Replies

1. 
   Midnight | Jan 02, 2004 09:45pm | #1

   Dustin..

   From what I hear, Cliftons can be tuned to give a performance on a par with the L-N's.... however.... L-N have just launched a high angle frog for their #4 bedrocks. Having fitted one to my 41/2, I can asure you that on difficult grain, the high angle frog make a hellova difference to the quality of the finished board.

   Mike Wallace

   Stay safe....Have fun

2. 
   Lar55 | Jan 02, 2004 11:09pm | #2

   The Clifton #4 is a great plane, I have one.  But like Mike says on difficult grain you may need to use a high angle blade such as the one the L-N 4 1/2 has which is another great plane.  Not familar with the L-N #4.

3. 
   ian | Jan 03, 2004 02:58am | #3

   One of the Australian wood mags did a side-by-side comparision of Clifton and LN planes (I think it was #5s) some time ago.  The review was pretty comprehensive and was based on experiences in the first semester of a year or two year course.  Some participants arrived with Cliftons and others with LNs and the course commenced with classes on tuning the plane.   From memory the key differences between the Clifton and LN were:

   Price  —  the LN was much more expensive than the Clifton

   Fettling  —  the Clifton required considerably more than the LN.   From memory your 2-3 hours would be typical for a Clifton but the measure itself is pretty subjective.  How do you value your time?  what is 2-3 hours worth when you might spend it in a corner of the kitchen talking to SWMBO or the kids?  Note that even at 3 hours this was way less than the time required to fettle a new Record or [UK] Stanley.

   Performance  —  very little in it.  I don't remember if one was rated better than another.  However, I do remember that the reviewer (the course instructor) concluded with "Having had the opportunity to use both planes [LN and Clifton] over the past 3 months I'm going to get a Clifton for myself"

   As to the #4.5 and LN's high angle frog, I think you can achieve the same outcome – a higher cutting angle for difficult grain – buy getting a second blade and sharpening it at a steeper angle — 35deg rather than the normal 25

   does someone out there know for sure?

   Ian

1. 
   lwilliams | Jan 03, 2004 04:27am | #4

   Ian asks,

   "As to the #4.5 and LN's high angle frog, I think you can achieve the same outcome – a higher cutting angle for difficult grain – buy getting a second blade and sharpening it at a steeper angle — 35deg rather than the normal 25 does someone out there know for sure?"

   What you're thinking of is s back bevel. The non-beveled face of the blade is given a bevel, usually 5º or so, which increases the effective pitch angle. Merely increasing the primary bevel angle of a bevel down plane won't change the effective pitch of the iron.

   Yes, back beveling does work. It's drawback is that its other effect is that it moves the cutting edge toward center of the iron's thickness and the frog the same as a thinner iron would. You may experience more chatter and you may not be able to close the mouth of the plane by moving the frog. The latter of these is because of movement limitations of the frog and the shape of the mouth of the plane. Still, it's a technique that's been around since at least the publishing of Holtzapffel's books in 1875.

2. 
   dlwheel | Jan 03, 2004 04:31am | #5

   The bevel angle will not give you a steeper angle (i.e. 25 deg. vs 35 deg.)... however, a back bevel of 5 degrees is what you want if you want the York pitch (50 degrees); another 5 degrees and you are at a Middle pitch of 55 degrees; another 60 degrees and you are at Cabinet pitch, i think.

   I'm not sure on the designations; but a back bevel will give you the pitch, though.

   I use my Clifton #4 exactly this way.

   -David

1. 
   Drose | Jan 03, 2004 07:55am | #6

   DLWheel,

   This is the first time I've heard of beveling the back side of a plane iron.  Seems counterproductive after taking the time to flatten it in the first place.  I'm guessing that you'd need to flatten the back, then apply your back bevel and hone as usual.  I'm a bit of a wuss on the sharpening front and use a honing guide shamelessly, so I'm having a hard time figuring out how I could hone my iron with out taking the time to learn a new skill or having to flip my iron a couple times in my guide (seems like a horrible idea).  Also, I don't work with interlocked wood often enough for it to be a problem to just use a good scraper.  With an iron modified like you said, will i get good results on interlocked grain?  Wouldn't a well machined wedge on the back side of my iron be an easier solution?

   thanks

   Dustin

1. 
   UncleDunc | Jan 03, 2004 08:16am | #7

   The point of flattening the back is to make it smooth, so the smooth back and the smooth bevel meet in a very thin, smooth, sharp edge. As you note, the wood can't tell if you've got a back bevel on your iron, or if you have a wedge under the iron. Since the wood doesn't care, might as well use the easiest approach, which is definitely the back bevel.

