What’s the difference other than looks. Is Bronze “better” or just better looking =) I’m considering some LN and well, those bronze planes are beautiful.
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
Weight is the biggest factor. LN claims the Manganese Bronze is pretty tough and wears well, so does the ductile Iron. But the Bronze does weigh more. Costs more too.
The older I get, the better I was....
Elliott,
I recently attended a hand plane seminar by Garrett Hack. He recommended against the bronze planes because they are less durable-- especially more susceptable to damage if dropped.
Randy.
The cast iron planes are the better looking.
The best feature of bronze planes is they don't rust.
The cast iron planes are the better looking.. THAT WAS FUNNY!
I have both. I've got the LN 4 in bronze, and all the other LN planes in ductile iron. The bronze does not rust, and is a bit heavier, which make planing a little easier.
Jeff
Thanks for the feedback. I'm generally very careful with tools so I'm not worried as much about durability. More weight is good for me, especially for the smaller bench planes. Rust isn't a big problem where I live either way. I do think the bronze #4 LN is about the most beautiful metal plane I've seen, so it may come down to that in the end. thanks.
I read somewhere that the L-N 4-1/2 may be available soon in bronze. You can call them and check if that is a fact. If so, many here would tell you that the larger plane, and the availability of the York pitch frog, are real pluses. I personally like the bronze planes but the metal is a little soft for my purposes, so I only have one.
Elliot,
I am partial to cast iron planes. Why? Because they seem to take and hold wax better than the bronze. Whenever I am doing alot of planing and the sole starts to drag I will apply paste wax to the sole. This helps out tremendously and it has been my observation that the wax lasts longer on my cast iron planes.
Tom
Bronze, as others have already noted, is somewhat heavier, and there's less of an oxidation (rust) problem. Bronze obviously is not as hard as iron, but I suspect that the durability issue is a matter that will be determined over several generations.
<<I am partial to cast iron planes. Why? Because they seem to take and hold wax better than the bronze.>> There are several of LN's bronze planes in my arsenal; from my experience, they seem "more slippery" than the iron planes. I also have to regularly wax my iron planes, but have yet to find any need to wax the bronze ones... It may be a matter of climate....
It's a matter of personal taste, but I think that the bronze planes are nicer looking; others prefer the look of iron.
Essentially, you can't go wrong with either; both bronze & iron are of uniformly high quality. It boils down to cost, desired weight, and preference in looks.
James- I wonder if this new "ductile" iron as used by Veritas et al is actually harder than bronze? I have found it to be really soft, and one has to take extra care with it-it is not like the traditional stuff used on the Baileys/Records of yore.
Ofcourse , if there is indecision, the answer is to get one of those dovetailed steel and brass items-best of both worlds....Philip Marcou
Ductile is less likely to crack if struck (or dropped) than what was used before. Lie-Nielsen uses ductile iron, too. The Stanley planes were just grey metal and they used that because it gave them good castings at a low cost. The planes made now are more craft-like than before. I doubt that there were as many discussions 80 years ago about how beautiful and wonderful a certain company's planes were and that people were saving their money for one of the best when they don't use them to make a living.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
I canna say one way or the other whether ductile iron is harder than bronze, but it's definitely far more forgiving than cast iron. I've yet to drop any of my planes, but I've inadvertently whacked them into a G-clamp a time or two... cast tends to part company with a flake of material while ductile tends to let you away with a minor ding in the afflicted edge... Nothing that can't be taken care of with a needle file in a couple of seconds...Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Yah Mike , I've never dropped a plane either-until now there has always been a concrete floor....Some minor collisions with other metallic objects have not produced the dire result you mentioned (flaking) , on my old planes.
But with the ductile stuff one wonders how they will wear in the long term, especially on abrasive woods, which is where I noticed that scratches easily develop. Makes them easy to keep flat and shiney though.Philip Marcou
Philip, Good question. The ductile iron in the LNs "seems" to be a bit more resistant to dings than the bronze, but both seem to be pretty "hard" to me. Like you and Mike, I've not dropped any of them, but have banged them into metal objects (clamps and such) and haven't gotten more than a very minor ding -- at worst -- on either the iron or the bronze. I really can't make any comment on the LV's, as I don't have any of them, and my "knowledge" of them comes from reading others' comments.... It would be interesting to know where the ductile iron and the manganese bronze sit on, say, the Rockwell C scale. <<Of course, if there is indecision, the answer is to get one of those dovetailed steel and brass items-best of both worlds....>> But, of course! And they're prettier, too!James
The next question is "is there a difference in the hardness between Veritas and L/Nielsen?"-referring to their ductile iron.
Actually I don't feel that the hardness or softness is a critical factor-just that I know that the iron on my Veritas stuff is comparatively soft, so one needs to be more careful than ever.
In the absence of a hardness tester one can compare by filing the heel or toe bevel.
There was apost some time ago where a body said he was agin Veritas because of the iron softness-turned out that he was in the habit of planing the occasional finish pin, no less....There was a semi scientific discussion on the ductile iron and the other stuff-Rob Lee pitched in -ofcourse now I can't find it.Philip Marcou
WOW! To anyone who worries that he/she might wear out the sole of any plane simply by pushing it over ANY kind of wood: Be proud, you are a mighty (and busy) worker. Now retire that plane and get a new one....you deserve it!
Ah Sapwood, hopefully no one is worried about actually wearing out a sole in his lifetime-least of all me.I am merely looking at the differences between the two types of iron.
