Veritas PMV-II Plane Blades

[Cheshirechappie]

The prices in the post above were from memory - here are the accurate ones.

Price for one iron, 2" Bailey type, including VAT but without any bulk discounts or special offers. Sources, as above, APTC and Workshop Heaven. Thicknesses are approx - some are 1/8" (3.2mm).

Stanley 2mm £11-94
Quangsheng T10 3mm £19-00
Ray Iles O1 3mm £25-20
Lie-Nielsen A2 3mm £36-44
Ray Iles D2 3mm £37-20
Veritas A2 & O1 3mm £43-94
Clifton O1 3mm £46-60
Japanese Laminated 2mm £55-44
Veritas PMV-11 3mm £58-94

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Hi CC

I have compared these blades in two assessments recently, the first bevel up vs bevel down, and the second bevel down only. Both involved shooting end grain, which tested the edges severely for abrasion resistance.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... Plane.html

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... lades.html

The results could be summarised as follows:

1. When shooting, a low cutting angle (37 degrees) in a BU plane outlasts and performs better than a higher cutting angle (45 degrees) in a BD plane.

2. Bevel down planes clearly benefit from a 30 degree bevel angle. It is significantly superior to a 25 degree bevel angle.

3. The Clifton HCS (W1?) blade proved to be the worst performer of all, even with the added insurance of a higher (30 degree) bevel angle.

4. The LV A2 blade in BU mode far exceeded the LN A2 blade in BD mode, even when the LV was honed at 25 degrees and the LN at 30 degrees.

5. Second best blade was the Smoothcut, a Japanese laminated blade. Third best was the LN A2 (note that a LV A2 was not used in BD mode).

6. Even the PMV-11 blade at 25 degrees in a BD plane is ordinary. Hone it at 30 degrees and it produces a performance that outclasses everything else.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Hi Derek!

We've now got an objective comparison on performance and an objective comparison on price, so all we need is an objective comparison on sharpenability and we'll have totally confused everyone!

In the end, a lot comes down to either a) I've got it so I'll use it, or b) personal preference.

I like my Cliffie iron (they're O1 steel by the way - water-hardening grades seem to be just about unobtainable from steelmakers or stockholders in the UK), so despite it's dismal performance in your trials, I'm sticking with it - at least until I wear it out!

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Hi CC

O1 steel is a little easier to hone than the others, but not so much that this is a significant issue. It is relevant that my sharpening method is factored into this to understand why I say that the different steels are similar to hone. I hollow grind all blades on a Tormek, and then freehand on the hollow. The Tormek can hollow grind safely to the leading edge of the blade, and this reduces the amount of steel to hone to a minimum. As a result, all blades require no more than a few strokes on a waterstone. The waterstones are Shapton Pro 1000, Sigma 6000 and 13000.

The PMV-11 steel is about the same effort to hone as A2, and does not require a special honing medium. None of the steels require a special sharpening medium (unlike PM steels, such as M4), if you hollow grind. A2 is definitely more work than O1 if honing the same thickness and if you are honing full bevel faces.

Keep in mind that there are no thin A2 blades that I know of, and all comparisons that are done with Stanley HCS are not apples vs apples. That is not a good reason to use O1 steel, however, since they last considerably less time than A2 (e.g. Clifton vs LN).

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

Has anybody extrapolated or estimated how many honings in a real work-day might be saved by any of these 'superior' steels that won the competition? A couple or three? Ten minutes, tops. Does it matter? Nobody shoots end grain for eight hours straight. If you can mark a square line and saw to it, what maybe three swipes and you're done? Why are you guys showing so much end grain that it needs to be planed to perfection in the first place?

Test these steels four-squaring boards with a No 6. I know that you ASSUME the results will be the same but you might be surprised. Indulge us just this once. Quit using end grain tests as a proxy. It only consumes a very small percentage of the use of a hand plane. It's like testing a new airplane by taxiing it around the airport and never getting airborn. I'd personally be thankful if you never planed endgrain again in any of your reviews.

Four square ten to fifteen board feet of 4/4 rough sawn material for each blade tested THEN report the results. Too much work? Not enough time? Science, nobody ever said it was easy, quick, or inexpensive to do right.

And yes, I do realize you'll have to plane a little end grain when you're four squaring. That's OK I guess. It's real world.

 

[iNewbie]

So PMV-II is unlikely to help our OP (he has problems sharpening anyway, not to mention the problem of being an offensive twerp :roll: ).

Pure butler bait right there - should anyone expect anything less from the forums most prolific, Master-baiter...

