Veritas PMV-II Plane Blades

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Charles wrote:

Ali, the plain simple truth is that you can add thick cap irons and thicker irons to a Bailey pattern plane and it really doesn't do much.

Matthew replied:

On white wood you won't notice much if any difference between thin irons and thick, both work fine. Step up to tough natives like pippy oak or mild exotics like bubinga and the difference is like night and day.

Charles countered:

Paul Sellers on plane chatter, worth a read:

veritas-pmv-ii-plane-blades-t70487-105.html

OK, my turn.

Charles, did you actually read that post by Paul Seller .. in full?

First of all note that he is planing English Oak. I am familiar with this, for example, having a bench top made from the stuff. Compared with West Australian woods it is fairly easy to plane, much softer and relatively straight grained. I cannot see how anyone with reasonable experience would find their plane chattering - and that is the point Paul made.

Secondly, this is intended to be a post supporting thin blades, and the reason you have linked to it. I should point out that the original thread is not about thin versus thick blades, but about steel type, namely PMV-11. I have nothing against thin blades - indeed one of my favourite is a Smoothcut, which is the same thickness as a Stanley. Further, I have no problem with standard Stanley blades either. I use them. However they are reserved for benign timber. It is the abrasion resistance on "difficult" timber where the new steels score. On such wood A2 steel outlasts O1 significantly, and PMV-11 outlasts that many times. Why is this so important, you keep asking? Simply because on these woods, when the blade begins to wear, the surface begins to tear out or the surface shows significant deterioration. I have researched the wear of different steels in planing. Have you?

Thirdly, the post by Paul Sellers was interesting. What he revealed was that he does not need a chipbreaker on the Oak he used to avoid tearout - which goes to show that it is benign wood. Kees banged on (as usual) to Paul in that thread that he should have used a chipbreaker up close. Paul replied, "I had thick and thin shavings with the same results regardless of distance. Fact is that 1/32″ to 1/16″ seems ideal to me and that’s after 48 years in daily hand planing my work.". (I am not railing against the chipbreaker - I use it to good effect - just that Paul considered that it was unnecessary for the wood he works).

Now what I find revealing is that Paul goes on to write: "My experience is the frog is too far forward or too far back. If it’s too forward there is minute area for flex, if it’s to far back the iron is fulcrumed (not a word) higher up and also allows a minute flex under contention and so iterent flex allowed."

What this actually indicates is that a thin blade does flex - if the frog is too far forward or if the frog is too far back it flexes! Perhaps Paul should have listened to Matthew ...

I was talking with a student at a woodworking school who had an old Stanley and a new Quangsheng. The Stanley was suffering from flutter so I suggested that he swap the cap irons around. The look on his face when he tried them was a picture!

Still, chatter on benign wood is a product of beginner planing. The issue of durability does not come up here. You still need to show that Stanley steel will keep up with PMV-11 on difficult woods.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

I did read it and I think it's an interesting read. I'm not trying to cover up information that does not support my case. I posted an earlier Sellers link and found this one is well. I felt that honesty dictated that I post the second Sellers link.

Chatter can happen, perhaps for the reasons Sellers states, perhaps not. Swirly grain right at the end of the board and too little downward pressure, maybe starting the plane dead straight on the board running against swirly grain where a skewing motion might work best. Maybe the lever cap screw needs an eighth inch turn to the right. I also believe that an uneven/out-of-square grind or irregular curve on the end of the iron or the slightest of humps can cause some problems planing -- chatter and other issues. An accurately ground and honed iron has to be set dead square in the mouth. Subsequent changes in angles are done by skewing the plane. A plane with the lateral adjustment lever slammed to one side or the other to compensate for some other issue will not plane properly or predictably.

