Thicker plane Irons

[patrickjchase]

PS Hock blades are made in France. Hock just etch on their label. I could do the same - buy the blades, market them with etched on "Jacob's Sharpedge" :lol:

Roh Hock uses a heat treatment house in France (which is a smart move on his part - he isn't a metallurgist and doesn't gain by playing at being one). I don't think the entire iron is made there, though.

 

[D_W]

I admit I've been suckered into buying new blades too - a Hock and a Smoothcut.

I guess different people like different things. And wouldn't the world be boring if everyone had similar preferences?

It is very beneficial to replace the standard plane blade with a thick, high quality replacement iron. The new materials available today will hold an edge significantly longer than a carbon steel blade. Cryogenically treated A2 blades by Ron Hock are available from Classic Hand Tools.

David's comments are relative to the Stanley round edged irons, which were their worst.

Hocks irons are ok, but you can easily make their equal in your shop, and they're scarcely better than good Stanley irons from an earlier period.

They do have one thing on their favor for a beginner, though. They're new, undamaged and without rust. They look horrible, though. Just terrible. Too cheap to bevel the top corners. I wouldn't trade a good Stanley iron for a hock it on, just my opinion.

 

[Racers]

I have some homemade 3mm O1 steel blades, they are very nice to use and sharpen easily, some mouth alterations where needed.

Pete

 

[Dangermouse 2nd]

Jacob you can't seriously say the Stanley blades from the 1960's onward and certainly from the 1970's are nothing but cheaply made stuff, the entire plane was made down to a price not just the blade! If your lucky enough to get a blade from the 1920's or 30's I might agree with you. But your very lucky to get one that isn't ground back too much to use or rusted or chipped to death. I do maintain if your taking a thick shaving to remove a lot of wood a thick blade and tight heavy chip breaker is much better than any thin blade and breaker and a 01 blade is easy to sharpen and hold an edge excellently . But I'm sure your happy with your blades,.

 

[Jacob]

My first new planes were a new Stanley 7 about 1975 and then a Record 5 1/2 about 1982 and a lot of second hand odds and ends.
Never really had a problem with any of them, except of my own making; ignorance and too much and too hot grinding. I guess all beginners risk blueing blades. The blades get the blame but buying replacements isn't the sensible option.
I think it's all down to sharpening more than anything. I guess some may need sharpening more often than others but since sharpening stopped being a problem for me I would hardly notice (re-discovered freehand/oil-stone quick and easy). Until you get to thick blades of course, then it becomes a problem.
The crapmost plane I ever had was something called an EssVee no.4, only £2 or so . I managed to get it working and in fact the blade was the only good part of it, which surprised me!

PS I've just remembered - the Stanley 7 had a slightly concave sole and was useless for long edges. I hadn't discovered how to flatten soles back then so I sold it on, but the blade was fine.
PPS taking a thick shaving to remove a lot of wood is easiest with a heavily cambered single iron scrub. Yes it's a thickish blade but it's narrow so sharpening is not a prob.

 

[nabs]

re. older Record/Stanley blades - as we found out on another thread recently, both companies used Sheffield produced crucible steel to make their blades until the 1950s. All the Record irons from this period were laminated (at least based on an ad hoc survey of the users on this forum) but only some of the Stanleys.

The laminated Records are easy to spot (square shoulders rather than curved) and there are plenty of them still around in serviceable condition. Although there is some anecdotal evidence that the blade quality deteriorated in the 1970s but so far as I know no one has explained what might have changed to make this so.

 

[Jacob]

More anecdotal info:
the laminated Japanese Smoothcut which I have is very noticeably laminated; as I sharpen and dip for a rounded bevel the soft iron on the back drags and you can really feel the difference. But the hard face perhaps produces a too brittle edge.
Laminated Stanleys or Records aren't so obviously different from non laminated - which maybe is why they stopped bothering i.e. just a slightly redundant tradition.

 

[nabs]

yes, I think there must have been an element of "we've always done it this way" behind it, although I suspect the reason they finally stopped is that the handful of remaining crucible steel furnaces closed in the 1950s, so they were forced to use modern production technologies instead.

 

[nabs]

... and now I think about it, I do recall reading a plausible theory about the quality of more recent cutters from Mathew @ workshopheaven.

His suggestion was that the steel quality did not change (presumably by the 1970s steel was being made cheaply and consistently to any 'recipe' specified) but the heat-treatment techniques did.

IIRC the idea was that cheaper ways of batch heat-treatment were found which, although they reduced costs, did not produce consistent results.

 

[patrickjchase]

yes, I think there must have been an element of "we've always done it this way" behind it, although I suspect the reason they finally stopped is that the handful of remaining crucible steel furnaces closed in the 1950s, so they were forced to use modern production technologies instead.

The decline of crucible furnaces and cast steels came about when it did because that's exactly when electric arc furnaces became capable of producing a superior product at competitive cost. The notion that the steels have regressed as a consequence is insane. While some may not prefer modern *alloys*, the fact that modern processing can deliver a stellar HCS when the mill deigns to do so is amply demonstrated by Hitachi's "White" series steels.

