Veritas PMV-II Plane Blades

[G S Haydon]

Charles, of corse I do know that . I just wanted to try a 220 grit edge from my India. All I can say is a 220 India is not a useable edge.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

PMVII does not get sharper than a quality piece of O1 tool steel. This may be the new marketing thrust, but it's bunk. And the longevity claims in multiples (two to three times as long) arch one's eyebrows as well. I can personally attest that this is not the case with the chisels. Edges last a little longer, yep they do. Sharper initially? No. I think a skilled cabinetmaker would be willing to take a PMVII chisel through one more dovetailed corner than he or she might an O1 chisel. .......

Just for the record, that is utter and total misinformation. Charles, you must really have an issue to post such cr@p. There are a number of assessments out, including a few by myself (under scientific rules) and the one referred to at the start of this thread. What testing have you done with a scientific focus (tests with replicatable methodology). Your one-time use of one chisel no doubt was so biased you only saw what you wanted to see.

Regards from Perth

Derek

'Under scientific rules...,' oh brother please. You must think the entire woodworking world other than you and the people who reflexively agree with you (the vast majority of whom are shopaholics or those who supply them) are total idiots.

The sad and unfortunate thing is the the tools are fine. They don't really need the hype. They're good tools. Lee Valley doesn't sell junk. But for some reason you think it's your job to overhype, oversell, and overexaggerate the performance of every new tool they put to market. They're always, in essence, blowing some other tool brand out of the water. Kaboom. Always. And almost always brands considered to be their 'competition.' Ye Olde foil du jour. It's ridiculous, and sad, and counterproductive in my opinion.

I'd be happy to own a set of PMVII chisels. They work fine. They are not Earth shatteringly fine, but they're fine. They cannot or could not be blamed for bad work. They have edges that outlasted the chisel I used for comparison, not by magnitudes but by a not necessarily insignificant amount depending on one's outlook. I do stand by the fact that they DO NOT get sharper. That's a bridge if not two or three too far. They just don't. If that was one of the production goals then it has not been achieved.

Peel yourself off the ceiling and come back down to the ground.

Charles, this is my final post in this thread. I have answered all the issues that you raised, and others wanted to know.

The others here do not know you like I do. You and I have gone around and around for many years. Your "thing" is to drag out a thread with innuendo and misinformation. You are very good at this and others answer to put the record straight. The fact is that the only reason you began posting on this woodworking forum is that you have been banned from every other forum you frequented: Woodnet, WoodCentral, Sawmill Creek - banned for life for constant badgering, personal attacks, and misinformation.

See you on another thread, no doubt.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Jacob]

Charles, of corse I do know that . I just wanted to try a 220 grit edge from my India. All I can say is a 220 India is not a useable edge.

OK perhaps substitute "medium fine" for 250. I'm a bit vague about grit sizes unless it's printed on the box. A double sided coarse/medium stone was a common beginners spec - any finer being wasted on a novice.

 

[G S Haydon]

Agreed Jacob, I had to search about the grit on a "coarse" India. I think a medium would do ok for getting used to things.

 

[Trafalgar]

Charles, this is my final post in this thread. I have answered all the issues that you raised, and others wanted to know.

Regards from Perth

Derek

You really haven't answered a couple of questions -- back when we were discussing thin irons and chatter on Stanley planes you never informed us why you own Stanleys at all, and indeed spent time fairly recently restoring one (beautifully I must say) if my memory serves from posts either on this forum or another. I think maybe the restoration was even done while your chair project was in limbo, certainly tool reviews and such were. I was wondering why in the world you took the time and what your plans were for the plane.

I also asked if you had a theory about why other people who posted their experience with Stanleys and chatter apparently still own them and still currently use them for important work while at the same time calling them useless by comparison to their other tools.

I was also curious about whether you had any comments about Jeff Gorman's entry about chatter on his website which I quoted in a post above.

I also assume that my math was correct in the post where I addressed your post about the Clifton iron that required a honing every fifteen minutes per your experimentation.

