Replies

1. 
   GregB126 | Mar 22, 2002 03:14am | #1

   Rob,

   I couldn't agree more.  My 4 1/2 is superb.  The weight, feel and even appearance are so very pleasing.  There are some tools which are such a joy to use that you are actually drawn into the shop just to use them.  This is one.

   I have one question, though.  Did you order it with the York pitch frog?  Or did you order the York pitch as an additional accessory?  I got mine with the standard one.  The ultimate question is whether you have tried both angles on the same or similar timbers.  Do you think the York pitch gives results sufficient to recommend it as an additional purchase?

   Thanks,

   Greg

1. 
   javek5 | Mar 27, 2002 05:49am | #8

   Greg,

   I got my 4 1/2 with the 50 degree frog and have been very impressed.  I bought a L-N number 7 that came with a 45 degree frog.  The performance was not nearly as good on hardwood with difficult grain (lots of tear out).  I got a 50 degree frog for the number 7.  With the 50 degree frog, you can plane just about any wood in any direction with no tear out.  Can't say the same for the 45 degree frog.  These two planes will be for use on hardwoods woods that have more difficult grain.  It is amazing how much difference 5 degrees makes.  Maybe someday I will be able to get another number seven with a 45 degree frog for other.

1. 
   GregB126 | Mar 27, 2002 09:22am | #9

   John,

   That's very interesting.  I have been aware of the York pitch and why it was developed and used.  I also thought I knew something of planing theory and how the components and geometry worked together.  It all made perfect sense until Karl Hotley came out with his own radically designed #98 smoother.  It is essentially a low angle block plane, with the iron's bevel side up and, consequently, no chip breaker.  Karl has said he has never believed in chip breakers anyway.  He produces some of the best and most beautiful examples in the history of the craft (his care reflected in the price!).  It has been tested by very discriminating professionals, and the verdict is that it performs superbly on very difficult grain.  Is it simply the quality and thickness of the iron, mounted firmly and supported all the way to the mouth?  Shouldn't the Lie-Nielsen low angle jack plane perform comparably?  My instinct says the York pitch and chip breaker should prevail... closer to a scraper plane (although the hook does enter the wood at a steeper angle than the scraper appears to present).  I guess the proof is in the pudding, and yours seems pretty good.  I just finished trueing and smoothing some not too difficult Koa with my L-N #5 and 4 1/2.  Exceptionally well honed irons and stropped chip breakers may have done the trick, but I did feel it was important to be mindful of the direction I planed.  Bottom line?  Beautiful result.  Who's complaining?

   Greg

1. 
   RLMillard | Mar 28, 2002 01:25am | #10

   I am not familiar with the Holtey low angle plane ( I can’t even afford to look at one) but I understand the theory behind low angle smooth planes. On a low angle plane such as the Lie-Nielsen, the iron rides bevel up, so by changing the angle at which you grind that bevel you in effect change the cutting angle. Also, the bevel being up acts as a chip breaker ( which I agree has only a marginal effect on the cut quality). With a bed angle as low as the Lie-Nielsen, you would have to grind a 38 degree bevel on the iron to equal a bench planes York pitch frog. That is a fairly blunt bevel, which I think would limit its usefulness. On the other hand a bed angle of 20 degrees, would allow more room to grind bevel to match the York pitch. I think the real advantage of a low angle plane is it’s low center of gravity, and that the blade can be supported to very near ( if not right to) the cutting edge.

1. 
   JoeCoty | Mar 28, 2002 06:44am | #11

   Lie-Nielsen offers a corrugated base option to reduce friction. Seems like it might reduce fettling time as well. It carries a nominal $25 surcharge- is it worth considering?

   Joe

2. 
   bill_1010 | Mar 28, 2002 04:50pm | #13

   Joe, ive read that the corrigation is only a matter of personal taste. Doesnt really reduce friction.

   However corrigated soles fettle a bit faster, but from what im gathering LNs need very little fettling

   Personally id avoid jointer planes with corrigations only because you have less sole on the edge joint that could possible cause some bevel if you dont use a shooter. 

3. 
   SCFrankland | Mar 28, 2002 07:27pm | #14

   I have several planes with corrigated soles and I have not found them any easier to use.  I use a block of wax that I make a z pattern over the whole of the plane sole.  It does not get any easier than that.Scott C. Frankland

   Newfoundland Wood Worker

4. 
   JoeCoty | Mar 29, 2002 04:44am | #15

   Thanks Bill and Scott.