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Has anybody extrapolated or estimated how many honings in a real work-day might be saved by any of these 'superior' steels that won the competition? A couple or three? Ten minutes, tops. Does it matter? Nobody shoots end grain for eight hours straight. If you can mark a square line and saw to it, what maybe three swipes and you're done? Why are you guys showing so much end grain that it needs to be planed to perfection in the first place?

Test these steels four-squaring boards with a No 6. I know that you ASSUME the results will be the same but you might be surprised. Indulge us just this once. Quit using end grain tests as a proxy. It only consumes a very small percentage of the use of a hand plane. I'd personally be thankful if you never planed endgrain again in any of your reviews.

Four square ten to fifteen board feet of 4/4 rough sawn material for each blade tested THEN report the results. Too much work?

And yes, I do realize you'll have to plane a little end grain when you're four squaring. That's OK I guess. It's real world.

Hi Charles

The reason it was end grain was simply because I was testing shooting planes. This did offer a unique opportunity to use BU and BD orientations with similar steels.

Your underlying argument is (1) that one should get enough distance from a O1 blade that it matters not whether one can get more with another steel, and (2) that O1 has a better edge (fine grain) and is worth the effort of sharpening more frequently.

It is possible to extrapolate to gain a picture for (1). Consider than the Clifton could not go beyond 22 passes on a short board length (I forget how long - possibly 9"). The LN A2 lasted a third longer. The LV PMV-11 was still going strong after 60 passes.

Even if you triple the passes for face grain, we are not seeing coverage that will last more than 15 minutes from the Clifton, about 25 minutes from the LN, and about 60 minutes from the LV PMV-V11. Now if you were planing for 3 hours in the day, you would have touched up the Clifton 12 times, the LN 7 times, and the LV 3 times. Assume that you can hone a blade in 5 minutes (including dissembling and re-assembling the plane), the Clifton is taking up an extra 45 minutes in the day over the LV. That is a significant amount of time in just a 3 hour-planing day.

Point (2) is that the fine grain of O1 is an advantage. Well I agree it is over A2 - if you are not sharpening with modern media. On the other hand, PM steels have finer grain than O1, so you are actually worse off with O1 in comparison to PMV-11.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

INewbie, I'll answer your original question. Yes, PMVII does appear to be worth the extra if you accept: 1) you intend to confine its use to endgrain; 2) you assume that tests on endgrain are a fair proxy for the rest of the uses to which you might put the plane into which the PMVII is installed. 3) Saving an absolute maximum of forty minutes a workday (see my post below) in re-honing time makes a huge difference in your life.

 

[Trafalgar]

Has anybody extrapolated or estimated how many honings in a real work-day might be saved by any of these 'superior' steels that won the competition? A couple or three? Ten minutes, tops. Does it matter? Nobody shoots end grain for eight hours straight. If you can mark a square line and saw to it, what maybe three swipes and you're done? Why are you guys showing so much end grain that it needs to be planed to perfection in the first place?

Test these steels four-squaring boards with a No 6. I know that you ASSUME the results will be the same but you might be surprised. Indulge us just this once. Quit using end grain tests as a proxy. It only consumes a very small percentage of the use of a hand plane. I'd personally be thankful if you never planed endgrain again in any of your reviews.

Four square ten to fifteen board feet of 4/4 rough sawn material for each blade tested THEN report the results. Too much work?

And yes, I do realize you'll have to plane a little end grain when you're four squaring. That's OK I guess. It's real world.

Hi Charles

The reason it was end grain was simply because I was testing shooting planes. This did offer a unique opportunity to use BU and BD orientations with similar steels.

Your underlying argument is (1) that one should get enough distance from a O1 blade that it matters not whether one can get more with another steel, and (2) that O1 has a better edge (fine grain) and is worth the effort of sharpening more frequently.

It is possible to extrapolate to gain a picture for (1). Consider than the Clifton could not go beyond 22 passes on a short board length (I forget how long - possibly 9"). The LN A2 lasted a third longer. The LV PMV-11 was still going strong after 60 passes.

Even if you triple the passes for face grain, we are not seeing coverage that will last more than 15 minutes from the Clifton, about 25 minutes from the LN, and about 60 minutes from the LV PMV-V11. Now if you were planing for 3 hours in the day, you would have touched up the Clifton 12 times, the LN 7 times, and the LV 3 times. Assume that you can hone a blade in 5 minutes (including dissembling and re-assembling the plane), the Clifton is taking up an extra 45 minutes in the day over the LV. That is a significant amount of time in just a 3 hour-planing day.

