( Photos now shown ) IBC Matched Blade & Chipbreaker Set

[Mike Wingate]

I have not filed the mouth on this Record/Marples. But did on another Record 5. If you file the back of the mouth you can move the frog to compensate for mouth width. I really thin it is case of suck it and see.

 

[David C]

Douglas,

Hock, L-N and Veritas all make excellent blades at about 2.4mm thick. These are designed to fit Stanley etc. without adjusting mouth width ( although this is a simple enough filing job).

Veritas have started offering lapped blades, which will save some work.

Many are available in A2 or 01 steel.

David Charlesworth

 

[robcosman]

Not sure, why are some folks so concerned about filing the mouth of their plane? The idea is to improve the performance of the "tool" by adding a better and thicker blade than what came as original equipment. Comments please.
Rob Cosman

 

[condeesteso]

Hi Robcosman - 2 reasons: I tend to keep and use the original (which is often a really good blade, witness the various laminated blades on old Stanleys and Records) so widening the mouth hinders the performance of the original blade a lot. Second is pure fear! - to change a 100 yr old plane in a way I cannot reverse hurts a bit.
So, David - it will be another Hock for me for no technical reason, but the one I have is great, and I like his 'Good news, bad news' sharpening instructions that came with my first. But all 3 are very good I accept. I am not ready to get the files out. Each to our own of course.

 

[Vann]

If you want to improve the performance of an old plane without fitting a thick iron, consider fitting a thick cap-iron. A good thick cap-iron will dampen vibration (chatter) and should not require any alteration to your plane.

I don't know if Rob offers cap-irons without the cutting iron (although his tabs would be un-necessary in this case), but thick cap-irons are available from Lie-Nielsen or Clifton. Hock and Lee-Valley also have replacement cap-irons available, but I'm not sure of thickness. Quangsheng cap-irons are also thicker, but like Rob's IBC, I'm not sure if they're available separately.

As for old plane mouths, my motley collection of old Record planes have mouths between 4.40mm and 4.75mm - far too small to fit a thick iron without modification of the mouth. On the other hand my Record-Marples SP4 (circa 1995) has a 6.25mm mouth (I've only kept it out of interest, and in case I want to fit a thick iron without filing the mouth of a plane).

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Richard T]

robcosman wrote: "Not sure, why are some folks so concerned about filing the mouth of their plane?"

Hi Rob, I guess Stanley and Record types simply don't have enough mouth to take such a thick iron even with the frog as far back as poss. They were, after all, designed for a piddlin' littlun. Hence the need to open up a bit.

Fab looking kit BTW 8)

 

[David C]

Memory says I only had to file about 0.75 mm from the throats of the planes. The frog was moved as far back as possible.

My feeling is that reluctance to file afflicts collectors rather than users?

Users want performance and that is what you get.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth

 

[Alf]

Dunno; I think the reluctance afflicts more than just collectors. Oddly, for a hobby that's all about being hands-on and can-do, there's a surprising amount of reluctance to take the same attitude to the very tools used for the job. Also, if you can get the results you want with an after market iron that doesn't require you to file your plane, it's possible that some of us (yes, I'm one) don't really feel the difference is worth taking a swing at a plane that might have survived 100 years+ without some enthusiast taking a file to it. Not fear or collecting, just respect for the elderly.

 

[jimi43]

I might be wrong but isn't the whole idea of this set i.e. the differential marketing benefit....that is doesn't need alteration to either the yolk pin or the mouth...?

If that's not the case and if you have to file the mouth for "some" planes...why stop at that thickness...why not go the whole hog and get a really fat one?

The marketing aims directly at retrofitting an antique plane which by implication suggests not hurting it.....or did I read that wrong as well?

The tabs are a really clever solution though...and I assume that with a matched set...the slot lines the iron up beautifully with the chipbreaker...?

As I am one of these neanderthals who prefers 01 steel over A2 steel...I don't think I would get one but it is interesting to see how these perform from others here! We need shavings!!! :mrgreen:

Jim

 

[robcosman]

Guess i have a different take on the matter. I respect the "old" tools but my purpose is to work the wood. if filing the mouth is going to improve the performance whether to accommodate a better blade or to simply offer more support of the wood fiber as close to the cutting edge as possible, so be it! Do we "not" sharpen the saw because doing so will eventually wear it away? I think this can be carried to the point of ridiculous, the tools are just that, tools! I take lots of heat for using composite handles on my saws, it is easier to work than wood, it is heavier than wood, no finish to deal with or have wear off, bottom line, so what? Use the tool to do the work. Last time i checked none of the great designer/craftsman I am aware of displayed their tools with the furniture at the gallery opening! I wonder if the power tool crowd get as attached to their bandsaw, change the tires, heaven forbid!! thoughts?
Rob Cosman

 

[jimi43]

This world would be a dull place if we were all the same .....as the saying goes.

