. (I believe in USA quite means very) ~;-)#

There never seem to be any experiments which might give us results to support your opinions.

If you really think "the Hock improvement is very weak" you definitely inhabit cloud cuckoo land.

I published, many years ago, results of an experiment where I planed up an 8 foot by 22 inch European, air dried Beech bench top.

I needed three 1970s Stanley blades to take a finishing pass. (Alan Peters used to sharpen 6 at a time so that he could keep working). A Hock blade got the job done with one sharp blade.

I repeat Hock blades were the best thing to happen to Stanley planes, in the latter half of the 20th century. The 60 1/2 block plane would be another good example.

Generally the people who don't like A2 steel are those who cannot sharpen effectively.

I nearly mentioned James Krenov, but I suspect you don't rate him either.

The English Cabinetmakers of the last century sought infill planes to surface their difficult exotic timbers. These had thick blades, and thick cap irons. Odd eh.

David Charlesworth

David, what kind of experiment would you like? Preference of professionals in use (historically or otherwise) is about as good as it's going to get. Individual experiments lead to conclusive statements on things like derek has said, where he's had an issue with a stanley cap iron that nobody else has. Or, in the case of planing, a little bit of wax and then the heaviest plane always wins. Experiments don't allow someone to deal with contrary wood or what happens once they've got a significant sweat going. A planing experiment to me is dimensioning 2 board feet of wood with two different planes on separate days and assessing how much effort it took and whether or not the results are acceptable.

Earlier this year, I finish planed a white ash bench surface with a stanley 4 with one sharpening. Of course, I approached it differently than you probably did - I set the plane for a heavy shaving with the cap iron set properly (perhaps it was 4 thousandths), and then I took a couple of passes with a thinner shaving once I had nice continuous heavy shavings (as in, continuous implying that all of the tearout was removed from the ash - something ash is definitely good at - tearing out). The double iron is more important than the hard iron. I don't use 1970s stanley blades, though (I don't like them, either, they are soft AND they leave a gummy wire edge - a bad combination), I use older blades that are plain carbon and that are available inexpensively (well, they are probably oil hardening steel and not "plain carbon" steel, but that's what people refer to now as carbon steel). I have made the comment before that if someone believes their iron is too soft, it's probably because they're not working a thick enough shaving for most of their work. I believe that, but it really doesn't ring a bell if someone is using a plane for finish work and joint fitting only. Carborundum stones existed a century or more ago, and there is nothing that would keep makers from making an iron 62 hardness - the razors were already there, and the steel was relatively clean bessemer process diemaking steel. Even before that, corundum and emery powders were widely available, and are prescribed for carvers. They would've sharpened anything if sprinkled on an oilstone. why is it that the users of planes didn't demand irons of that hardness when they were actually using planes heavily?

Certainly if I'd have taken a lot of thin smoother shavings smoothing my bench, as I have said many times, the modern irons will take more of them in a row. But it is inaccurate, I believe, to assume that someone who was working at rate would've worked that way - it takes several times as long (and much more effort). That is not illuminated until you can safely take a thick jointer or smoother shaving without using a high angle.

I have used everything you describe, I shave with a straight razor, I have never had any problem sharpening effectively. I started out only with alloy steels, and I have vials of diamond powder in my bench down to a tenth of a micron - I've played with it all, and all of it works. It's not a matter of what works, it's a matter of what works best in the context of use. Tenth of a micron diamond is not very useful when you're taking jack shavings, and it's easy to contaminate. Waterstones require care above and beyond taking the lid on and off, and oilstones require only the care of a conscientious sharpener.

I don't know the story about infill planes. They are not that common over here, and i've read on Joel Moskowitz's blog that there was social pressure to purchase them in britain. I have made three of them and have a fourth in process that got set aside strictly because I learned to use the cap iron. Recall when you learned about it (the cap iron) on sawmill creek and said that it was one of the few groundbreaking things you've seen in decades? That was me.

I don't know that much about krenov and his tools because I wouldn't like to have most of the furniture he's made and I don't like laminated planes. When he described planes that have handles as being uncomfortable to use, then I kind of lost interest in his discussions about plane design. He's only working against several centuries of professional users there (and my own experience with mild arthritis and planes without handles)

I don't use a block plane very often, so I can't say much about what's better, but in that situation where there is no second iron to keep a plane in a cut, the modern irons are probably a significant gain. Especially since, in my opinion, a lot of the later stanley block planes are pretty shoddy. I've got two, the older is nicely made (an 18), and the newer is poorly made (a 65).

I state my conclusions plainly because without doing it because if you don't, people literally go back to "everything's equally good" kind of mentality and "I wonder what will be new in the next catalog". Been there and done that. When it turned to sweat to start from rough wood, then you really start to be a lot more critical than that.

I have made the comment to derek several times that talking about things (steels, planes, etc) that are important to have when you go from rough to finish...that kind of talk leaves people who only smooth with their planes behind. There's a whole other world out there beyond shooting boards and smoother shavings. It's one that has rabbet planes instead of shoulder planes, chisels instead of rabbeting block planes and router planes, and on and on.

I don't speak from shaky footing on any of it. If we were talking about furniture, and it went above and beyond relatively plain items, certainly I would be.

 

[iNewbie]

Given it's the tools for me, charlie, and wanting to make them, i guess it's the same thing that makes you nutty for furniture - you don't need to make it, and I don't need to make tools. I have the same desire to make furniture that you do for tools. I'll make it if I need to, but most of the time, i don't really have any interest in the end result, and if I don't have a customer, then why bother? I like the planes, I'll figure out what to do with them later - it's not hard to find a place for them to go,

Is that a double iron entendre?

 

[D_W]

Given it's the tools for me, charlie, and wanting to make them, i guess it's the same thing that makes you nutty for furniture - you don't need to make it, and I don't need to make tools. I have the same desire to make furniture that you do for tools. I'll make it if I need to, but most of the time, i don't really have any interest in the end result, and if I don't have a customer, then why bother? I like the planes, I'll figure out what to do with them later - it's not hard to find a place for them to go,

Is that a double iron entendre?

Oh no!

 

[D_W]

David C, I'm completely in agreement with you. I wish the mods would step in and put an end to his presence here.

No worries, I'm not likely to respond to very many topics like this, but I push the topic some not to troll people, but to actually get people up to try a few things and see if they might learn something new.

If you, at any point, are thinking about getting toward dimensioning wood by hand from rough, viewed through a clear lens, you'll find some value in the things I mention. If not, then probably not.

There's a lot of talk on forums about what show to go to to get the next thing, or what plane follows what machine planer, etc, but there just really isn't much discussion about discarding power tools and how that changes desirable characteristics of hand tools.