5. 
   GregB126 | Mar 28, 2002 07:10am | #12

   Rob,

   My last was a silly post.  Wasn't thinking.  Here's another try, assisted by a quick glance at Karl Holtey's web site.  Let me think this through.  He beds the iron in his #98 at 22 1/2 degrees.  His nice, thick, cryo treated A-2 iron is sharpened at 30 degrees, giving it an "angle of attack" of 52 1/2 degrees.  This is effectively a little steeper than a bench plane with a York pitch of 50 degrees.  With the bench plane's bevel down, the 50 degrees is necessarily static (unless you were to put a micro bevel on the "flat" side??)  Karl says he doesn't really see worth in a chip breaker, so hasn't lost any effectiveness with the bevel up.  Obviously, the additional support achieved by having the flat side bedded all the way to the mouth is considered the more valuable tradeoff.  So, a tight mouth, a very stout and extraordinarily high quality iron, fully supported to minimize or effectively erase chatter, and a presentation angle of over 50 degrees are what one gets in his #98.  Oh yeah, add predominantly stainless components, beautifully hand made rosewood handle and knob, as well as phenomenal craftsmanship and you get one of the most beautiful and best performing planes in the history of the technology.  Unfortunately, I'd still be rightly reported to Child Protective Services on charges of neglect if I ordered one!  The Lie-Nielsen iron miter (aka Stanley #9) is a poor man's attempt at the theory, if not the quality. 

   Oh yeah, as to the 30 degree bevel approaching being blunt.  Does that matter?  The chip has already been lifted away from the timber and snapped into submission (and a nice, tight curl) by the leading edge of the tight mouth.  Does the extra iron behind the sharp edge really come into play as anything more than yet more support against chatter for the iron?  I don't know.  When taking the concept to extremes, my brain wants to reject the proposition.

   Anyway, someday I'd like to have a chance at owning a #98.  In the mean time, just trying to understand it all has dramatically improved the set up and performance of my mortal ones.

   Greg

2. 
   lwilliams | Mar 31, 2002 04:56pm | #16

   Hi Greg,

   Sorry about the slow response--it's a little busy here right now.

   I'm wondering if you could clear up some mysteries for me? Exactly why is A-2 steel better? I've been digging into this for several years and find that different steel choices offer different qualities and each involves trade-offs.

   It's a lot like wood choices in wood working; there seem to be choices--go in one direction and you trade toughness (grain size) for hardness (wear resistance), go in another and you trade red hardness (heat resistance) for accuracy and predictability in heat treating. A-2 looks like a wear resistant (eg. hard but coarse grained), red hard (heat resistant but difficult to heat treat) steel. I understand that slow quench steels like A-2 or M-2 (High Speed Steel) benefit from cryogenic tempering but it has little value for fast quenching steels like O-1 or W-1. I guess can understand this--quench in a hot air blast or molten salt and the crystalline conversion isn't as complete as a quick quench in brine or oil. I tend to think of cryogenic tempering as a way to overcome one of the negative trade-offs of using slow quench steels.

   My understanding is that A-2 with its complex alloy content was designed for increased dimensional stability in heat treating at the expense of grain size and complex/difficult heat treating requirements. Talking to the best of the local tool and die shops, I found uneconomical to  consider heat treating a few A-2 irons.  It takes time to equalize temperatures in an atmosphere-controlled staged furnace. A few hours use of a very expensive piece of equipment and the labor of one of the most skilled and highly trained machinist trades doesn't come cheap. I'm sure Karl Holtey's irons are great because tightly specified A-2 heat treated and tempered under ideal conditions is capable of producing good irons. But, even Holtey himself, will tell you there's A-2 and there's A-2. An educated guess tells me that Thomas Lie-Nielsen and Karl Holtey are pretty good friends and a lot of information flows between the two. I would say that Lie-Nielsen's A-2 irons are also very good. I also know that Ron Hock is an ardent student of tool steels and, while market forces have forced him to offer cryo A-2 plane irons, he pretty clearly states that he thinks O-2 produces the finest irons of any of the commercial categories of tool steel. He prefers O-2 over O-1 because O-1 contains small amounts of vanadium which slightly increases grain size. He'll tell you, though, that he doesn't think anyone could tell the difference between and O-2 and an O-1 plane iron. I'm sure that an A-2 iron from Holtey, Lie-Nielsen or Ron Hock will be fine but I have doubts about others out there. Heat treating of A-2 is just too complex and dependent of the size characteristics of each piece of steel being treated.

   So maybe you cant tell me why A-2 is so great compared to W-1,  O-2 or O-1? My metallurgy books all say the steel with the fewest alloys added for any specific purpose is best. A-2 is highly alloyed but the famed early Japanese steels start with pure wrought iron and only carbon is added and evenly distributed by labor intensive and skilled forging. These Japanese irons of the simplest steel produce the finest grain which offers the keenest edge of any of the steels. The fine edge of these Japanese is offset considerably by the brittle timbre of the steel but it is an indication of the capability of the simplest of water hardening steels.