When some Bailey pattern planes (Stanleys/Records of a more recent manufacture date) it is absolutely possible to move the frog back so far that the iron is resting on the mouth and not actually the leading edge of the frog. This of course is an incorrect set up. There is some basic level of knowledge required to set up and use any plane. That they are not totally and completely idiot proof isn't a flaw. Sellers did try several plane settings well outside the norm just to see what happened and to see if he could pin down cause. Sounds reasonable to me. Frogs are adjustable by design. A setting at the extremes of travel, too far forward or to far back, is usually not correct. Unfortunately in later years Stanleys, Records, et al. were ground with mouths too wide. This might tempt one to move the frog too far forward in an attempt to close the mouth.

There are several adjustments possible on a Bailey pattern plane and they all affect, quite markedly, how the plane will perform. Let's see: lever cap tightness, cap iron shaping, cap iron positioning, position of frog, tightness of frog screws, lateral adjustment, iron projection. Then there's the honing and proper shaping of the iron. A misshapen cutting edge is as bad as a blunt cutter. Any curve should be a regular radius and the amount of blade projection has to make sense vis-a-vis the shaping. Capirons should be shaped to fit the curve of the iron. The capiron distance from the cutting edge should be uniform all the way across the cutter. This provides the support the cutter needs all the way across the edge and makes the capiron effective at all points on the cutter's edge which is crucial.

When one does experience chatter it is almost always at the beginning of a plane pass and the plane rarely chatters all the way down the board. This is important, and I believe it's telling. For me, I just bear down harder a skew/slew the plane a little more at the start of the remaining passes on the board. Problem fixed. I absolutely do not see it as an equipment issue or some inherent design flaw. I bet I could make a Holtey chatter at the start of a pass on less than amenable stock. I don't expect anybody would believe that this would be cause to start swapping out parts on it.

I like how Graham Blackburn puts it:

The act of planing is more than pushing a sharp plane across the surface of a piece of wood. If this is all you do, the plane is liable to chatter, stutter, dig in, jam, and otherwise create frustration. You need to be gentle but firm. Like learning to ride a bike, your first stroke must be taken carefully, politely, but with a definite purpose. Push down on the pedals with confidence, not using blind strength, but with a firm confidence, such as you might use to lift an infant—gently, but securely, with no hesitation and yet with enough attention so that if the infant begins to panic your arms remain strong and enfolding but not imprisioning.

Of course, it can be difficult to do all this the first time. You don’t know how it will feel. You are unaccustomed to the resistance that a particular plane on a particular piece of wood will offer. The correct stance will help. Brace and balance yourself so that you will still be secure at the end of the proposed stroke. Breathe in and then as you exhale begin the stroke, firmly and with confidence and determination yet always alive to the possibility of resistance. Lift the plane at the end of the stroke before you lose your balance. (With experience you will learn how to move forward as you plane. For now take short, but complete passes.)

And if a fine shaving eludes you, check again that the iron is sharp, the capiron is fitted and adjusted well, the mouth is properly adjusted, and that the iron is set to the right depth and set straight in the throat—each of which adjustments is a subject in itself!


I appreciate Matthew's experience. I don't know if when fitting the new, thicker cap iron that the lever cap screw was adjusted or not. If not, the lever cap itself would have snapped down a good bit tighter over the thicker cap iron. The screw might have been backed off but it still snapped down tighter than before. It's quite possible that this was the reason for the subsequent success and had nothing to do with the new cap iron. And sometimes the cap can be too tight. The point is to gather a reasonable kit of tools around oneself and learn how they work and how to use them.

 

[Jacob]

......
When some Bailey pattern planes (Stanleys/Records of a more recent manufacture date) it is absolutely possible to move the frog back so far that the iron is resting on the mouth and not actually the leading edge of the frog. This of course is an incorrect set up. .....

Hmm, have looked into this and can't agree. IMHO the frog and back of mouth should be dead in line so that the blade sits tight to the frog and partly on the back of the mouth too. This gives maximum support where it is needed - close to the edge.

 

[Trafalgar]

......
When some Bailey pattern planes (Stanleys/Records of a more recent manufacture date) it is absolutely possible to move the frog back so far that the iron is resting on the mouth and not actually the leading edge of the frog. This of course is an incorrect set up. .....

