Modern Plane Irons

[Trafalgar]

Hello,

I must say, I never hone any of my chisels more than 30 degrees. Sometimes less. I don't have any exotic steel chisels though. Don't have any pig stickers either! Maybe this is something I need to remedy, though I do have registered and sash mortice chisels that I don't use often enough.

Mike.

As you should. There are plenty of classic sources that refer to 'thinly ground paring chisels' and in context clearly mean they are ground and honed at something less than the standard 25* grind and lift to around 30*. I have a couple of chisels ground somewhere around 15* - 18* and honed on that grind. I love them. Wouldn't be without them for love nor money. I always find it bizarre to learn of a craftsman who sets his or her chisels up at all about the same angle. What's the point in that? It's certainly not how the old guys did it from what I gather. One obviously doesn't just bash the hell out of a chisel honed this low but there are plenty of other times when they are just the ticket.

Manufacturers are thrilled that the buying public will hone at 35*. Just beyond thrilled. It saves them a lot of time telling the uninitiated that the woodworking would probably be easier at angles less than that, but, arrgghh and gasp you'll have to learn to hone and do it quickly unless you like getting bogged down in theory and honing gear. They ring up their friendly metallurgist and ask for a steel that will hold its edge at 35*, and a wry smile comes across the face as our friendly metals specialist removes a dart from his top right drawer to throw it against a chart of various tool steels. Practically all of them will work at that angle. The rest is just an exercise in creating marketing buzz.

So, with regards to the chisels you mention, the ones with low ground angles, are you talking of chisels of 1/4" or less?

David

1/4, 3/8, and 3/4...

 

[Bluekingfisher]

Interesting, thanks.

David

 

[David C]

A number of years ago I did extensive testing of plane irons, on nasty. dense, abrasive hardwood. (Doussie or Afzelia).

A2 and D2 irons outlasted the awful 1970's Stanley blades which I had been using up till then. Outlasted by many times.

The process of attempting such tests drives one to distraction, so the experiment has not been repeated.

I have not yet formed a clear impression of the new Veritas powder metalurgy steel. The one chisel I have is not being impressive so far.

However Derek Cohen rates the plane blades.

My favorite Stanley 5 1/2 has a Hock A2 blade and my L-N A2 blades work extremely well.

I have a distinct impression (difficult to confirm), that oilstone sharpeners do not get on well with the high speed steels. Waterstones work exceptionally well.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth

 

[D_W]

A number of years ago I did extensive testing of plane irons, on nasty. dense, abrasive hardwood. (Doussie or Afzelia).

A2 and D2 irons outlasted the awful 1970's Stanley blades which I had been using up till then. Outlasted by many times.

The process of attempting such tests drives one to distraction, so the experiment has not been repeated.

I have not yet formed a clear impression of the new Veritas powder metalurgy steel. The one chisel I have is not being impressive so far.

However Derek Cohen rates the plane blades.

My favorite Stanley 5 1/2 has a Hock A2 blade and my L-N A2 blades work extremely well.

I have a distinct impression (difficult to confirm), that oilstone sharpeners do not get on well with the high speed steels. Waterstones work exceptionally well.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth

It depends on what the high speed steel is. M2 type of high speed steel doesn't seem to sharpen well on oilstones, it's not very fine grained.

T series high speed steel seems to sharpen fine, but one thing is true, and that is that you won't do grind work with novaculite on high speed steel. Of any type. Really any steel hardness over 60 is trouble if you want to work too much of it, it requires slurrying an arkansas stone to cut effectively, and that doesn't create a very fine edge.

I went the opposite direction. I started with wondersteel, tested it on cocobolo, etc, while I was sizing such stuff to make infill planes. High angle, thinner strokes, makes you want a steel that lasts a long time.

And then the cap iron thing occurred, and I realized that if I needed "wondersteel", it's because I was taking shavings too thin. Instead of creeping along, several coarse shavings to near the mark, then a few fine ones. The cap iron allows doing that with no risk.