   The Handplane Book, by Garrett Hack, explains the theory behind the back bevel. Which is not to detract from the other Knots poster who will no doubt contribute their thoughts. It's related to the explanation why an iron to go in a plane with a 45 deg. cutting angle isn't sharpened at an angle which provides the minimum clearance, say something like 42 deg. I would recommend the book in any case to anyone interested in handplanes.

2. 
   ian | Jan 03, 2004 02:38pm | #8

   David and Larry

   Thanks.  I remember seeing multiple blades with different bevel angles mentioned as a way to increase the versility of a low angle smoother and figured the same technique should apply to a regular bench plane but was not sure how.

   Thanks again

   Ian

1. 
   Scrit | Jan 03, 2004 07:10pm | #9

   The back bevel trick does work, but what it also does (as does a York pitch frog) is increase the amount of effort required to plane the wood. The standard 45 degree angle works pretty well on most straight grained timbers and for 95% of the work you're ever likely to do (even with hardwoods) it will do the business. That's probably why Stanley (and a lot of wooden planemakers before them) chose to use 45 degrees. Ten minutes using a York pitch iron is OK, but I doubt you'd want to spend several hours at it. However, in highly figured or very rowed timbers an iron set on a 45 degree frog will tend to tear out a bit more easily than the plane with a higher angle bed. If you do find yourself doing a lot of ebony or purpleheart then even 50 degrees won't work at times it and you'll start to look at planes with 55 or even 60 degree pitch, like those made by Knight Planeworks.

   As to the idea of putting a 5 degree wedge between the iron and the frog I feel that the adjuster mechanism would probably not work too well if you did that and I don't know if the lever cap screw would be long enough to accommodate it. Any machinist care to coment on how difficult it is to machine a 5 degree wedge? 

   Scrit

1. 
   dlwheel | Jan 05, 2004 05:53pm | #13

   I meant to mention that just because you can get a Clifton to perform well with a York pitch generated iron w/o the extra cost of another frog... that doesn't mean you will want to do all your planing with it. I have an A2 blade honed and set for ornery stuff.

   However, i have a Shepherd (Spiers style) smoother that is another level above the Clifton for smoothing. You've got to try it to see. I thought the lack of an adjuster would be a pain; but i was wrong. You learn to set it quickly.

   I HATE sanding more than anything else about working wood. So for me, it was worth it to get the Shepherd. Except for relieving edges, i sand very seldom.

   -David

2. 
   Scrit | Jan 05, 2004 06:37pm | #14

   Hi David

   See what you mean. I've recently had the self-same discussion elsewhere with a guy who couldn't quite understand why it wouldn't make better sense to use York pitch all the time - I reckon that he must either have muscles like Garth, or be a fitness freak! I've heard lots about the Shepherd planes - we don't see many this side of the pond

   Scrit

3. 
   dlwheel | Jan 05, 2004 09:34pm | #16

   Agreed. After planing tough stuff with a high pitch, you really know it the next day. I don't see any improvement planing straight grain with a york or better anyway; just a waste of energy.

   i got the Shepherd off ebay this summer from Ben; I think he may be one of the owners. At any rate it was already built and setup. I can't even imagine building one from a kit... the last thing i'd want to do.

   They've started putting a norris adjuster on some of their planes now. I'm not sure i'd want to pay additional for it, though; now that i've seen i can adjust okay w/o it.

   -David

4. 
   Scrit | Jan 05, 2004 10:18pm | #17

   Having used Norrises (both with and without adjusters) and Spiers planes I can't say there is that much difference in how fine you can set them with the adjuster, especially after a bit of practice - after all you normally don't want a coarse cut with a plane like that. I reserve a reground iron (effectively a York pitch on a thick carbon steel blade by Ray Iles) which I use on a low knob Sargent 4-1/2 smoother for the heaviest work and then switch to the infill if the 4-1/2 isn't doing the job. It's nice to have the option. The only reason for the Sargent is that it was the first low-knob I ever found, they are a bit rare here in the UK and anyway, it's sometimes nice to have something a little different ;-).