Point (2) is that the fine grain of O1 is an advantage. Well I agree it is over A2 - if you are not sharpening with modern media. On the other hand, PM steels have finer grain than O1, so you are actually worse off with O1 in comparison to PMV-11.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Oh, I see. Twelve times for the Cliffy in three hours of work.

I need to get a cloth to clean the spewed coffee off my screen.

Come on, Derek.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Then you extrapolate the figures for yourself. The details are there. Do the sums.

Keep in mind that the wood used, Curly Marri, is very hard and interlocked. Planing its end grain is actually easier than planing its face grain. Of course, softer and straight grained US woods would produce different results. Nevertheless the ratios would be expected to be the same.

If you plan to work with Pine or Oak or Cherry, then your mileage is going to be different to using Jarrah and other hardwoods, especially those that are abrasive. Be sensible now. It would be a good idea for the UK contingent to do their sums as well.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

I at least appreciate the acknowledgment that face grain can be tougher than end grain. Testing steel on face grain, regardless of species, makes a lot more sense to me and certainly reflects how planes are used most of the time.

Your math works inasmuch as it's a closed system - your inputs equal your outputs. That said something still seems amiss, marri or not. At best, a vague uneasiness with the implications and extrapolations.

At any rate, I'm quite comfortable calling a honing every 15 minutes (four times per hour) a total worst-case scenario. That's catching the edge just as it goes off so the re-honing I would expect to take 90 seconds or less (certainly less with the premium media you use). 90 seconds four times per hour, 360 seconds per hour, six minutes per hour, eighteen minutes in three hours. Check me, please.

So, still, in three hours of continuous planing that's six minutes per hour spent honing for a total honing time of 18 minutes of honing over a three hour period. In essentially what would amount to a whole day there would be about 40 minutes (give or take) spent honing, assuming breaks for lunch and tea. And my scenario and further quantification of your own results assumes, quite generously, that the PMVII doesn't have to be touched at all during the day.

And this is the absolute worst-case and won't be the case, obviously, day in and day out and at all times and in all places.

Life changing? Work changing? Worth all the Sturm and Drang? Worth the time you've spent teasing out the results? Hardly. In anybody's world, hardly.

This is why Australian museums of decorative art are full of pieces built in the difficult woods you always write about and built when high carbon steel was the only game in town. They just knocked them out without blinking. They had the 40 minutes in a day to spare given the end results they were after.

Now that all of this has been quantified and nicely tied up in a bow, can it be put to rest now? The worst-case has been established and it is entirely insignificant by any reasonable measure -- professional or avid hobbyist. Nice job. Your work is done.

Since you invoked 'the maths' though I can't help but be curious by what measure you find all this to be so groundbreaking. Please, tell me there's more. Given the work you've done this cannot possibly be all you have, a 40 minute time savings in an entire day, at best.

 

[ali27]

Let me make this matter easy.

-One advantage A2 has over 01, is that you could use
it about twice as long before you needed sharpening, correct?

-Another advantage is A2 is more corrossion resistant.
sharpening

-The disadvantage is that A2 does not get as sharp an edge as 01 with most
waterstones and natural stones.

PMV11 supposedly gives an edge as fine(even finer?) as an 01 edge, but lasts
3 times longer. That seems great. There have been some reports from users
that this steel does indeed last longer than A2(and therefore longer than 01),but
I haven't read much about how sharp it actually can become.

For me personally, I will only buy an iron if the edge can get super sharp. With A2
this is not possible(unless you use diamond honing). I need more information about
how sharp it actually gets with regular waterstones.

If Pmv11 can get as sharp as 01 or sharper even, lasts much longer and has some
corrosion resistance, that makes it a real winner for me.

Ali

 

[Trafalgar]

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. The time savings would be one O1 chisel honing session, about 90 seconds to two minutes depending on whether one took a moment to glance out the window or perhaps scratch their ear.

 

[Jacob]

..
-Another advantage is A2 is more corrossion resistant.
...

There's a trick to fighting corrosion which doesn't involve buying expensive blades - basically you keep them out of water. Not many people know this and the fashion for water stones doesn't help.
I've never had a corrosion problem in 50 years. I don't take special care except I wouldn't leave my kit out in the rain, or in a pond.

 

[matthewwh]

To get corrosion resistance you need to add chromium, add a bit you get better strength and hardenability, add more you lose edge taking ability, add lots you begin to get corrosion resistance at 12% but also begin to lose toughness. Which is why carbon steel chefs knives are preferred to stainless and no one has produced plane irons in stainless.