I've still got some HSS tools, and like to experiment with things. I grind more often to sharpen them on oilstones, and I think the wire edge longer (working back and forth with light pressure - maybe five times back and forth instead of two) and then strop, and then the edge even on HSS is surprisingly good. ON T series HSS (which is uncommon, I guess), it's as good as carbon steel.

It did force focus on accurate grinding, but the overall time to sharpen is less on a washita than it was when I used waterstones and wasn't as judicious with grinding every three hones or so. Grinding takes about 30 seconds (i realize that's not a great option for a lot of beginners who are relying on a super jigged setup with some kind of presto holder to help them grind things, or a tormek).

All of that said, my irons aren't 70s stanley irons, perhaps it helps that they are older stanley irons and older laminated wooden plane irons.

My saying to anyone now, though, whose iron is too soft is that their iron isn't too soft, rather too many of their shavings are too thin. (dimensioning wood by hand is also a good instructor for increasing the smoother shaving thickness for the initial pass or two, which has merit for removing enough planer crushed wood to eliminate any ripple evidence that goes below the scallops).

 

[MIGNAL]

Amazing! Didn't take long for the PMV 111 (whatever it is) dissenters to show up. A few months ago it was going to be the saviour and you only had to sharpen it bi annually. Now we have a couple of people who don't really rate it at all.

 

[Bluekingfisher]

Amazing! Didn't take long for the PMV 111 (whatever it is) dissenters to show up. A few months ago it was going to be the saviour and you only had to sharpen it bi annually. Now we have a couple of people who don't really rate it at all.

It is interesting to read how some favour the old Stanley/Record irons over the more modern alloy steels, nothing wrong with that, although I have been surprised at negativity (by some) towards what I can only assume is an advancement in steel technology.

Just an observation.

David

 

[Benchwayze]

I did buy a thicker Clifton blade from the lad, :wink: Matthew a couple of years back. But to fit it to any of my steel planes would have necessitated opening up the mouth, and TBH I didn't want to mess with my long time servants like that. Had it been possible to drop the blade straight in I wouldn't have hesitated. One day, if I am spared, I might make a Krenov style plane in order to use the blade. Stranger things have happened!

John

 

[MIGNAL]

Amazing! Didn't take long for the PMV 111 (whatever it is) dissenters to show up. A few months ago it was going to be the saviour and you only had to sharpen it bi annually. Now we have a couple of people who don't really rate it at all.

It is interesting to read how some favour the old Stanley/Record irons over the more modern alloy steels, nothing wrong with that, although I have been surprised at negativity (by some) towards what I can only assume is an advancement in steel technology.

Just an observation.

David

I wouldn't say I favour old steel. I have many, many examples of both old and modern steel. I wouldn't be surprised if I've had well over a hundred plane blades through my workshop. That does include LN, Veritas (O1 & A2), Clifton, Ray Iles, the Japanese laminated blade, HSS, Quangsheng, new Stanley SW and dozens of old Stanley/Records/Marples and English cast blades.
They all work, unless they have been heat damaged. They all work well enough to plane wood, even the hard stuff. The differences are very small - apart from the HSS which takes an age to get sharp in the first place. I stopped trying to compare these steels long ago. I just reach for or sharpen the blade that happens to be in the plane that I'm using. That may well be new or old steel. I don't really care what it is, at that point in time I'm much more concerned with cutting the actual wood not fussing about the steel type or indeed it's age.
Apologies if that sounds a little too pragmatic.