   Scrit

5. 
   dlwheel | Jan 06, 2004 05:34am | #18

   Scrit,

   I'm late to the game with infills... but am very glad to have found them.

   How do you normally relieve edges? I know Veritas has a new toy/tool for relieving edges with a mild chamfer; i haven't seen it yet. I've been hitting the edge with 220grit after everything is finish planed.

   Most everything i have built of late is a shellac and wax for the finish.

   -David

6. 
   Scrit | Jan 06, 2004 05:23pm | #21

   To break an arris (sharp edge) I use garnet paper in my fingers. If it needs more of a round-over I'd use a router with a guided round-over bit or block plane (then sand in either case), but for chamfers I tend to reach for either the chamfer shave or an old wooden chamfer plane.

   Scrit

7. 
   RANGERP75R | Jan 06, 2004 06:12am | #19

   David

      Sorry to butt in, but I will confirm that Ben is one of the owners and Sheppard clan I believe.

      Releiving edges? Have you ever seen a slick plane? Cheap and has a blade for a 1/16" round-over and another blade available for a slight camfer.

   Regards...

   sarge..jtProud member of the :  "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>) 

8. 
   dlwheel | Jan 06, 2004 05:11pm | #20

   Thanks Sarge. I have not seen a "slick"; i will check it out.

   -David

3. 
   harvburton | Jan 03, 2004 10:22pm | #10

   Ok, I've managed to remain a lurker for months (even through the Saddam thread), but can't resist this one. What the heck were they doing for three hours on a Clifton? My breakdown below.

   10 minutes -- sharpening blade and fitting capiron

   30 minutes -- flattening sole (this is if it is bad--if you are spending more time than this, send it back for one that wasn't made late on a Friday)

   5 minutes -- squaring mouth front

   5 minutes -- adjusting frog/mouth opening

   Can't even get an hour. Ok, three hours maybe if stripping the baby "stuff" green paint job and applying real japanning and sanding the 1/8 inch of clear laquer on the handles down to bare wood counts as "fettling."

   Which mag was it? Truly interested.

1. 
   ian | Jan 04, 2004 02:55am | #11

   Welcome to the forum

   since my earlier post re Clifton vs LN, which was written from memory, I've looked up the article itself.  The reference is:  Australian Wood Review, Issue 36, pp84–85.   

   The context of the review was the School for Wood in Dwellingup, Western Australia.  At the start of their two year course students are required to arrive with three planes, a block, a shoulder and a #5.  For the class involved in the review, three students had LNs and three Cliftons.  From the age of the review the LNs are from before the introduction of the new cap iron.  To summarise the review:

   The plane fettling tasks were: flattening the back of the blade, honing the edge, checking the seating of the cap iron, and flattening the sole. Sole – "both the LN and the Cliftons needed very little work on the sole" – essentially all that was done was polish on 1000 wet/dryCap iron – the two piece Clifton cap iron needed considerable work. "I had to first bend the pin straight to get the lower part off — this revealed an almost unacceptable amount of play in the mating grooves."  There was no specific comment re fettling the LN cap iron. flattening and honong the blade – no specific comments apart from both "held its edge well"Performance – "we planed as many types of wood as we could find in the workshop, including some gnarly desert timbers as well as a lot of end grain. Frankly I was quite amazed. I had always thought the results I was getting with with my standard planes [including an old Record with a stay-set cap iron], was good, however [the LN and Clifton] planes lifted the bar a notch. The desert timbers planed up free of tearout and end grain planing was a breeze ... we could not come up with a decisive winner."  my emphasis 

   Please note that the article does not indicate how much time was spent fettling either plane, but by implication the Clifton took longer than the LN.  The period 2-3 hours came from the original poster. 

1. 
   Scrit | Jan 04, 2004 11:57pm | #12

   There is a quick and dirty way to get a Stay Set (split) cap to stay put - silicone sbealant. If it's good enough for David Charlesworth, then It's good enough for me!

   Scrit

   Edited 1/4/2004 4:12:51 PM ET by Scrit

2. 
   harvburton | Jan 05, 2004 09:07pm | #15

   Thanks, Ian. That makes much more sense now.  Still can't figure out what people are doing  fettling any plane of useful quality for more time than that, including current Stanleys and Records, but I will leave that for another day and discussion.  Looked online for downloadable reprints with no luck.  If you are a subscriber, put that one in a suggestion box?  Cheers!