Replacement plane iron, standard thickness

[Paul Chapman]

For the final set of fine shavings, off my 8' by 16" beech bench top, I used to use three sharp Stanley blades.

Today, I get this job done with one Hock A2 blade.

It is possible that 1970's Stanley blades were not a high point.

David Charlesworth

They were cheap, easy to sharpen and got the job done.

Blimey, Jacob, you seem able to justify any old tat that Stanley produced. Are you on a retainer or something :-k

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Jacob]

For the final set of fine shavings, off my 8' by 16" beech bench top, I used to use three sharp Stanley blades.

Today, I get this job done with one Hock A2 blade.

It is possible that 1970's Stanley blades were not a high point.

David Charlesworth

They were cheap, easy to sharpen and got the job done.

Blimey, Jacob, you seem able to justify any old tat that Stanley produced. Are you on a retainer or something :-k

Cheers :wink:

Paul

Yes. I'm trying to retain my cash and not spend it on things I don't need.

 

[Paul Chapman]

 

[Corneel]

Yesterday while looking for something I came across this tid bit of information.It may add something to the conversation on plane irons,then again maybe not?
The interesting points are the approx date of the iron 1750 its size 2 m/m at the cutting edge trailing to 1 m/m at its head and its very early use of a backing iron.
If you don't wish to read it all scroll down to the part headed The irons,
http://www.taths.org.uk/tools-and-trade ... -of-london

Thanks a lot Billy! I have heard about that plane before, but never seen this article.
I don't know if I agree with his assumption "that the sign of the three plains" shows us double iron planes. It could also be a more ornamental wedge, like they made in The Netherlands at that time.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Yesterday while looking for something I came across this tid bit of information.It may add something to the conversation on plane irons,then again maybe not?
The interesting points are the approx date of the iron 1750 its size 2 m/m at the cutting edge trailing to 1 m/m at its head and its very early use of a backing iron.
If you don't wish to read it all scroll down to the part headed The irons,
http://www.taths.org.uk/tools-and-trade ... -of-london

Thanks, Billy. That's interesting, because the bench plane irons in Benjamin Seaton's chest (dating from 1797) are all about 3mm thick at the bevel tapering to about 1 - 1.5mm at the head, both the single and double irons (and the double irons had the key-hole slot to fix the back-iron by the now familiar screw). Later 19th and 20th century irons tend to be a bit thicker again; about 4 to 5 mm thick at the bevel tapering to 1.5 - 2mm at the head. So it seems that irons were made progressively thicker as time passed. Either that, or dealers offered a variety of irons with different thicknesses, but craftsmen increasingly preferred to buy thicker irons.

 

[worn thumbs]

Yesterday while looking for something I came across this tid bit of information.It may add something to the conversation on plane irons,then again maybe not?
The interesting points are the approx date of the iron 1750 its size 2 m/m at the cutting edge trailing to 1 m/m at its head and its very early use of a backing iron.
If you don't wish to read it all scroll down to the part headed The irons,
http://www.taths.org.uk/tools-and-trade ... -of-london

Thanks, Billy. That's interesting, because the bench plane irons in Benjamin Seaton's chest (dating from 1797) are all about 3mm thick at the bevel tapering to about 1 - 1.5mm at the head, both the single and double irons (and the double irons had the key-hole slot to fix the back-iron by the now familiar screw). Later 19th and 20th century irons tend to be a bit thicker again; about 4 to 5 mm thick at the bevel tapering to 1.5 - 2mm at the head. So it seems that irons were made progressively thicker as time passed. Either that, or dealers offered a variety of irons with different thicknesses, but craftsmen increasingly preferred to buy thicker irons.

I have several wooden planes with tapered irons.It would seem to be a factor of allowing the wedge to enter the plane body a bit further as the iron wears.Were it not so,it would be pretty difficult to reach the end of the iron with a hammer when adjustment is needed.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I have worn out three smoothing plane irons,two block plane irons and two spokeshave irons.I replaced them all with Stanley offerings as thats what they had originally and they worked perfectly well.I know that the alternatives exist and they seem to be marketed on the basis that they are cheaper or better than the original type.I suppose they have to be or there would be no business to be done.
I have never seen the point of extra thick or extra hard replacements as they tend to be more brittle and when you do need to sharpen them it takes a lot more work.I suppose it impresses the hobbyist to see a long list of features describing them.I once had such a specimen tell me he had just bought a cryogenically hardened iron-sounds good doesn't it?So I asked him what the advantage was and got no sensible answer.

From experience, a slightly thicker iron does improve a Bailey-type plane's ability to cope with knots, harder woods and end-grain planing. As mentioned earlier, there's a bit of a trade-off between additional thickness and modifications needed to the plane to accommodate it.

I think for some people, irons of harder grades of steel can be a genuine benefit. Australian woodworkers have some fearsomely hard native timbers, for example. A professional using planes every day on exotic hardwoods may see a benefit, especially if the additional first cost of the iron over a standard one is not too great. However, for those of us working predominantly softwoods or relatively mild temperate hardwoods, the benefits are sometimes harder to justify.

At the amateur end of the market, there is always the 'alloy wheels' factor. Alloy wheels won't make your car faster, more economical, or make the chore of the daily commute any easier, but for some people they're nice to have. Much the same applies to tools.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with a £60 PMV11 replacement iron. I won't live long enough to wear one out. However, it's nice to know that the choice is there for those that do want one, even if they don't really need one. It's their money they're spending, not mine; as long as they don't tell me how to spend my money, I won't tell them how to spend theirs.