   W-1 has been difficult to get as bar stock in small quantities and it's getting more difficult to locate all the time as big commercial producers are looking for more dimensional stability from heat treating to avoid costly machining of hardened steel products. It is increasingly difficult to locate and buy. I can't help but wonder if these aren't the forces motivating Lie-Nielsen in switching to A-2--availability and dimensional stability.

   Can you help explain this further? Each time I dig into this, I'm left with the feeling that much of the information out there is based on things being stated as fact but with nothing to back them up. It has the appearance of rumor, mystique or maybe even wishful thinking at times. I, for one, would like to see this whole issue in the light of day without all the emotional claims and unsubstantiated endorsements. I fear a lot of what's going on is similar to what happened with cap irons in the past. Is this kind of a placebo for wood workers?

   For years, I've been one of the few wandering around the different wood working forums, mailing lists and newsgroups questioning the function and value of cap irons in planes. I've been crucified at times and even accused of "trying to re-invent the wheel" but I've won a few converts. Sometimes I even wonder if the proof about cap irons and 300 year-old cutting geometry my partner and I have put out there wasn't also at least part the reason Karl Holtey re-designed the cutting geometry of his Norris style planes a short while ago or why Lie-Nielsen introduced the York pitch frogs.

   Edited 3/31/2002 10:00:17 AM ET by Larry Williams

1. 
   RLMillard | Mar 31, 2002 08:26pm | #17

   I work part time in a small machine shop, and I don’t pretend to know anything about steel, but I know a lot about hand planes and their use. I used a Hock blade, and it was that experience that led me to A-2. The Hock blade was better than a stock blade, but not by much. I was told that D-2 would make a better blade, but it was much more costly when purchased as flat ground stock. The difference between A-2 irons and the normal 0 series steel in my experience has been nothing short of astounding, with the A-2 decidedly superior. Before the A-2 blades were available commercially I had a few made for my planes, where I work, these were only heat-treated. It cost less than $25 to have over a dozen heat-treated. I’ve been told that the cryo process does not add that much to the cost, but the point is mute since they can now be purchased for a nominal cost. I’ve also been told that HHS (the M series) is not suitable for plane blades.

2. 
   GregB126 | Apr 02, 2002 03:20am | #18

   Larry,I think I started my own comments in this thread off by expressing whole hearted agreement with Rob on his assessment of his L-N 4 1/2 (as well as a question about the York pitch frog).  I agree with his last post too.  For me, the bottom line is performance.  I must confess to not being a metallurgical expert.  In trying to improve my craft, I've tried to read a bit and ask questions of those who know.  Woodworkers are fabulous people, in the main.  They love to share!  Based on all I've learned so far, a good deal of which has been confirmed at my own bench, the current state of the art is cryo treated A-2.  Whoops!  Let me take that back.  The true state of the art is Karl Holtey's newest blade, the S53.  I believe he describes it a little on his web site.  It was fairly "new" when I remember first looking, but maybe the "news" section is now primarily devoted to the #98.  It could now be in the product description of the blades themselves.  I think there is a short bit about the metallurgy behind the blade and why he expects the S53 to be an improvement on other blades, even his own A-2.  Should have checked it before writing this, but it's been a long day....  As I recall, he cryo treats both his A-2 and the S53, in both cases to enhance their crystalline structure.  His bottom line, as one can imagine, is performance.  He is trying to produce the very best performing blades possible.  This means toughness, durability, resistance to abrasion and edge holding capability.  He wants his product to take an edge well, hold it a long time, chatter not at all and perform its intended function in the most difficult of timbers.I agree there are those who try and hawk their wares on a public anxious to pick up the latest thing, merely because it is the latest.  This faddism can lead many true seekers of improvement down the garden path right to their bank accounts, with little actually purchased but the placebo to which you refer.  From everything I've ever heard about Karl, he sells no snake oil.  He is truly at the pinnacle, but not only due to materials/technology and impeccable metallurgical methods.  His eye seems always on the target: performance.  This is no doubt why his irons are appreciably thicker than those made by the others, including the superb ones produced by Ron Hock and Tom Lie-Nielsen.  Thicker equals less chatter and better performance.  (In fact, I believe they are as thick as he can make them, and still be able to mount them in a plane!)Taking Karl out of the picture for a moment, it seems clear the other guys are producing the very best they can, while staying within the reach of we woodworkers.  They no doubt face cost dilemmas and make trade-offs, always trying trying to produce the best, while still staying in business.  In my opinion, they perform an enormous public service.  They put out superb products and make our lives better for it.  My four (going on 10...) Lie-Nielsen planes perform as close to perfectly as I can imagine, and were mostly ready to do so right out of the box.  Ironic, but this makes them the perfect entry level plane, if the beginner can just see this value.  Anyway, Tom, Ron and Karl share something important: integrity.  No snake oil to be found in anyone's shop here.  Maybe camellia oil, but that is another story...

   Oh yeah, in the words of Yoda, "There is another."  David Finck also offers a cryo treated A-2 iron for use in home made wooden planes.  He is a former student of James Krenov and has recently published a book about wooden plane making in the Krenov style.  I won't quote him, but his description of his iron quickly "cuts" to the bottom line.  It works great and lasts a really long time.  I've never made a wooden plane, but expect to give it a try in late spring.

   Okay, maybe I didn't respond exactly to your post.  At least I used a LOT of words in not doing so....  In the end, I agree with Rob.  I love my 4 1/2 (and am about to order the York pitch).

   Edited 4/1/2002 10:23:47 PM ET by GregB

2. 
   GregB126 | Mar 22, 2002 03:29am | #2

   Rob,

   I forgot one thing.  As to the A-2 iron, Lie-Nielsen is now offering their A-2 irons cryogenically treated.  This cryo treatment is making a dramatic difference in the longevity of the edge.  You may actually have this type and are experiencing the dramatic difference.  Karl Holtey, in England, has offered a substantially thicker replacement iron which has been cryo treated for at least a year now.  It was tested by David Charlesworth, who found that while sharpening/honing took a bit longer at first, the edge remained sharper for a great deal longer.  Ron Hock has also recently begun marketing cryo treated blades, which are good, but a bit thinner than Holtey's.  In my opinion, the prices of each are pretty reasonable.

   Maybe more for the relatively newer plane users, there is a new video about plane use and sharpening by Rob Cosman.  It is featured along with David Charlesworth's second book right at the top of the Lie-Nielsen home page.  It is on this same page that Lie-Nielsen boasts the availability of the A-2 cryogenically treated irons.  Do you have paper work or a distinctive mark which would indicate which yours is?

   Have fun!

   Greg

1. 
   RLMillard | Mar 22, 2002 01:56pm | #3

   I ordered my plane with the 50-degree frog only. I have had experience with my own homemade planes and period molding planes that convince me the higher pitch is very beneficial. I hone a back bevel on my standard bench planes, to in effect raise the bed angle. I had some A-2 blades made for my planes about 3 years ago, and as you noted, they work great. I can’t say that I noticed any difference in the amount of time it takes to sharpen one, but the difference in edge quality and longevity is noticeable.

1. 
   Trees2dust | Mar 22, 2002 09:12pm | #4

   Rob,

   So should I forget about homemade wooden planes and buy a Lie-Nielsen instead?  I have been wanting to make Krenov-style planes to complement my selection of old Stanleys, but now you have me thinking.  Does your 4 1/2 handle planing situations that your wooden planes can't? 

   About the back bevel: at least in theory it should have exactly the same effect as a high-angle frog, but do you find this to be the case?

   High-end planes are a lot like high-end bicycles- they often cost more than their motorized counterparts, and you still have to provide the manual labor.  I have just about justified to the "boss" the $2k that I'm about to spend on a USED bike.  About the Lie-Nielsen plane... honey, it followed me home against my will.

   Rick

1. 
   RLMillard | Mar 23, 2002 04:10am | #5

   I built dozens of pieces with my shop made smooth plane, and I tend to extol the simple (cheap) approach to woodworking, but the Lie-Nielsen plane changed my mind. If you’d asked me a month ago this same question, I would have suggested the home made plane. Now I’d say get the Lie-Nielsen. The back bevel does indeed contribute to a better surface. I can easily tell the difference with my own planes that have it. Having said that, a plane that has the high bed angle will work better than a standard plane with a back bevel. The back bevel does not need to be very large; in fact you shouldn’t even be able to see it, because the cap iron needs to fit tightly.

1. 
   SCFrankland | Mar 23, 2002 04:21pm | #6

   I was just about to order a Lie Nielsen 4 1/2 after using one at a woodworking show last fall. The thing sailed through just about everything I pushed it over.  But the other day I bought two planes made by Steve Knight of Knight Toolworks.  One was a 45 deg smoother and the other was a 55 deg small smoother.  Both worked better than the Lie Nielsen right out of the box.    I have to say that for the price they are far better than any other hand plane I own.  Scott C. Frankland

   Newfoundland Wood Worker

2. 
   Seth_Frankel | Mar 23, 2002 04:32pm | #7

   Scott,

   I'm not familiar with the Knight Toolworks. Can you pass along some info?

   Thanks.

   Seth