blade stiffeners - Record Stay Set vs MF two-part lever cap

[Corneel]

thanks Corneel - that is very interesting. Although I had seen pictures of low angle mitre planes with thin blades, I always assumed that for bench planes they had always been thick and tapered (at least until the end of the 19th C).

Do you think think thin single irons are peculiar to the Netherlands or is that how it was in the UK also? Were the irons tapered or parallel?

I am sure about Dutch 17th/18th century planes. Tapered thin blades. i am slo pretty sure about Britisch, have that on good authority from oldstreettools website. When you look at the dimensions in the Seaton book you will probably also find thin irons. The same goes for moulding plane irons. Thin in the 18th century, much thicker later on.

 

[D_W]

The results are in;

working both fine and medium thickness shavings, no signs of any vibration or chatter was experienced from the cutting edge.









The reader is left to draw their own conclusions from the above results.

Increase the shaving thickness. Thin smoother shavings don't generate chatter.

 

[ED65]

That's brilliant Stewie, thanks for taking the time to document that test.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

A bit of information about wrought iron, which might be of interest. Credit for the 'industrialisation' of wrought iron production is often given to Henry Cort, who patented the puddling process in 1783 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cort ) though he built on the work of others. Before the widespread introduction of puddling, wrought iron was usually made in a finery ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finery_forge ), a slower process.

Puddling did not become widespread until after 1800, so the cost of wrought iron was still significant in the 18th century compared to later years. It's possible that influenced plane iron design - more expensive materials resulting in thinner irons. As the cost of wrought iron reduced in the early 19th century, thicker irons became more affordable.

That's speculation, but I offer it for what it's worth.

(By the way - Corneel is right about the Seaton bench plane irons being thin compared to 19th century ones. They seem to have been about 0.125" or a bit less at the bevel, tapering to about 0.060" at the top end. So that's about 3mm at the business end and about 1.5mm at the top. Speculating again - that's consistent with their being made just before puddled wrought iron became commonly available.)

 

[nabs]

thanks cc - It is surprising that 19th C makers adopted thicker irons, when thinner versions were apparently 'good enough' in the previous century. I think you have a good theory - the disadvantages of a thin iron are not serious in many circumstances (and are sometimes non-existent, as Stewie demonstrates) and people were not prepared to pay for the relatively small advantage from thick irons until the price came down.

I wonder if there is a big difference in effort (grinding/heat treatment/quality rejects etc) between thick and thin?

nabs
PS I know that the Seaton chisels were a mixture of laminated and solid steel - is it documented whether the plane irons are one or the other?
PPS I still say that the Millers Falls two-piece lever cap rocks, despite all the above!

 

[woodpig]

I doubt there is enough of a difference in cost between a thin Iron and one a little thicker. The most probable reason for not fitting thicker irons are the other possible changes needed to the design in order to accommodate them. Manufacturers don't make changes to any product if it's selling ok, why would they bother. Premium brands on the other hand are expected to perform well straight out of the box and the manufacturers are prepared to spend a bit more time on R&D to achieve it. It seems the more money you spend the thicker the iron is even with the same manufacturer. I'm still impressed with what the Japanese seem to achieve with a nice thick iron fitted to a lump of wood!

 

[D_W]

I'd imagine Stanley kept the thin iron because that's what users wanted while there was a large cross section of people working at a bench, or working at a jobsite. If you were a joiner working in 1910, and you had two stones to keep your irons sharp, a thicker iron is not an attractive prospect - it just extends sharpening time.

Making a modification to a bailey style bench plane - in terms of manufacturing process to open the mouth - would be pretty easy if there was a demand for it. There were some makers who did put thicker irons in metal planes (ohio tool did it here, and there are some others marked S&S or siegley or something that were thicker), but the market never developed a preference for them.

 

[woodpig]

I watched a review the other day about Stanley planes and the reviewer noted the increased thickness in the Iron fitted to the premium product. He owned both products and didn't complain about the time taken to sharpen the thicker iron, but then I guess a minute or two is neither here nor there in the scheme of things.

 

[D_W]

This is a modern day review, right? I think modern-day hobby woodworkers have a whole different set of priorities from what the market for these tools had 125 years ago. There are sharpening instruction videos now that show a 10 minute process with 6 stones, etc. I can't imagine someone on the clock before the days of everyone having an electric grinder handy would probably have a different point of view on an all steel iron (vs. a laminated one).