 

[Jacob]

I wouldn't say I favour old steel. I have many, many examples of both old and modern steel. I wouldn't be surprised if I've had well over a hundred plane blades through my workshop. That does include LN, Veritas (O1 & A2), Clifton, Ray Iles, the Japanese laminated blade, HSS, Quangsheng, new Stanley SW and dozens of old Stanley/Records/Marples and English cast blades.
They all work, unless they have been heat damaged. They all work well enough to plane wood, even the hard stuff. The differences are very small - apart from the HSS which takes an age to get sharp in the first place. I stopped trying to compare these steels long ago. I just reach for or sharpen the blade that happens to be in the plane that I'm using. That may well be new or old steel. I don't really care what it is, at that point in time I'm much more concerned with cutting the actual wood not fussing about the steel type or indeed it's age.
Apologies if that sounds a little too pragmatic.

I'd say much the same except I do prefer thin blades against the retro fashion for thick ones.
Even the heat damaged ones are OK and they improve magically as you hone them - usually thin irons having been ground on a bench grinder. It's quite easy to over heat just the very thin edge and perhaps spend a lot of working time with a less than perfect blade. Goes away soon after you stop using a bench grinder.

 

[D_W]

I wouldn't say I favour old steel. I have many, many examples of both old and modern steel. I wouldn't be surprised if I've had well over a hundred plane blades through my workshop. That does include LN, Veritas (O1 & A2), Clifton, Ray Iles, the Japanese laminated blade, HSS, Quangsheng, new Stanley SW and dozens of old Stanley/Records/Marples and English cast blades.
They all work, unless they have been heat damaged. They all work well enough to plane wood, even the hard stuff. The differences are very small - apart from the HSS which takes an age to get sharp in the first place. I stopped trying to compare these steels long ago. I just reach for or sharpen the blade that happens to be in the plane that I'm using. That may well be new or old steel. I don't really care what it is, at that point in time I'm much more concerned with cutting the actual wood not fussing about the steel type or indeed it's age.
Apologies if that sounds a little too pragmatic.

I'd say much the same except I do prefer thin blades against the retro fashion for thick ones.
Even the heat damaged ones are OK and they improve magically as you hone them - usually thin irons having been ground on a bench grinder. It's quite easy to over heat just the very thin edge and perhaps spend a lot of working time with a less than perfect blade. Goes away soon after you stop using a bench grinder.

Goes away for most people when others aren't using a bench grinder on their irons.

 

[DTR]

I can't add much to what's already been said... I have a few Stanley / Record irons (probably 50s/60s vintage), and a couple of QS irons. As has been said above, the edge on a QS iron lasts a little longer, but takes a little longer to hone. On that basis I probably prefer the traditional irons just because they hone quicker. The difference is negligible though.

 

[D_W]

Amazing! Didn't take long for the PMV 111 (whatever it is) dissenters to show up. A few months ago it was going to be the saviour and you only had to sharpen it bi annually. Now we have a couple of people who don't really rate it at all.

It is interesting to read how some favour the old Stanley/Record irons over the more modern alloy steels, nothing wrong with that, although I have been surprised at negativity (by some) towards what I can only assume is an advancement in steel technology.

Just an observation.

David

It's definitely technically superior, except in sharpenability and speed to grind.

minimizing upkeep time still favors the experienced user more than the one with the technically advanced toys.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

It's definitely technically superior, except in sharpenability and speed to grind.

It depends on the media you use to sharpen. All steels benefit from being sharpened on the appropriate media.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Bedrock]

I bought a Marples No. 4 earlier this year to see what it was like. I think it must date from the post Stanley takeover as it has a Stanley blade, sharp arrises - looks original - with the stamped metal yoke. I sharpened it the same way as for my other planes which have a mixture of Clifton, Hock, LN, an O1 KH, and older thick blades - Herring etc..

On end grain oak the Marples blade lasted no more than 3-4 strokes, whereas any of the others carried on considerably longer. It has been sharpened, but not ground, several times since, but it will not achieve as good an edge or remain sharp as long as any of the others.
Must be unlucky.

 

[D_W]

It's definitely technically superior, except in sharpenability and speed to grind.