But then again,judging by the current propensity for flattening plane bottoms these days, the more nervous may be forgiven for wondering if the soles of ductile iron will make it into the next century.
Philip Marcou
Philip asks, "is there a difference in the hardness between Veritas and L/Nielsen?"
Interesting question but it's the assumption behind it I'm wondering about. Are you asking which is more wear resistant? Keep in mind that wear resistance and hardness are different properties and not necessarily related. An example is what is used for bearings, bronze is more resistant to wear than steel. Steel bearings must be like ball bearings where cleanness and a lubricating film are critical. If you want to be thrown out of a machine shop, go to their parts cleaning vat and find a ball bearing that's been cleaned and not yet lubricated, then spin that ball bearing dry.
This seems to come up a lot in plane making. People making the assumption that harder is also more wear resistant. It's just not the case.
Larry , thanks for high lighting that: it would have been better for me to have used the word "durable", and then asked "why" in relation to Veritas and L/N cast iron.
Ever since I raed that a person spent 8 hours flattening one sole I have tended to take the mickey out of the subject-in that context I suspect that the ductile iron is not as durable as the old stuff because it will be developing scratches easier and then there will be more flattening than ever taking place.
If you apply 150lbs of air to a newly cleaned dry bearing it makes a tremendous siren.Philip Marcou
You mean, like a whoopie whistle? I'm not sure they won't last as long. I think they're made to higher standards now and the people using them may take better care of the new planes. The ones needing 8 hours for flattening are old and unloved. Flattening was probably one of the things that would make a woodworker say, "Huh?".
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
I'm the guilty party regarding 8 hours of flattening. The 606 was cupped along it's length by over 1/16th of an inch, which led me to ask the question, "How?". How did it get that bad. However, you should see it now. I just sharpened a new Hock for it over the weekend, and it can really be used for a smoother, if need be. However, i restored it for it's proper use, which will be for hogging off material.
Jeff
And, like I said, that plane was old and unloved. I assume the center was worn along the length, right? I suspect flattening just wasn't thought about back then. My #7 was pretty worn in front of the mouth and may have been retired because of it. I'll have to post a couple of photos of it. It didn't really need much, but after looking at the knob and tote, I decided to refinish them and clean up all of the small hardware. There must have been 10 coats of something on the wood and it looked terrible. The knob is pretty normal looking rosewood but the tote is extremely dark, almost black. The wood on my #4 and #40 are beech and neither looked very good when I got them. Does anyone have a correct knob for a scrub plane?
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
I belive a high knob from a 3 or 4 would work fine. Many parts planes are available on eBay for pretty cheap:
http://cgi.ebay.com/NO-3-STANLEY-PLANE_W0QQitemZ6249539290QQcategoryZ13874QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
You just need it to have a good knob, so rust, cracks in the body, etc. that would devalue the plane greatly are of no importance to you.
<<Are you asking which is more wear resistant? Keep in mind that wear resistance and hardness are different properties and not necessarily related. >> Most certainly, and there are some very interesting examples to illustrate the point: take, for instance, old-style LP records and a diamond stylus: diamond is well-known as the hardest natural substance; LP vinyl is one of the softest substances that is capable of retaining a rigid form. A couple of hundred hours playing time will wear the diamond to virtual uselessness (for the purpose of playing LPs), and will show substantial abrasion under even modest magnification. All caused by soft vinyl, and what's even more interesting about it is that the vinyl is mainly in a semi-liquid state while it is abrading the diamond, due to friction-generated heat developed during the playing of the LP. In this case, "hard" most certainly does not = "wear resistant."<<This seems to come up a lot in plane making. People making the assumption that harder is also more wear resistant. It's just not the case.>>OK, just to play devil's advocate: then why are wooden plane soles often made with hornbeam, lignum vitae, box wood, and other hard woods? A primary reason is because those harder woods resist abrasion better than softer woods. Seriously, though, I understand and agree with your point about metals, and understand that the wear-resistant properties and "hardness" factors in woods vs metals are completely different relationships.
The wear to the diamond is due more to the carbon black in the vinyl as well as the dust particles imbedded in the groove walls, coupled with the heat generated than the vinyl itself. Vinyl is still abrasive, though. I'm pretty sure phono needles are made of synthetic diamond, too. Either way, their hardness allows them to last a lot longer than the sapphire and other materials used. Have you ever seen a photomicrograph of the walls of a vinyl record? New, it's nice and dark. Played once, it's worn and grey with chunks of stuff all over the place.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
<<Have you ever seen a photomicrograph of the walls of a vinyl record? New, it's nice and dark. Played once, it's worn and grey with chunks of stuff all over the place.>>
Yes. Very interesting...looks a lot like a satellite photo of the Grand Canyon. It's truly amazing that LPs can be played more than a few times, even with dilligent cleaning and care, considering that they literally melt locally during play; one of the reasons why it was recommended that LPs not be played more often than once about every 24 - 48 hours. It is fortunate for the pre-CD music-loving public that LP vinyl had such a good "memory effect."
<<The wear to the diamond is due more to the carbon black in the vinyl as well as the dust particles imbedded in the groove walls, coupled with the heat generated than the vinyl itself. Vinyl is still abrasive, though.>>
No argument here about that. My point (which you got) was that softer can easily abrade harder; the diamond stylus and LP vinyl example was just the most extreme contrast between hard and soft that I could think of at the time.
Edited 2/1/2006 4:54 pm ET by pzgren
Edited 2/1/2006 4:55 pm ET by pzgren
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled