Modern Plane Irons

[D_W]

That's a reasonable strategy in any age. It's not significant commentary on anything other than a workshop practice, for instance spending the first fifteen to thirty minutes of the day making sure the tools one expect's to use that day are sharp.

That makes more sense now -desiring to set sharpening aside as something to be done outside of the work cycle.

Would an artist be happy with pencils only sharpenable at dawn?
Getting back to reality - you do it as you go. If you do it freehand you hardly f**g notice it's like blowing your nose.

You're preaching to the choir. Some people like that kind of thing, I like to do it when it's necessary and only keep one iron in nick as two of my three are clocked to the cap iron and I like to know their cutting edge is in line with the cap well.

I understand in some cultures (especially japanese) that some of the craftsmen don't like to sharpen their tools on paid time because they don't want to be seen doing it, so they sharpen on breaks or before or after work. I think that's like hiding the fact that you put gas in a car, but that's their hang up and not mine. I figured maybe mentally Peters would've felt good if he did that outside of his work routine for some reason.

 

[D_W]

This is a fascinating discussion, but almost completely unhelpful to my own woodworking. Faith-based assertions ("this is the only steel to use, and this the only way to sharpen it") don't convince, and methods which work for others often don't work for me (though all are worth a try).

My empirical findings, which I'm entirely prepared to abandon as I learn more, are:

1. I can get an edge good enough to make musical instruments, which I guess is fairly high end goodness, from a range of steels. For planes I have an oldish Stanley, a Veritas, two Quangshengs and some venerable woodies. None seem vastly sharper, or keep their edge less well.

2. But I can't consistently get a good edge, no matter what sharpening method I use. Jigs and guides make me no more consistent than freehanding.

3. My (tentative) conclusion is that practice is more important than the steel or the technique. So I'm going for the easiest option, freehanding on a diamond plate. I'm getting more consistent.

But I will take away the idea that sharpening a chisel to less than 30 degrees might be helpful. I though the edge just fell off if you did that!

I'd like to have a guy like you in my shop for a few hours, I could point you in the right direction, and if you felt like trying an array of stuff you'd not find elsewhere just to see that it's novel but not necessary, I've certainly got it. It really doesn't make any difference what steel you use. I think the only folks who believe it does are those who haven't gotten enough wood to pass through the mouth of a plane yet. Those of us who either started (others) or ended (me) with the older stuff don't have anything against the notion that you can do good work with the modern stuff, it's the notion that you have any difference in results or time if you use modern stuff vs. old.

If I am making something I haven't made before, the time is spent in figuring out how it will look, whether I'll need to make some tools, and carefully looking at whatever I'm making to make sure the design is nice (do I have nice crisp lines where I want them, do I have curves where I want them, have I broken some nasty rules such as having a flowing curve move into a dead straight line, etc).

Sharpening is but a fart in the breeze, here and gone just like that.

 

[MIGNAL]

I have to agree. Not one single steel type will last 3 times longer than Carbon steel. It's not even anywhere close to that. HSS is just about the only steel that has a chance of even approaching that figure. I agree with DW, it may last twice as long, it doesn't get as sharp (although sharp enough) and you'll have to put in some serious work to get it to sharp enough. My A2 examples are only very marginally longer lasting than my old Carbon steel blades.

 

[Trafalgar]

Very true but it's still shocking how many people think there is a large and tangible difference. There just isn't. I've been skewered on various forums more times than I care to remember for stating the same thing. Indeed kicked off a couple for confronting the actual manufacturer and telling them they were basically full of it.

Some sort of psychology in play, not sure what it is. Power of suggestion, wanting to believe, needing to believe, not wanting to admit one made a bum purchase or recommendation. Don't know, but there is something other than actual performance of steel on wood that explains it. Of this, I'm sure.

The majority of the claims made defy logic (as Jacob so aptly points out) if not the laws of material physics. Improvements are marginal and likely only matter to large manufacturing concerns running cutting machinery continuously for sixteen hours a day. The differences are essentially unmeasurable and meaningless ('reviews' and attempts at quantification aside) for a guy pushing a hand plane over wood.