It depends on the media you use to sharpen. All steels benefit from being sharpened on the appropriate media.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Certainly everything sharpens easily on diamonds. But it's more total time to use diamonds, and with a greater chance of contaminating something if you're using diamonds vs. an old iron on a washita stone and a leather strop.

Even powder M4 yields to diamonds as if it's been cut by butter - makes you think something might be wrong with the M4 (like it's soft) when you run it across a diamond hone.

The trouble with diamonds and silicon carbide (in the case someone grinds with a carborundum stone, which is a far better grinding stone than any aluminum oxide waterstone) is that there are certain things that will be damaged on 1000 grit level diamond stuff and silicon carbide. I've encountered that numerous times with higher end plain carbon stuff (most notably, any japanese chisels that are actually the 65 hardness that many claim to be).

So, what I'm getting toward is that unless one uses only softer carbon steel and harder high speed steels, the only media that really sharpens a high speed steel quickly really isn't that desirable. Personally, i don't find diamonds desirable on any plain carbon steel, not even the softer ones.

But none of it really matters, efficiency favors experience far more than it favors the man with a technological quiver. We just don't do a very good job (the woodworking community doesn't) telling people that what they do as a beginner may not be what they do when they become a serious hand tool user (as in more than just planing chatter off of boards and flushing dovetails).

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I did not mention diamonds, David. The OP asked about A2, and more recently PM-V11 came up. Now, if you insist on using oilstones, then you can do it, but it will be an effort, and there is the very real danger that the bevel will not be properly honed ... and then complaints will be made that the steels are too difficult to sharpen, or do not take a decent edge.

I began working these steels with Shaptons but, other than the 1000, I was not happy with the speed of the 5000 and 12000. I had used these stones for several years so it was not a big deal to trade up to Sigmas, to 6000 and 13000. These work these steels effortlessly.

This is not to say that you cannot use Shaptons, or a multitude of other media, just that some work better than others.

If I was working M4, I would not use Sigma or Shaptons. I would use diamond or Spyderco. In fact I do.

Why bother with steel that all media cannot manage as well as O1? I can only speak for those who work with abrasive woods, as I do. O1 just does not cut it for long on our local woods. There are real benefits in more durable steels. HNT Gordon sells plenty of HSS (M2) blades.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Bluekingfisher]

It's definitely technically superior, except in sharpenability and speed to grind.

It depends on the media you use to sharpen. All steels benefit from being sharpened on the appropriate media.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Certainly everything sharpens easily on diamonds. But it's more total time to use diamonds, and with a greater chance of contaminating something if you're using diamonds vs. an old iron on a washita stone and a leather strop.

Even powder M4 yields to diamonds as if it's been cut by butter - makes you think something might be wrong with the M4 (like it's soft) when you run it across a diamond hone.

The trouble with diamonds and silicon carbide (in the case someone grinds with a carborundum stone, which is a far better grinding stone than any aluminum oxide waterstone) is that there are certain things that will be damaged on 1000 grit level diamond stuff and silicon carbide. I've encountered that numerous times with higher end plain carbon stuff (most notably, any japanese chisels that are actually the 65 hardness that many claim to be).

So, what I'm getting toward is that unless one uses only softer carbon steel and harder high speed steels, the only media that really sharpens a high speed steel quickly really isn't that desirable. Personally, i don't find diamonds desirable on any plain carbon steel, not even the softer ones.

But none of it really matters, efficiency favors experience far more than it favors the man with a technological quiver. We just don't do a very good job (the woodworking community doesn't) telling people that what they do as a beginner may not be what they do when they become a serious hand tool user (as in more than just planing chatter off of boards and flushing dovetails).

Again, a clear case of a personal preference, and again fine. I use diamiond plates to hone my blades and as far a speed is concerned I cannot think of anything quicker. Three or four strokes on the fine plate, a similar number of strokes on the ex ex fine has the blade (3mm) thick with a light baby oil (mineral oil for our US chums) shaves the hair on my arm. If the blade needs to be sharper than that then I am missing something and welcome your instruction.