Hmm, have looked into this and can't agree. IMHO the frog and back of mouth should be dead in line so that the blade sits tight to the frog and partly on the back of the mouth too. This gives maximum support where it is needed - close to the edge.

Oh I agree and perhaps I wasn't clear. There is a frog setting back from the ideal position that you describe that will induce chatter. This is one of the extreme settings that Sellers found that caused chatter during his little experiment.

 

[woodbrains]

......
When some Bailey pattern planes (Stanleys/Records of a more recent manufacture date) it is absolutely possible to move the frog back so far that the iron is resting on the mouth and not actually the leading edge of the frog. This of course is an incorrect set up. .....

Hmm, have looked into this and can't agree. IMHO the frog and back of mouth should be dead in line so that the blade sits tight to the frog and partly on the back of the mouth too. This gives maximum support where it is needed - close to the edge.

Hello,

Surely he means the frog can be set so far back, the iron will only contact the sole of the plane at the mouth, and be lifted off the frog. This is possible and obviously undesirable. Using a thick iron frees us from the tool dictating the mouth opening by having to stick to lining the frog up with the mouth area. Modern Sranleys would end up with gaping wide mouths in this instance, the machining is so arbitrary.

Mike.

 

[Trafalgar]

......
When some Bailey pattern planes (Stanleys/Records of a more recent manufacture date) it is absolutely possible to move the frog back so far that the iron is resting on the mouth and not actually the leading edge of the frog. This of course is an incorrect set up. .....

Hmm, have looked into this and can't agree. IMHO the frog and back of mouth should be dead in line so that the blade sits tight to the frog and partly on the back of the mouth too. This gives maximum support where it is needed - close to the edge.

Hello,

Surely he means the frog can be set so far back, the iron will only contact the sole of the plane at the mouth, and be lifted off the frog. This is possible and obviously undesirable. Using a thick iron frees us from the tool dictating the mouth opening by having to stick to lining the frog up with the mouth area. Modern Sranleys would end up with gaping wide mouths in this instance, the machining is so arbitrary.

Mike.

Yes, exactly. He was just establishing the boundaries of the settings to see what would happen. Predictably, nothing good happened at the extremes.

 

[Corneel]

Thirdly, the post by Paul Sellers was interesting. What he revealed was that he does not need a chipbreaker on the Oak he used to avoid tearout - which goes to show that it is benign wood. Kees banged on (as usual) to Paul in that thread that he should have used a chipbreaker up close. [...]

It was a bit hard to comprehend what he wrote about, especially while I was watching the pictures on a cell phone. As far as I understand him, he got that surface in the last picture where you can see some light tearout when zooming into the picture, while plaining against the grain with the capiron set at 3/16". Well, it is no secret that you can cure that behaviour by setting the capiron a lot closer to the edge OR using a higher cutting angle in a bevel up plane. So that was what I wrote to him (banging on....), because Paul doesn't seem to know these techniques, or he doesn't ever (have to) use them.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Having a plane iron sharpened to 240grit, a cap iron se to 3/16" and a wide open mouth, what exactly is being shown here? Even benign wood can be made to tear out if your tools are set up any old way? It is obvious that Sellers does not work with tools like these, when he does his normal work. Why is he trying to tell us different? It is clear he is blogging and writing articles for self promotion, which is fair enough. Maybe writing anti-articles is his way of getting lots of hits to keep his website high in the listings. Fiendish!

Mike.

 

[Corneel]

Well, he is not always easy to understand, but what I think he means in this article: http://paulsellers.com/2012/06/plane-chatter-myths-busted-by-facts/, is that you can get away with a really low tech aproach, and have to try hard to get real problems. That's his main philosophy. I don't think he used 250 grit in this article, that was another article, which was written to remind us that super high grits ain't always neccessary. In that article he was plaining pine and the only adverse effect was that he had to push harder. There is a lot of overkill in the current woodworking market, and that is what he is rallying against.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

......
When some Bailey pattern planes (Stanleys/Records of a more recent manufacture date) it is absolutely possible to move the frog back so far that the iron is resting on the mouth and not actually the leading edge of the frog. This of course is an incorrect set up. .....