FWIW, I think even the japanese irons are a bit punitive to sharpen traditionally, it's a fairly long process because it does require a long progression of stones, and even though most of the bevel is soft, it's still wide and has to be abraded, and a fair number of the modern irons appear to be rikizai (pre-laminated material) with a thick layer of hardened steel. The nicer irons have a more fully stretched hagane (hard steel) layer, and it makes a big difference in sharpening time if the grinder is foregone, perhaps halving sharpening. Irons like that are not common now.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

From 'Modern Practical Joinery' by George Ellis, first published 1902, page 13;

"The common Wooden Stock plane is comparatively low in price, and will stand rough usage better than either of the others, being in fact practically indestructible. It works rapidly and easily, and can be adjusted by means of the cover iron to suit hard or soft woods. On the other hand, it will not produce so highly a finished surface as a metal plane; and it requires frequent shooting, and remouthing occasionally, to keep it in good condition. The English form of the metal plane will produce work of the highest class. It is of great weight and solidity, the latter quality having a great bearing on its results. It overcomes the resistance of cross-grain and knots easily by its great momentum, and "tearing out" is prevented by the extremely fine mouth. Its disadvantages are, that it is fatiguing to work, the friction between metal and wood is greater than between wood only, and in common with all metal planes, in our moist atmosphere it is difficult to keep free from rust or Verdigris, as it is made from steel or brass; and lastly, its first cost is relatively high.
The American type has for its chief recommendation cheapness and readiness of adjustment. It is easy to work in consequence of its lightness, but this quality also acts detrimentally in causing it to "chatter", which prevents the production of so high a finished surface as the English form is capable of. However, its general results are higher than those of the common wood plane. Many ingenious time-saving attachments make it a rapid worker, but it is very fragile, and will seldom survive an accidental fall from the bench."

Thinking this may be a bit of anti-American sentiment, I checked a few other tool descriptions. Under Hand Saws, he writes, "The American pattern of these saws has much to commend it. The handle is thrown well forward, giving great control over the saw when used horizontally. The blade is brought under the handle, which increases the stroke and reduces the liability of "kicking" or catching of the heel in the cut on the return stroke."

So no xenophobia there. Just an honest assessment by an experienced craftsman.

Wells and Hooper in 'Modern Cabinet Work' suggest a set of wooden bench planes, "Iron smoother plane, English make" and "Iron panel plane, 12 1/2", English make" in their list of tools. On page 6, they write, "The American planes are lighter, and flimsy in construction compared to those of English make, and are consequently cheaper, but they do not produce such a fine surface, nor last as long"

So there we have the opinions of well-respected writers on joinery and on cabinet work of about a century ago; the joiner recognises some advantages to a lighter plane, but the cabinetmakers prefer the heavier infill type. Neither of them even mention sharpening, but as they recommend the heavier-ironed woodies and infills, I think we can take it that they don't really regard any extra grinding time as a serious disadvantage.

 

[D_W]

Got a chuckle out of that. I never noticed a problem due to the "lightness" of american planes, but I can certainly understand why a writer who might have the desire to protect trades would not want to say something good about an economical mass-produced plane that can do as fine of a job as an infill (if set up properly).

 

[AndyT]

I've got catalogues from about the same date as those books, which have page after page of imported American tools. Some of them were limited use devices (like some current offerings by Veritas, possibly...) but others were basic tools - planes, saws, drills and the like.

It would be interesting to know what proportion of sales the American tools achieved. Judging from what I have seen of the surviving tools in the second hand market, Stanley planes and Disston saws were the most successful.

 

[D_W]

To say those two dominated here in the states would be an understatement. We don't have much here that came from England early in the century, but the pound was strong then and people here were cheap, to say in the least.

I've been doing my part in increasing the number of English tools here, though.

 

[ac445ab]

...an economical mass-produced plane that can do as fine of a job as an infill (if set up properly).

In my experience, at least for smoothing planes, even the best Stanley plane, for instance a Bedrock perfectly set, does not perform so well as a good infill plane and I think that their massive double iron has a role in this.