Again, this is news over which one should rejoice, not shuffle dirt with their feet.

 

[Jacob]

Very true but it's still shocking how many people think there is a large and tangible difference. There just isn't. I've been skewered on various forums more times than I care to remember for stating the same thing. Indeed kicked off a couple for confronting the actual manufacturer and telling them they were basically full of it.

Some sort of psychology in play, not sure what it is. Power of suggestion, wanting to believe, needing to believe, not wanting to admit one made a bum purchase or recommendation. Don't know, but there is something other than actual performance of steel on wood that explains it. Of this, I'm sure.

The majority of the claims made defy logic (as Jacob so aptly points out) if not the laws of material physics. Improvements are marginal and likely only matter to large manufacturing concerns running cutting machinery continuously for sixteen hours a day. The differences border on the unmeasurable and meaningless ('reviews' and attempts at quantification aside) for a guy pushing a hand plane over wood.

100%
Well 99% I still have a sneaking preference for a thin laminated old Stanley and I don't like retro thick ones much.

 

[Trafalgar]

Those laminated Stanley irons leave nothing to be desired when you get down to it. I'm always shocked when I hear of somebody sniffing the air at the mention of these old warriors, but plenty do just that.

 

[D_W]

Those laminated Stanley irons leave nothing to be desired when you get down to it.

Ditto that. The earlier non laminated ones are even pretty good. They wear like those pictures show, giving a good surface all the way to the point that they stop cutting.

 

[MIGNAL]

Very true but it's still shocking how many people think there is a large and tangible difference. There just isn't. I've been skewered on various forums more times than I care to remember for stating the same thing. Indeed kicked off a couple for confronting the actual manufacturer and telling them they were basically full of it.

Some sort of psychology in play, not sure what it is. Power of suggestion, wanting to believe, needing to believe, not wanting to admit one made a bum purchase or recommendation. Don't know, but there is something other than actual performance of steel on wood that explains it. Of this, I'm sure.

The majority of the claims made defy logic (as Jacob so aptly points out) if not the laws of material physics. Improvements are marginal and likely only matter to large manufacturing concerns running cutting machinery continuously for sixteen hours a day. The differences are essentially unmeasurable and meaningless ('reviews' and attempts at quantification aside) for a guy pushing a hand plane over wood.

Again, this is news over which one should rejoice, not shuffle dirt with their feet.

I guess people like to hear of the 'new' and the revolutionary. Maybe it provides a bit of excitement and perhaps they gain comfort in being told that the latest offering is going to change their whole woodworking life.
I've seen this sort of thing numerous times and it's not just confined to woodworking, believe me.
Typically what happens is that this new product is reviewed. Everything tends to get exaggerated to an enormous extent. You read another review, that agrees with the first. Before you know it you've put your hand in your pocket and you are buying this exact same revolutionary new product that is going to change your life.
It arrives. Amid all the excitement you lose a little sense of 'balance'. You too believe all the hype. It's real, you've just tried it! Gradually, over the next few days, the hype wears off a little. Then you start to compare it to your old, tired tool that's been doing the same work that it always has. Within a week or less you've hit the conclusion that the new tool is going to change. . . . absolutely fck all.
It's all a terribly big let down.
You can probably tell I've been through the same, and many times over!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

+1 for the laminated Stanleys. I have a lovely old American No.8 - I'd didn't notice until I first ground the iron that it was laminated. I didn't notice the little heart and SW til I looked then.

 

[Trafalgar]

Very true but it's still shocking how many people think there is a large and tangible difference. There just isn't. I've been skewered on various forums more times than I care to remember for stating the same thing. Indeed kicked off a couple for confronting the actual manufacturer and telling them they were basically full of it.

Some sort of psychology in play, not sure what it is. Power of suggestion, wanting to believe, needing to believe, not wanting to admit one made a bum purchase or recommendation. Don't know, but there is something other than actual performance of steel on wood that explains it. Of this, I'm sure.