If you are happy and satisfied with the vintage steel all well and good but as far as upkeep and speed of honing is concerned, well, that's just nonsense. IMOHO

 

[D_W]

If you are happy and satisfied with the vintage steel all well and good but as far as upkeep and speed of honing is concerned, well, that's just nonsense. IMOHO

Certainly not. It takes me one minute to sharpen a vintage chisel that's actually dull.

It takes two minutes to sharpen a plane iron that's fully dull, and 30 seconds to grind.

The only thing that the more modern steels is actually superior for is a contest of taking the longest 1 thousandth thick shaving. If it teaches people to do that, though, that's to their detriment because only the final pass of a smoother is done with something like that. Even smoothing is done better with as coarse of a shaving as appropriate for the bulk of the work.

I've used more different things, I'd assume, than anyone else on this board (if we need to get into listing, I can do it), and seem to have gone backwards instead of forwards vs. the magazine recommendations (often those recommendations are made by people who use mostly power tools). I tend to discount the views of any magazine writer, blogger, etc, at this point if they have not done much dimensioning.

(I'd note, too, here in the states, the person who won the speed contest for smoothing a panel at the largest hand tool woodworking event is someone you guys would call a "pensioner" over there - he dimensions wood by hand........and he uses plain carbon steel and oilstones).

 

[D_W]

I did not mention diamonds, David. The OP asked about A2, and more recently PM-V11 came up. Now, if you insist on using oilstones, then you can do it, but it will be an effort, and there is the very real danger that the bevel will not be properly honed ... and then complaints will be made that the steels are too difficult to sharpen, or do not take a decent edge.

I began working these steels with Shaptons but, other than the 1000, I was not happy with the speed of the 5000 and 12000. I had used these stones for several years so it was not a big deal to trade up to Sigmas, to 6000 and 13000. These work these steels effortlessly.

This is not to say that you cannot use Shaptons, or a multitude of other media, just that some work better than others.

If I was working M4, I would not use Sigma or Shaptons. I would use diamond or Spyderco. In fact I do.

Why bother with steel that all media cannot manage as well as O1? I can only speak for those who work with abrasive woods, as I do. O1 just does not cut it for long on our local woods. There are real benefits in more durable steels. HNT Gordon sells plenty of HSS (M2) blades.

Regards from Perth

Derek

A better idea for 99% of woodworkers is to learn to use the oilstones and skip the modern diemaking steels. That is, if time and results are considerations. I use generally one HSS tool at this point, a chinese tapered mortise chisel - they only offer it in HSS. It's tapered along its length, which makes it superb for mortising planes because it doesn't get stuck in a mortise. It's also not M2, I don't know precisely what it is, it sharpens fine on oilstones.

I know i'd never convince most aussie woodworkers, because I'm a yank, but they would get more work done if they took a thicker shaving and used a cap iron. And not surprisingly, when you do that, the type of steel becomes less important, as does the false notion that only a freshly sharpened 1 micron sharp iron can leave a clear bright surface. Anyone relying on sharpening to limit tearout has been lapped before the race starts.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

David, in the past I have been criticised for applying the standards for Australian woods to those in the USA. I am careful to qualify the differences these days. You talk about planing thick shavings. But why would I want to do so all the time? There are times when I do and times when I do not. It all depends on what is required. Further, woods like Jarrah have a Janka similar to Wenge, and both these are 50% greater than white oak. How often do you want to take thick shavings in such woods? Building furniture is not just about thick shavings.

Planing is also not just about using the chipbreaker. You know I am comfortable using one, and I do so much of the time by preference. Still, planes with chip breakers are just a small proportion of the planes I use. There are also single blade rebate planes, shoulder planes, block planes, spokeshaves, etc etc. Some take thicker shavings than others .. when necessary.

Regards from Perth

Derek