Ciao
Giuliano

 

[D_W]

Once the cap iron is set properly, they're all the same.

Well, except for the planes that don't have cap irons.

I've got a self-made 55 degree bed infill with a 1/4th inch thick iron (a smoother) and a 3-4 thousandth mouth. It's not able to perform as well as a stanley plane with the cap set properly, but if one doesn't know how to set the cap properly, it's certainly easier to use because it can almost plane anything.

As far as infills go, something with a near common pitch double iron will leave it in the dust.

The real difference between the two is how snappy you have to be starting the plane - with a lighter stanley plane, you have to give it a bump start. You can soft start the infill if it's heavy enough.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I have a range of plane types. These include a common angle double iron infill (Spier) that is in like-new condition, a high angle single iron infill that is BD and a high cutting angle infill that is BU. I also have a common Stanley, a common LN #3, and a lower bed Veritas Custom #4. Lastly, there is a Veritas BUS with a high cutting angle. Oh no, lastly, I have woodies, some I built and some by HNT Gordon. I think that this covers all the possibilities

All of these planes can be made to perform equally. Unltimately, the best finish comes from the Veritas Custom #4, which has a 42 degree bed. It is tear out proof when used with the chipbreaker. The UK-made Stanley #3 performs as well as the LN #3, and both are excellent on interlocked grain when using the chipbreaker. The Spier has a 47 degree bed, and it lay on my shelf for years (as did the LN when it had a high angle frog, since replaced) UNTIL I learned to set it up with a chipbreaker. Its performance with very average - no better than a Stanley minus a closely set chipbreaker up until that stage. The easiest plane to get great performance on is the Veritas BUS when used with a high cutting angle (62 degrees). It is simply plug-and-play. However, BD planes are easier to sharpen (I freehand, while BU planes require a honing guide. Another story ...). The hardest plane to push is a high angle BD infill. It sits on my shelf.

I do not see any magic in infills. I do not see a difference in light vs heavy planes (I also have a Marcou smoother, which weighs about 8kg! It is a remarkable performer, but not really better than a Stanley since I learned to set the chipbreaker). I have light woodies - a high hangle HNT Gordon is sublime, but also, at the end of the day, its performance is no better.

Bottom line is that all these planes perform as wished when set up appropriately. I rather doubt that the sublties of setting up planes were common knowledge to handymen, and this opened the door over the years to many offerings as plane makers found ways to overcome apparent deficiencies. This is still the situation today. It is not intended as a criticism of the planes - as I indicated, they all work - just a comment on the lack of awareness that makes others work as well.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I rather doubt that the sublties of setting up planes were common knowledge to handymen, and this opened the door over the years to many offerings as plane makers found ways to overcome apparent deficiencies.

From the back cover of 'Modern Practical Stairbuilding and Handrailing' by George Ellis, "Ellis has long been regarded as one of the finest writers in his field not only because of his abilities as a teacher but also his vast experience in the trades."

Ellis (1854-1930) wrote 'Modern Practical Carpentry', 'Modern Practical Joinery', Modern Practical Stairbuilding and Handrailing', 'Lessons in Carpentry' and 'Modern Technical Drawing'.

Percy A Wells, Head of Cabinet Department, L.C.C. Shoreditch Technical Institute; Silver Medallist, Royal Society of Arts.

John Hooper, Honours Silver Medallist, City and Guilds of London Institute; Silver Medal, Carpenters' Company, Cabinet Section.

Yeah - just handymen. Clearly couldn't hold a candle to today's dilettante amateurs!

 

[woodpig]

Thanks for the history lesson Cheshirechappie, very interesting. It sounds like we don't know any more now than they knew then. I got the Axminster newsletter in my inbox yesterday and on page one was a nice looking plane with a heavy looking plane iron, very topical!

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Maybe it reflects that there aren't any "right" answers - just several available options; and that hasn't changed for over a century at least!

I suppose the lesson is to go with what works for you, and not worry too much about the endless discussion and people banging on continuously and at length about their own pet opinion.

 

[woodpig]

Maybe it reflects that there aren't any "right" answers - just several available options; and that hasn't changed for over a century at least!

I suppose the lesson is to go with what works for you, and not worry too much about the endless discussion and people banging on continuously and at length about their own pet opinion.

Yes, spot on.