 

[gasman]

So, after reading all that jousting between our sharpening 'experts' I thought I would post some evidence of PMV-II for the OP's original question.
I am making 2 large display cabinets in sycamore at the moment. They are each 1000 x 400 x 1600
I finished the sides and doors over the weekend - and routed out 5mm rebates for the glass windows with a 18mm rebate cutter. Then I had to square the corners, and used my 2 Veritas PMV-II butt chisels for the first time 'in anger'. They come at 25 degrees and I have a 27 degree micro-bevel on them both.
In total there were 4 doors and 4 sides, 8 windows in each and 4 corners to each window - a total of 256 'corners' to chisel out and square. The frames are constructed with 5mm dominos so I was chopping through sycamore and beech dominos. It took me 2 hours or so, the chisels were sharpened before starting and then 2 hours later, with no sharpening at the end they looked like this:

I was so impressed - apart from one tiny blemish on the edge of the 2" chisel that you can see they were still sharp enough to remove hair - albeit by sawing rather than cutting!
Here are the 4 doors finished

They get my vote anyway
Cheers
Mark

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I suspect this is the sort of answer the OP was interested in and will probably thank you for it.

 

[jimi43]

I suspect this is the sort of answer the OP was interested in and will probably thank you for it.

If indeed the OP is actually around as the thread is well over a year old and was resurrected recently to provide our very own "Speaker's Corner"....which was nice! :mrgreen:

I think that bun fights like this (complete with aggression) are very interesting as they show that there are far too many variables in the mix in choosing tools, not all of which relate to the performance of steel.

Firstly, we have the user..."professional" in the true sense of the word...craftsman...DIYer...toolmaker (I wanted that bit added! :mrgreen: ), tinkerer, and tin opener! :wink:

You then need to add disposable income into the mix...or indeed perceived value if you want to consider whether someone thinks it's "worth" buying.

Only professionals would have the need and see the full value of a tool which, once sharpened, stays sharp. Only to them does that quality matter.

Tool lovers and fondlers...(come on..you know who you are!!)...may also buy expensive steel for the academic interest...and from what I've seen of your operation Derek...I think you, like me, appreciate fine tools just for what they are.

Personally...out of all my chisels and most of my irons...those by WARD and WARD AND PAYNE are the ones I love the most and pick up first...and out of those..this little baby is one I will never ever part with...

It was cutting wood when ALL of us were not even tiny acorns and will continue to cut wood when we are all burnt up firewood...

It has a shattered handle...

...which I have no intention of repairing...simply because as far as I know...they haven't invented a chisel which has this sort of character and history etched into it's soul...

I've no idea how many Rockwells she has...but I reckon I can shave with her...every time I pick her up and she only needs a little tickle with me Coticule to get her going....

A very low maintenance lady indeed!

Cheers

Jimi

 

[Corneel]

Wow, she's got some legs!

As long as I can't find beautifully forged tools, bolsters and all, laminated steel and with handles full of character and age old history, made from PMV-11 or A2, the chances are slim that any one of these will enter my shop. The craftmanship of my Japanese chisels comes close, but these expensive new ones from America? Meuh.

 

[G S Haydon]

Nicely summed up Jimi and your thoughts are where I am right now. Not quite with the verve of your special one but it's still rather nice.

 

[Racers]

Second one from the left Ward & Payne nice, but the forth from the left is a Marples which is harder than a hard thing on a cold day!

Pete

 

[Trafalgar]

Lovely group of chisels.

I wouldn't mind at touching those up every hour or so of work.

I have some later model but still really nice Marples square sided firmers with Ash handles. I do have Marples mortise chisels with boxwood handles and these are just unbeatable.

 

[iNewbie]

I suspect this is the sort of answer the OP was interested in and will probably thank you for it.

If indeed the OP is actually around as the thread is well over a year old and was resurrected recently to provide our very own "Speaker's Corner"....which was nice! :mrgreen:

I'm around - not as round as the Michelin-man, mind. :mrgreen:


Thanks for the input Gasman. 8)

 

[bugbear]

There is a lot of misunderstanding around - take that recent spat about "camber" - it seemed to me that a few people had no idea how or why it works (i.e. crudely - that a deeper/narrower scoop takes more material away for same effort) so surely it is helpful to talk about these things whether or not you agree with anything in the end.

Another superb strawman! You made a very specific - even mathematical - claim about optimal blade
shapes, which was easily proved to be quite simply wrong; the practice was wrong, even the maths was wrong.
There was no discussion about the mechanism or action of camber in general,
although I did note your attempts to start various discussions, as a distraction from your error - the old "Butler Swerve".

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

There is a lot of misunderstanding around - take that recent spat about "camber" - it seemed to me that a few people had no idea how or why it works (i.e. crudely - that a deeper/narrower scoop takes more material away for same effort) so surely it is helpful to talk about these things whether or not you agree with anything in the end.