It's easy to think that you could use price as a guide and just spend progressively more to get a progressive improvement in all aspects edge taking, edge holding, sharpenability, an so on, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

Air hardening D2 die steel for example is like A2 on steroids, massive wear resistance, terrible edge taking. It is a complete pig to sharpen and expensive because it is also a complete pig to grind, but in a scrub plane or a jack where finish is not an issue the edge retention is very good.

A2 is somewhere between D2 and O1, personally I'm not a big fan but others like it. I read somewhere that the difference in wear resistance is only 6% better than O1 - which leaves the rest of the claims that it holds its edge 5 times longer down to a different honing angle. Air hardening steels cannot be differentially hardened, they need multi-stage tempering to produce a decent grain structure so they are more expensive to process than oil hardening steels.

T10 on the other hand is an almost pure carbon steel, so pure that it requires a fast quench in water to harden it. Chemically it is very close to the steels used in Japanese chisels, straight razors and the older Sheffield blades. Because of its purity it takes a superb edge and has a higher optimum hardness of RC63 vs RC60-61 for the slightly more alloyed but far more predictable O1. The extra hardness translates to edge durability, I can certainly go significantly longer with T10 than I can with O1 (nothing scientific, just an observation). I'm sure if T10 irons were made in the UK or US they would cost 3 times the price.

O1 has become the standard carbon steel for edge tools in the west, it takes a very good edge and it's predictability makes it suitable for mechanised or hand production. It is also widely available. Although it is more predictable than water hardeners you could nonetheless spend a lifetime working with it and still be learning all the way through. You may have noticed that it is the steel by which others are measured - you don't become a global benchmark by accident.

PM steels are made from powder and usually baked into the shape of the finished object under pressure, however they can also be ground or machined. If moulding, there is a scale requirement to make production viable, which is why a relatively big (and forward thinking) outfit like LV can get to the sort of volumes that begin to make it a sensible proposition. PM steels offer new possibilities which we are really only just beginning to understand what they may be capable of.

 

[Jacob]

.... That is not a good reason to use O1 steel, however, since they last considerably less time than A2 (e.g. Clifton vs LN).

Regards from Perth

Derek

Unless you are working in the old fashioned way and half your working life is taken up planing, or if you are an obsessive sharpener, it's likely that an 01 (or any steel) plane blade will last you for life. If you have several planes then several lives.

 

[G S Haydon]

..... the exercise did bring home to me that standard Stanley iron are next to useless, compared to almost anything else I use.

Mike.

They are not standard though. You can find all sorts under the Stanley brand, including laminated.
For me the fact that one plane needs sharpening more often than another isn't an issue - it usually means they are easier to sharpen and it's an excuse for a mini break.

re grit sizes - Paul Sellers suggests 250 grit is good enough for most things. I agree, in fact if you can't get a good edge with 250 grit it's not likely to improve if you go on ever finer.
Beginners and others struggling might be well advised to just stick to a medium fine stone until they can routinely get good results, before moving on to higher numbers.

I gave the 250 grit a try, although by the book is was 220 (coarse india) http://www.sharpeningsupplies.com/Sharp ... 21C60.aspx

I guess different peoples sharpening mediums are worn in a bit more than mine but 220 was like using a toothing plane. There was no way I could use a coarse india for any sensible task apart from light grinding. I gave it a light strop but it really was pointless.

I moved back to fine india and the surface finish was great again. I'm not sure I would recommend anyone try sharpening at 220>250 coarse india unless shaping a tool or removing a nick. The photos are on Euro Redwood which as we all know is milder than mild.

 

[Trafalgar]

The job of a honing media is to collapse the ridges left by the media before it. A two-stone combination is effective and efficient. It could be coarse/fine or medium/fine or fine/extrafine. The first stone removes bluntness, the second stone collapses the ridges left by the first stone, the edge will then work regardless of which of these modalities you choose. As counterintuitive as it may sound, the fine/extrafine mode won't necessarily leave a 'better' edge than the coarse/fine combination. If you just work the bevel with the two stones and then strop the burr off an already polished and flat back then it's practically impossible for most tasks to tell the difference in performance between any of these combinations.

The deciding factor is how quickly you want to remove bluntness (no real need to dilly-dally) and how far the edge was let go to bluntness and beyond. It's an approach that minimizes investment of time honing and money-in-kit.

Fine/extra fine gives a slightly smoother entry into the wood which can be helpful when carving. For planing and normal bench work with chisels the others work fine as I think you already know and have experienced.

 

[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

 

[Trafalgar]

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.