I personally would rather see the tools at an exhibition than the furniture...always assuming they don't have plastic handles that is! :mrgreen:

Without getting into the "collector/user" debate again ](*,) - there are people in the world...like me...who admire tools from the past (and great ones from the present) and use each and every one of them with great pleasure. A saw with a gorgeous handle...like the ones from Two Lawyers or this little beauty from esteemed member Stewie...

...don't cut any better but they sure make me smile! They are heirloom creations.

I fully understand those who use tools as utilitarian items...I just see some as one step beyond that.

Jim

 

[Mike Wingate]

To improve you often have to adjust, adapt and change tools, parts and tactics. Tools are tools. My racing bike is a tool/machine to get me from A to B safely and as quick as possible if I am racing. I change the parts, either as they wear, or to improve or lighten the machine in the hope of improvements. The same with the tools. I respect tools, but an old tool is just that. It is not a precious museum piece, of deserving to be in a display cabinet, but one I have bought to use. I am not afraid to file, grind or upgrade, as I have the skills and tools, these things either in my genes or learned over many years of reading, watching and doing. I have a very nice and heavy, short Record/Marples No.5 with Bubinga woodwork and a Cosman blade and chipbreaker that works very well. A good tool to use.

 

[jimi43]

Well at least you have Bubinga handles on it Mike! =D>

I agree with your right to an opinion even if I disagree with that opinion....this is the issue.

I think that some tools are as, if not more beautiful than most works of art...indeed some are works of art.

There are some who think this way and thankfully...through their work and research...the history of our great hobby/profession will be preserved for our kids and grandkids...

Anyway...that's my view...we are off track here...

Jim

 

[ali27]

I can say that even with my limited experience tuning
a plane and woodworking in general, I filed the mouth
of my stanley to fit a thicker blade.

It's quite easy, just determine how much you need to
open the mouth and then with a square draw the line
and start filing.

Much improved performance! AND the plane looks exactly
the same.

Better performance and the tool looks the same(actually better
with the new thicker blade and chipbreaker).

Ali

 

[Mike Wingate]

I have found my Japanese Laminated steel blade. Sharpened it (another story for another time) and honed it on abrasive papers and 8000 grit ceramic. It is a 2" blade and fits my 4 and 5 planes without any adjustments. It planes Maple and Oak really well, Iroko really well and Ebony. Is it better than the Rob Cosman? It is good! A new one costs £40 plus, uses a standard back iron and fits a plane with no filing. It has a 2mm thick blade. I will get a 2 3/8" for my other planes. What do I do about a back iron. Clifton 2 piece or whatever Record/Stanley I have?

 

[beech1948]

So lets see.
I might have to file back the mouth of my plane even though CBT says not.
I have to pay £75 for the steel.

To me that's the rub. £75 is too much for a plane blade. I think that Rob Cosman's name adds nothing and this use of his name only detracts from his talent and skills. There is no way that blades should cost so much with so little, so very little added value. Great marketing but essentially you pay for the privilege of buying a blade with a well known personality name attached not for the product or functionality.

Now you wont all agree of course. So I'm going to find some O1 and if possible some A2 steel and turn out my own blades, should give my mill a work out. I'll let you know how it goes and if I burn the workshop down when heat treating.
Alan

 

[Blister]

essentially you pay for the privilege of buying a blade with a well known personality name attached

Isn't that the same if you buy a plane ? LN Veritas Clifton + the top end hand made market , They all plane wood but at different prices

 

[condeesteso]

Mike - tell us more - exactly which blade, where from etc. I know that filing the mouth is no big deal, but it does feel a bit like butchery to me on an old plane. So any other option is of real interest to me, and I do like laminated blades.

 

[Vann]

What do I do about a back iron. Clifton 2 piece or whatever Record/Stanley I have?

If you can put up with the disadvatage of a 2-piece (i.e. the deflector falling off if you forget to put your finger on it), then enjoy the advantages (extra thickness, best clamping effect).

If you can't handle the 2-piece, then get a thick 1-piece cap-iron from someone else (L-N, LV, etc.) and put the original cap-iron aside in case you ever sell the plane. If you do ever on-sell it, it'll be worth more with the original cap-iron, and with the mouth un-filed.

My tuppence worth...

Cheers, Vann.

 

[jimi43]

There are some seriously interesting cap irons on Workshop Heaven from Quangsheng (click picture to go to site).



If their quality of cap irons is the same as the irons then they are a bargain!

Jim

P.S. I have no commercial connection with either Quangsheng or Workshop Heaven. I'm just suitably impressed.