 

[patrickjchase]

... and now I think about it, I do recall reading a plausible theory about the quality of more recent cutters from Mathew @ workshopheaven.

His suggestion was that the steel quality did not change (presumably by the 1970s steel was being made cheaply and consistently to any 'recipe' specified) but the heat-treatment techniques did.

IIRC the idea was that cheaper ways of batch heat-treatment were found which, although they reduced costs, did not produce consistent results.

Are you/Mathew making this claim about modern heat-treatment in general, or only the dreck that Stanley produced in the 70s?

If the former I can buy that. Something certainly went drastically wrong in Stanley's irons, and as you say the steel itself seems an unlikely candidate because by that point the mills were turning out consistently good product at low cost. Cost-cutting and poor process control in HT as a consequence would be utterly unsurprising.

If it's intended as a general statement, then that flies in the face of basically any objective measure. Modern HT processes are very uniform and tightly controlled.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I'm going to cast my vote for the party preferring slightly thicker plane irons, based on my experience.

I think it's down to making the whole system a bit more rigid. For heavy stock removal with little regard for fit or finish, I don't think it matters much, but for more precise work dimensioning stock and imparting a finish, rigidity counts. That's solid workpiece support, rigid plane bodies, and rigidity in the iron and cap-iron assembly.

Some weeks ago, we had one of our regular arguments about something trivial, during which Custard (of this parish) mentioned an experiment carried out by some fine cabinetmaking courses, testing the flexibility of Bailey-style planes. Slightly intrigued, I checked for myself, and was quite surprised at how much Bailey plane bodies flex under moderate loads. I also checked a woody jack (same length as the 5 1/2 Record I checked) and it was a lot stiffer. I don't own an infill panel plane, but I'll bet a pound to a pinch of shale that it's stiffer than a Bailey. (The usual suspects told me this was of no account, but without checking for themselves, or presenting any evidence as to why it didn't matter.) I'd link to the thread, but a) I can't remember which one it was, and b) I can't be bothered to hunt through reams of boring trivia to find it. If you don't believe me (and Custard) try the experiment for yourself.

There's a penalty for a more rigid plane, and that's generally more weight of material used in it's construction. Sometimes, that can be an acceptable trade-off for the higher rigidity. Wooden bodied planes offer higher rigidity with a bit less weight, but their soles and mouths wear quicker. Yer pays yer money, and yer takes yer choice...

Likewise, stiffening up the blade and cap-iron assembly with either a thicker blade, a better cap-iron or both, makes for a better plane when accuracy and finish matter. We've had long arguments in the past about why two-piece cap-irons and the new heavy one-piece designs stiffen things up, so I won't repeat. All I will say is that I've tried it, and it works for me.

I think the Bailey design of plane is a good one for 95% of woodworking, and it undoubtedly works plenty well enough for most people most of the time. However, it can be made a bit better without much weight penalty by stiffening up the blade assembly, which definitely helps on harder woods, end grain and similar more challenging jobs. The difference isn't huge, but it's noticable. That's what I've found, anyway.

Righty-ho. That should give the 'experts' plenty to get their teeth into! No doubt I'm wrong, ignorant, inexperienced, and a complete fool.

You know what? I don't care.

 

[custard]

I'm fairly happy using thin Record/Stanley irons most of the time, the older laminated irons seem to have a small advantage over the later non-laminated irons, but they're all pretty good for long grain planing in solid timber.

Here's a modern non laminated Record iron planing Indian Rosewood,

Here's the same plane but with an older laminated Record iron,

Here's a Lie Nielsen plane with a thicker A2 iron working the same piece of Rosewood,

And here's a Holtey infill smoother doing the same job,

Here's the thing, I can't honestly detect any difference between these in terms of the shaving or the quality of the planed surface. They're all fully acceptable.

However, for large end grain planing jobs I prefer to use one of the modern steels like A2 or the Veritas PMV-II. It's not that a bog standard Record iron can't get the job done, it certainly can (you only have to look at the amazing work Alan Peters achieved with a bailey style plane and standard irons to see the proof of that), but on end grain I'd be re-honing a bit more frequently than I like.

 

[Jacob]

......
Here's the thing, I can't honestly detect any difference between these in terms of the shaving or the quality of the planed surface. They're all fully acceptable.

Yep, me too. With not quite the same exotic plane/blade selection!

However, for large end grain planing jobs I prefer to use one of the modern steels like A2 or the Veritas PMV-II. It's not that a bog standard Record iron can't get the job done, it certainly can (you only have to look at the amazing work Alan Peters achieved with a bailey style plane and standard irons to see the proof of that), but on end grain I'd be re-honing a bit more frequently than I like.

Yes to needing a very sharp blade for end grain. But thats all you need really; low angle, different steel aren't going to make much difference. Frequent sharpening much easier freehand on oil stone.
In fact sharpening is the elephant in the room I'm afraid! :lol:

 

[nabs]

Are you/Mathew making this claim about modern heat-treatment in general, or only the dreck that Stanley produced in the 70s?