Hmm, have looked into this and can't agree. IMHO the frog and back of mouth should be dead in line so that the blade sits tight to the frog and partly on the back of the mouth too. This gives maximum support where it is needed - close to the edge.

So you can't agree that it's incorrect to have the frog too far back... but IYHO the frog and the mouth should be in line.
Jacob, you are so hell bent on disagreeing with people you are tying yourself up in knots.

 

[Jacob]

......
When some Bailey pattern planes (Stanleys/Records of a more recent manufacture date) it is absolutely possible to move the frog back so far that the iron is resting on the mouth and not actually the leading edge of the frog. This of course is an incorrect set up. .....

Hmm, have looked into this and can't agree. IMHO the frog and back of mouth should be dead in line so that the blade sits tight to the frog and partly on the back of the mouth too. This gives maximum support where it is needed - close to the edge.

So you can't agree that it's incorrect to have the frog too far back... but IYHO the frog and the mouth should be in line.
Jacob, you are so hell bent on disagreeing with people you are tying yourself up in knots.

erewego. :roll:
I think we all agree on this (except you of course). I misread Charles post in the first place - I thought he meant the blade should rest on the frog only, but he meant also the back of the mouth i.e. in line with the face of the frog. It's pretty clear if you bother to read the posts instead of just looking for something to whinge about.
If you find these sorts of chats disturbing have you thought of finding another forum or are you just going to continue sniping pointlessly?
These miserable little personal attacks p|ss everybody off. Nobody wants them. I think you should stop doing it.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

rearrange the following words - black kettle pot calling the the.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Jacob wrote:

I misread Charles post in the first place ..

Charles has an annoying habit of changing his posts, sometimes writing something completely different. Correcting spelling is one thing (I did that above), but altering the post after other have responded to it is devious. You altered your post above 6 times (at the last count), Charles. Very devious - it is confusing Jacob no end.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[woodbrains]

Well, he is not always easy to understand, but what I think he means in this article: http://paulsellers.com/2012/06/plane-chatter-myths-busted-by-facts/, is that you can get away with a really low tech aproach, and have to try hard to get real problems. That's his main philosophy. I don't think he used 250 grit in this article, that was another article, which was written to remind us that super high grits ain't always neccessary. In that article he was plaining pine and the only adverse effect was that he had to push harder. There is a lot of overkill in the current woodworking market, and that is what he is rallying against.

Hello,

It is easy to set up a plane for best practice and always leave it so. Why doesn't he simply show that, then things are ready to go, no matter what we encounter. There is more faffing only half doing something and having to spend longer correcting a poor outcome, or re doing the sharpening and set up, to get the better result we failed to get because the plane should have been set up better in the first place. It seems there is a lot of conjecture about how fussy woodwork can be, but my planes do not take any longer to sharpen, set the cap iron or use than doing any of these 'simple' methods which still involve taking out blades, sharpening them, and re installing them, EXACTY the same procedure. It mystifies me why people invent things to bitch about. I couldn't make my tools simpler to maintain and use, yet I am constantly being told this, that and the other isn't necessary. Someone tell me how sharpening to a razor edge with only 2 stones can be made simpler and less fussy. But I know I won't get tearout on almost anything I work on.

Mike.

 

[iNewbie]

erewego. :roll:
I think we all agree on this (except you of course). I misread Charles post in the first place - I thought he meant the blade should rest on the frog only, but he meant also the back of the mouth i.e. in line with the face of the frog. It's pretty clear if you bother to read the posts instead of just looking for something to whinge about.
If you find these sorts of chats disturbing have you thought of finding another forum or are you just going to continue sniping pointlessly?
These miserable little personal attacks p|ss everybody off. Nobody wants them. I think you should stop doing it.