Another superb strawman! You made a very specific - even mathematical - claim about optimal blade
shapes, which was easily proved to be quite simply wrong; the practice was wrong, even the maths was wrong.
There was no discussion about the mechanism or action of camber in general,
although I did note your attempts to start various discussions, as a distraction from your error - the old "Butler Swerve".

BugBear

You still haven't got it BB and you are still making it a personal issue. You really do have a sorry chip on your sad little shoulder!

PS and your maths isn't very impressive - you completely failed to understand Ellis and co on handrail theory which is virtually maths free and certainly doesn't include your "narrow" trigonometry (whatever that is) nor the need or ability to add up columns of figures.. Nought out of ten on that one BB. Must try harder!

Camber can be summed up as I said above: a deeper/narrower scoop takes more material away for same effort. That's the principle and in theory a semi circular cut would be the most efficient in terms of material removal. A scrub plane approaches this, but in practice it's not quite that simple - not least because you might use the same plane on different materials and anyway who wants semi circular grooves.
If you actually had a go with a scrub plane you might get the idea BB. Keep working on it you might get there. It's not enough to keep squeaking wrong, wrong :lol: :lol:

As to the general discussion about steel - it seems that nobody can agree. In fact it probably doesn't make much difference which steel you use (within reason) but they will need handling differently. Hard ones take longer to sharpen but keep the edge longer, and vice versa. Same difference - just work with what you've got and stop looking at catalogues!

 

[iNewbie]

How about the alternative of: work with what you've got and stop telling people what you think they should do, eh?

 

[Jacob]

Grow up a bit!
If you don't want to know what people think you should do, you shouldn't ask questions in the first place, eh?

 

[bugbear]

There is a lot of misunderstanding around - take that recent spat about "camber" - it seemed to me that a few people had no idea how or why it works (i.e. crudely - that a deeper/narrower scoop takes more material away for same effort) so surely it is helpful to talk about these things whether or not you agree with anything in the end.

Another superb strawman! You made a very specific - even mathematical - claim about optimal blade
shapes, which was easily proved to be quite simply wrong; the practice was wrong, even the maths was wrong.
There was no discussion about the mechanism or action of camber in general,
although I did note your attempts to start various discussions, as a distraction from your error - the old "Butler Swerve".

BugBear

You still haven't got it BB and you are still making it a personal issue. You really do have a sorry chip on your sad little shoulder!

No. I'm just trying to establush a simple truth.

Camber can be summed up as I said above: a deeper/narrower scoop takes more material away for same effort. That's the principle andin theory a semi circular cut would be the most efficient in terms of material removal. A scrub plane approaches this, but in practice it's not quite that simple - not least because you might use the same plane on different materials and anyway who wants semi circular grooves.

Channeling my inner Paxman, and keeping it simple, clear and impersonal:

We have:

A) The effort required for a cut depends purely on the length of the cut.

We also have

B) The shape of cut that removes most material for a given effort is a semi-circle.

This follows nicely from (A) and was first proved by Archimedes. Very basic,
well established maths.

But we also have

C) Factors other than the length of the cut effect the effort required.

A and C are directly contradictory, and cannot both be true. So;
which is true?

Personally, I believe C to be true, since observation shows that depth of cut certainly affects
the efffort required.

A or C?

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

.....We have:

A) The effort required for a cut depends purely on the length of the cut.

We also have

B) The shape of cut that removes most material for a given effort is a semi-circle.

This follows nicely from (A) and was first proved by Archimedes. Very basic,
well established maths.

Oh you have got it!! Well done!!! Though I doubt it was proved by Archimedes.

But we also have

C) Factors other than the length of the cut effect the effort required.

...

If you bother to read what I wrote I said "in theory" and "it's not quite that simple" etc etc
But it does account for why a scrub plane removes more material faster for a given effort.

Maybe you have misunderstood what I meant by length of cut - I meant the length of the cutting edge. So a flat 1" chisel will require a similar effort to remove a thin flat shaving, as the same chisel bent into a gouge ploughing much more material from a semi circular trough. Not quite that simple - as I keep repeating, but approximately true in principle or theory.
This is why a scrub plane works.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

No. It won't The bent one is cutting a proportion of end grain, the flat one is mostly parting long fibres. It's harder to plane end grain than long grain. The theory would work in cheese or plasticine or something with no grain structure.