.

I don’t remember the context I’m afraid, but his point was the same as yours - a tool maker can produce poor tools from good steel by skimping on the heat treatment

 

[Jacob]

Is there a problem making thin blades from exotic steels PMT 111, Co2, RB211 etc?
If not then why not make them thin and have the benefit of ease of sharpening?
If poor heat treatment was the prob with later thin blades then surely improved heat treatment would be the answer, not thicker blades.
It seems that the Bailey design hit the nail right on the head with thin blades working just as well as thick ones but easier to sharpen/adjust/remove/replace etc. But a whole lot of steam-punk tool enthusiasts have been trying to turn the clock back ever since.

 

[custard]

In terms of end grain planing here's an illustration. This is Bubinga end grain, it's over 700mm long and a bit over 50mm thick.

I planed this piece with a selection of planes.

A Lie Nielsen plane with the thick A2 iron, a Record plane with a standard iron (I tried both laminated and non laminated Record irons), a Record plane with a replacement thin Veritas iron in PMV-II steel (the Veritas iron is about 1.5mm thick compared with the Record iron at about 1.2mm, in this particular plane this iron drops straight in with no filing required), and a Veritas Bevel Up Jack Plane with a low angle PMV-II iron.

All the plane/iron combinations got the job done. However the standard Record irons were struggling and needed honing to finish just one end of this board. The laminated Record irons were better than the later non laminated, the difference wasn't transformational, but it was still much more noticeable than when planing long grain.

The A2 and PMV-II irons were capable of planing both ends of the board on a single honing. The Veritas Bevel Up plane with the low angle iron wasn't noticeably easier to work than a regular Bevel Down plane.

When planing long grain I find it extremely difficult to compare how long one iron lasts compared to another. You can always take one more stroke before honing, and the difference in effort and surface quality between any one stroke and the next are pretty negligible. But on end grain planing the difference is much more marked. You reach a point where, even with wafer thin shavings, you simply can't bully the plane through the cut any longer, and you just come to a juddering halt. Therefore, it's much easier to detect plane iron differences when working end grain.

Incidentally, staying with the comparison between standard Record irons and the replacement thin Veritas PMV-II irons. Here's the two different irons working a sweet planing piece of long grain Swiss Pear.

I can't detect any difference between them in terms of workpiece surface quality or in the shavings,

I've been using Veritas PMV-II irons for a couple of years in a block plane and in a Bevel Up jack. I'm happy enough with it although one thing I've noticed is that the wire edge is a bit different to the wire edges you get from traditional carbon steel or even on A2 steel. With PMV-II the wire edge feels less distinct and almost crumbly (or at least that's the case on my diamond stones), it's not a problem as such, but you need to pay more attention when feeling for the wire edge and consequently it's easy to hone more than is required. Personally I'd recommend that if you're only just starting out woodworking and don't have much sharpening experience then you might be better of learning on traditional carbon steel irons where the wire edge is as plan as pikestaff!

 

[NickN]

Very interesting findings there.

I find sharpening my one plane with a thick blade is definitely more of a pest, so I reckon I'll give one of those thinner Veritas blades a go, as it does seem that the composition and quality of the blade is far more relevant to success than how thick it is. Plus, not messing about with mouths is time better spent on other things.

When you say "1.5mm" did you mean 2.5mm? I can't seem to find any Veritas blades less than 0.1 inch or 2.5mm thick.

 

[custard]

The Veritas replacement irons are about 1.5mm thick, so about 0.3mm thicker than a normal Stanley or Record iron. They drop straight in to most of the Record planes that I have, but that's no guarantee they'll drop into all bailey style planes out there. Axminster sell them,

https://www.axminster.co.uk/veritas-pm- ... s-ax937586

They're nicely manufactured, but unless you do a lot of end grain planing or work with really abrasive timbers, I'm not sure you'll notice all that much of a real world difference.

Another thought, by the time you've paid for a premium replacement iron maybe you'd have been better off buying one of these?

https://woodworkersworkshop.co.uk/produ ... k-plane-v3

Even though vintage Stanley and Record planes are great user planes they simply don't have the smoothness in operation of something like a Lie Nielsen, I've never used a Woodriver or a Quangsheng, but if they deliver that same smooth operation then they'd be worth investigating.

Good luck!

 

[fezman]

Well back to my original problem. When i took the vernier to the blades there was 1.2mm difference in thickness.
So taking the advice offered here, i removed ~1mm from the mouth. This worked out fine, the thicker blade dropped in nicely and worked great. Can i tell the difference between a new axminster blade and the original stanley blade. Yes i think i can. When taking a fine shaving, there isn't a great deal in it. When taking a thicker shaving the axminster feels much better.

Now it may just be me, but that gives me enough of an improvement to justify £7 for a blade and 10 minutes with a file. It also convinced me to strip, clean, lubricate and generally tart up an old no4.

Thanks to all for the advice on the widening of the mouth. Much appreciated and helped me with the confidence to give it a go.