Nobody wants the pointless ' this is what you should do/own' regarding sharpening or tool ownership nonsense you continually spout. Doesn't stop you though, eh?

You prattle on like a sellers sack-licking disciple while slaughtering any other person you deem follows some other (in you mind) Guru. Its all so funny, mind...

 

[Harbo]

I have no problems setting up my LV BU planes or my Holtey and have never experienced any chatter at all with them - no matter what timber I've used.
The only plane I've "chattered" is my Stanley No. 4 of 1960's vintage.

I must be doing something wrong?

Rod

 

[Trafalgar]

Yes, you likely are.

 

[Trafalgar]

Jacob wrote:

I misread Charles post in the first place ..

Charles has an annoying habit of changing his posts, sometimes writing something completely different. Correcting spelling is one thing (I did that above), but altering the post after other have responded to it is devious. You altered your post above 6 times (at the last count), Charles. Very devious - it is confusing Jacob no end.

Regards from Perth

Derek

This is getting kind of creepy. This 'devious' stuff.

On another note, do you have a theory about why people who have had such sorry luck with Baileys still own them and still apparently use them? Why did you just fairly recently complete the refurbishment of one, to stuff it in a drawer to go unused since it's so sub-par, to keep as a whipping-boy or foil for some review down the road?

Makes no sense to me at all.

Oh look, I've edited this seven times.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Question - how do you set up a Bailey-style plane with a standard iron and standard cap-iron so that it will not chatter under any circumstances on any timber?

 

[Trafalgar]

Which plane? No. 4?

Part of the success will be up to the user and that may be and probably is the problem:

I like how Graham Blackburn puts it:

The act of planing is more than pushing a sharp plane across the surface of a piece of wood. If this is all you do, the plane is liable to chatter, stutter, dig in, jam, and otherwise create frustration. You need to be gentle but firm. Like learning to ride a bike, your first stroke must be taken carefully, politely, but with a definite purpose. Push down on the pedals with confidence, not using blind strength, but with a firm confidence, such as you might use to lift an infant—gently, but securely, with no hesitation and yet with enough attention so that if the infant begins to panic your arms remain strong and enfolding but not imprisioning.

Of course, it can be difficult to do all this the first time. You don’t know how it will feel. You are unaccustomed to the resistance that a particular plane on a particular piece of wood will offer. The correct stance will help. Brace and balance yourself so that you will still be secure at the end of the proposed stroke. Breathe in and then as you exhale begin the stroke, firmly and with confidence and determination yet always alive to the possibility of resistance. Lift the plane at the end of the stroke before you lose your balance. (With experience you will learn how to move forward as you plane. For now take short, but complete passes.)

And if a fine shaving eludes you, check again that the iron is sharp, the capiron is fitted and adjusted well, the mouth is properly adjusted, and that the iron is set to the right depth and set straight in the throat—each of which adjustments is a subject in itself!


I think a shaped and fitted capiron and the right amount of pressure with the lever cap, along with the aforementioned skill in the hand, gets you 99% of the way there. I'd choose a vintage plane from no later than the war and set the frog even with the back of the mouth of the plane, maybe slightly forward if you need a tighter mouth. About a 64th of an inch of "crown" to the iron is about right for a smoother but it MUST be a smooth curve from side to side of the iron. No dips or humps. SHAPE THE CAPIRON TO FIT THE CURVE and set it close to the cutting edge (closer than you would be able to measure with a shop rule). If the distance from the capiron to the cutting edge varies at all, go back and complete the capiron shaping. Set up accordingly the plane should not chatter. If it does you probably need to put more downward pressure on the nose of the plane, especially a No. 4. Don't be reluctant to change lever cap pressure by adjusting the screw. A very small amount of turn equals a pretty big change. It's an adjustment worth experimenting with on your particular plane. Mine tend to be pretty tight, so I get the iron centered and the projection about where I want it. Depth adjustments are a little tough and you only want to have to move the lateral adjustment a smidgen, if at all.