The majority of the claims made defy logic (as Jacob so aptly points out) if not the laws of material physics. Improvements are marginal and likely only matter to large manufacturing concerns running cutting machinery continuously for sixteen hours a day. The differences are essentially unmeasurable and meaningless ('reviews' and attempts at quantification aside) for a guy pushing a hand plane over wood.

Again, this is news over which one should rejoice, not shuffle dirt with their feet.

I guess people like to hear of the 'new' and the revolutionary. Maybe it provides a bit of excitement and perhaps they gain comfort in being told that the latest offering is going to change their whole woodworking life.
I've seen this sort of thing numerous times and it's not just confined to woodworking, believe me.
Typically what happens is that this new product is reviewed. Everything tends to get exaggerated to an enormous extent. You read another review, that agrees with the first. Before you know it you've put your hand in your pocket and you are buying this exact same revolutionary new product that is going to change your life.
It arrives. Amid all the excitement you lose a little sense of 'balance'. You too believe all the hype. It's real, you've just tried it! Gradually, over the next few days, the hype wears off a little. Then you start to compare it to your old, tired tool that's been doing the same work that it always has. Within a week or less you've hit the conclusion that the new tool is going to change. . . . absolutely fck all.
It's all a terribly big let down.
You can probably tell I've been through the same, and many times over!

Yes, I think this nails it. I remember distinctly all the buzz about A2 and thinking back, and likely even looking back through various forums' archives, and with the benefit of hindsight one can see these exact phenomena in play.

 

[Trafalgar]

Those laminated Stanley irons leave nothing to be desired when you get down to it.

Ditto that. The earlier non laminated ones are even pretty good. They wear like those pictures show, giving a good surface all the way to the point that they stop cutting.

The progression from sharp to dull is a smooth one. There's never a time that one pass is great and the next just rips the board to shreds.

 

[D_W]

Those laminated Stanley irons leave nothing to be desired when you get down to it.

Ditto that. The earlier non laminated ones are even pretty good. They wear like those pictures show, giving a good surface all the way to the point that they stop cutting.

The progression from sharp to dull is a smooth one. There's never a time that one pass is great and the next just rips the board to shreds.

The picture of the eskilstuna iron on beech's page is a thing of beauty - the wear is a black line with no jags. Stanley's pre-chrome irons aren't too far behind, perhaps a touch softer, but very consistent. the same properties make superb straight razors and knives. Not surprisingly.

 

[Trafalgar]

Very enlightening. Thanks.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I must get me some of those laminated Stanleys. Where did you say they were sold?

(I promised myself to stay out of this thread, but could not resist this .. . )

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

Gosh, you probably have some already. You should check. Don't you have a few vintage Stanley planes around?

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Gosh, golly gee, Charlie .. my Stanleys did not. Should I contact the manufacturer for replacements?

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Jacob]

Record did laminated as well. They aren't marked in anyway I just happened to notice when I was sharpening - the line shows up if you grind on a belt sander, and you can see it along the edges too. I've no idea whether or not they were common.
Somewhat contradicts the stupid idea that thin Stanley blades are inferior and only done that way to save money.
Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it - it might set off a flurry of anxiety amongst the tool fetishists!

 

[David C]

Stanley also did HSS blades for Australia. I have one.

David

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Stanley also did HSS blades for Australia. I have one.

David

Hi David

Yes, they are highly prized. Last made (in Hobart, Tasmania) in the 60s, I think. Brent Beech rated them the best blades he ever used.

Academy Saws, in Sydney, made HSS blades for a while. These were also highly thought of.

I have a Mujingfang HSS blade in a #3. It was not made for Stanley planes (has the hole at the other end of the slot), but it fits and works ... very well.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Corneel]

Tools from japan sells laminated replacement blades too for Stanley planes. Made by Tsunesaburo. Not cheap.

http://www.toolsfromjapan.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=339_514_546

I think they are made from a ready made bulk product also used for japanese kitchen knifes. So they aren't made one by one at the forge like some other Japanes blades are made, but as a large sheet with a laminated edge, which is then cut out. Stanley back in the day probably made them in a similar way.