Why Two?

[woodbrains]

I agree Mike, this is a complicated subject. I don't think everyone would agree with you on the worse surface finish when using the chipbreaker. After all, you're still cutting at 45 degrees, while most of the compression takes place in the shaving. And high pitched planes don't leave such a crisp surface either when compared to lower angled planes. But it all depends on the wood species too. Not easy to say anything general about that. Everyone will have to experiment for themselves. For example, I am at the moment experimenting with lower angles for the leading edge of the chipbreaker, but didn't come to any conclusions yet.

Hello,

Most of what I said were questions that have arisen and some things I have noticed. The experimentation will continue, and new conclusions reached as the variables are vast. A plane with an extreme cap iron effect is working much like a scraper, though, so can lead to less smoothness, though less tear out too. I'm not knocking it, there is a compromise with everything, which is why It is good to ave a whole array of techniques. If you think about it, a scraper will have an EP of less than a Bailey plane, but is in fact has a type 2 cutting action like a plane with a strong ca iron effect.

Mike.

 

[Corneel]

Just finished some experimenting with a 35 degree bevel on the chipbreaker and 0.1 to 0.2 mm from the edge. It works, even rather thick shavings (2 to 3 thou). This in a wooden plane. This idea comes from Caspar Labarre in The Netherlands. He recons that the wear helps in supporting the shaving too.

Anyway, beautifull silky smooth surface in some maple. Planing against the grain with a big knot in the middle.

Here's a video from him with a similar setup planing some nasty elm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zs92-9FUrfI

 

[David C]

Don't understand how anyone could fail to appreciate Hock irons. Many others as well, as long as they are not thin 1970 to 2000 Stanley.

It is very important to understand that no chipbreakers come with a properly finished edge.

The new improved type used by L-N, Veritas, IBC are all superb, completely avoiding lever cap missmatch, and benefiting from good thickness. Generally they require much less work than the horrid thin Stanley and Record type.

David Charlesworth

 

[Corneel]

It's not about failing to apreciate the Hock irons. It is about failing to appreciate the original ones. Same as with the capirons. Yes they need quite a bit of work usually, but when fitted proparly they just work.

 

[David C]

Corneel,

Why on earth do you think original c/bs are better than the recent incarnation?

David

 

[iNewbie]

It's not about failing to apreciate the Hock irons. It is about failing to appreciate the original ones. Same as with the capirons. Yes they need quite a bit of work usually, but when fitted proparly they just work.

Some people have a different experience with tools. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. Thats doesn't mean for someone else it doesn't work - or they can't make their item work for them.

In the case of Hock it appears more people are happier from their experience in using his Iron(s) - that doesn't mean someone else has felt there wasn't a benefit for them when buying one.

Its all good.

 

[bugbear]

It's not about failing to apreciate the Hock irons. It is about failing to appreciate the original ones. Same as with the capirons. Yes they need quite a bit of work usually, but when fitted proparly they just work.

Some people have a different experience with tools. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. Thats doesn't mean for someone else it doesn't work - or they can't make their item work for them.

In the case of Hock it appears more people are happier from their experience in using his Iron(s) - that doesn't mean someone else has felt there wasn't a benefit for them when buying one.

Its all good.

It might tell us more about the testers than the tested.

BugBear

 

[David C]

Hear, hear... (spelling??).

David

 

[Corneel]

Corneel,

Why on earth do you think original c/bs are better than the recent incarnation?

David

Did I write that? The new ones often have too sharp an edge about 25 to 30 degrees. But that is easilly remidied

My point is that the old ones are good enough in most cases. Try the plane first. Only when you have troubles with chatter or the edge folds up almost immediately or something like that, would I invest 60 euro in new parts. On a 20 euro plane that is a lot of money to spend nilly willy.

 

[Racers]

Well a plane is just a blade holder, so why wouldn't you spend money on a blade?

pete

 

[Jacob]

Corneel,

Why on earth do you think original c/bs are better than the recent incarnation?

David

Did I write that? The new ones often have too sharp an edge about 25 to 30 degrees. But that is easilly remidied

My point is that the old ones are good enough in most cases. Try the plane first. Only when you have troubles with chatter or the edge folds up almost immediately or something like that, would I invest 60 euro in new parts. On a 20 euro plane that is a lot of money to spend nilly willy.

Agree. People give up too easily. If it's cheap they blame the tools. If it's expensive they tend to blame themselves and persist a little longer. American novelty planes are too heavy and excessively over engineered which isn't wholly matched in improved performance.

 

[iNewbie]

Is it that time of the day/week/month again, Jacob. Seriously. it's f'in tedious.

 

[Corneel]

Ok, I give up. You guys are hopeless, so instead of fighting it, I'll go with the flow. The next time I buy an old Stanley plane, first thing I do is throwing away the blade and chipbreaker. The handles are probably a bit worn down too, so I throw them away too. The body casting can't be flat enough, so I throw it away. Now I don't have anything to attach the frog too anymore, so also that one can go into the skip. What's left, the levercap? Well, maybe I can use that on the next old Stanley I buy.

 

[Racers]

Throw them my way, please.

Pete

 

[MIGNAL]

Well, just to bring a bit of balance to the discussion :shock:
I have an early '70's Stanley 5 1/2 complete with original blade and original chipbreaker. It works as well as my super fettled No. 4 that now sports a Ray Iles thicker replacement blade, new home made handles and a 2 piece Clifton chipbreaker!
I can't say that will always be the case but it's got to be worth trying the original configuration first. Doesn't cost anything!

 

[David C]

Oh Dear,
This does not constitute balance, without knowing what you plane with your 5 1/2.

I started being interested in fettling when I realized that mine would not plane a square edge on 5/8"walnut. Some sole flattening fixed that.

With original blades final clean up of my 8 foot, beech bench top, took three sharp blades. (This is why A P had several sharp ones beside him. Edge holding was pathetic).

Yes you may get an old plane to work after a fashion but modern, thicker, harder blades are demonstrably better.

Hock A2 edge holding is at least 3 times longer than my 70's Stanley blades. And even Corneel admits to less chatter.

David Charlesworth

 

[Jacob]

......

Yes you may get an old plane to work after a fashion .....

Yes and anyway they never did any serious woodwork in the old days! :roll:

Is Hock A2 different from any other A2? I've got Stanley A2 which seems much the same. Keeps an edge, takes longer to sharpen, costs a lot more, take it or leave it IMHO.

PS Hock blades are made for him in France and the only Hock thing about them is the logo. I could get some from the same place with the Grimsdale logo, I expect.

 

[David C]

Jacob,

Most serious cabinetmakers went out of their way to get hold of planes by the likes of Spiers and Norris. They had thicker blades like so many of today's.

It may surprise you to learn that A2 comes in many recipes. Decent heat treating and grinding are another matter. All A2 is not equal.

It takes me no longer to sharpen than 01 or Stanley's hideous Tungsten, Vanadium .....................

I'm sure you could. Not prejudiced ?

David Charlesworth

 

[Jacob]

Jacob,

Most serious cabinetmakers went out of their way to get hold of planes by the likes of Spiers and Norris. They had thicker blades like so many of today's.

All the old planes, good bad and indifferent, had thick blades. The thin blade and the Bailey design was a big step forwards and just about universally preferred, for very good reasons. It seems nobody felt any need to buy after market thick blades until the (very recent) modern revival.

 

[Paul Chapman]

It seems nobody felt any need to buy after market thick blades until the (very recent) modern revival.

Probably because they've only recently become available.

Cheers :wink:

Paul