Since the old Tool Talk is read-only now, I thought I would start a thread about how much work you all do to recondition your old planes and how many are collected vs made into useable tools. Worst case, we can use this as a support group for plane addicts.
I had some old wooden planes and while most are by Ohio Tool Co., I have one from the late 1700’s to early 1800’s (Braithwaite with John Green stamped on the front end) that I would like to use for one project. I also have a 7/8″ dado plane from the mid-late 1800’s (A.Mathieson & Son). The iron on both are in pretty decent shape (dado plane is better steel) but I think I could get a good edge on them. I’m trying to decide whether to use them or just preserve them. The Ohio Too planes are less of an issue since they’re so common.
For some reason, I recently got a bug up my whatever to buy more planes of different types and found a Bailey #4 (orange paint around the lettering on the cap, no patent dates with Stanley stamped into the adjuster) and a #7 (Stanley stamped into the adjuster, the cap is blank and the latest patent date is 1910), both Stanley and made in England, an Ohio Tool wooden smoother (needs a new wedge but the iron is solid and gets thicker toward the cutting edge) and all really decent. The Stanley irons, chip breakers and caps were cleaned on wire wheels, but the edges are crisp, although not absolutely straight. The soles are flatter than I expected and the Japanning is very good+ on the #7 but I haven’t cleaned the #4 yet. It’s dirtier and the surface is definitely rougher than the #7 but that could just be mung. Neither has any obvious rust on the top surface and no pitting on the sides or sole.
I spent some time on the #7’s sole, cleaned it up, made a couple of adjustments and worked on the cutting edge. I only went to 600 grit and tried it out on a piece of soft maple. Holy crap, was it nice!
Another question is, what angle has been found to work best for thin irons? The mouths are a bit thin for Hock irons and if I replace the irons and chipbreakers, there’s no way they’ll fit in the mouth on either.
Thanks for any answers that come my way.
My name’s Jim and I’m an addict.
Replies
"HI, JIM"
My name's Jeff, and I'm also an addict. 25° works just fine on the original Stanley planes. When you lap the sole of your planes, it's not critical, especially on the 6, 7, and 8, that the entire sole be at the same level. Just make sure that the area on both sides of the mouth and most of the heel area are flat. Corrugated planes were designed to help reduce the "suction" and friction of pushing that much steel over your stock, but it also benefits your ability to lap the sole faster, because there is less to lap. I have a 7 and 7C, and the 7C took a fraction of the time to tune.
I could yak about planes all night long, but I'll leave more to others, since I found ya first.
For me, there's no cure in sight!!
Jeff
You mean 25° removed from the cutting edge, right? That would make the internal angle of the iron to the honing surface 55°. It's not far off of that now, so I'll check the actual angle on the irons and see where they are. Same angle for Stanley block planes?
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Jim
With the bevel facing down, the effective cutting angle is still the angle of the frog. I hope we're talking about the same thing here. The only time the effective angle changes is if the plane iron is bevel up.
Jeff
Right- the cutting angle is the frog angle because on a #4 or #7 (and most other models), the back of the iron faces up and on a block or LA plane, the back is facing down. I was asking about the angle of the iron to the sharpening stone.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Jim
We've got a nice little private discussion going here. 25° is what I always use, unless it's a specialty blade, like a low angle jack, where I'm trying to plane some really tough grain. I think 25° is pretty much the standard.
Jeff
"... I think 25� is pretty much the standard."It's Stanley's recommended grinding angle but they suggest honing at 30º.
A 5° microbevel is a bit much, but do as you please.
Jeff
Jeff writes, "A 5� microbevel is a bit much, but do as you please."I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying 30º is too obtuse or that you shouldn't grind at 25º then hone at 30º? If 30º is too obtuse, is 40º or even 50º somehow better?If it's that you don't like a honing angle of 30º and a grinding angle of 25º, as Stanley suggests, what are your issues with this?Okay, I've done some preliminary tests with an increased bevel angle on my LN 164 bevel up smooth plane. As I predicted, the 40º bevel angle gets very difficult with anything but the lightest of cuts. In fact, it seems to limit itself to a very light cut unless there's a lot of force pushing down. Then the plane gets difficult wanting to jump and chatter.I know my 55º middle pitch smooth plane has a slightly shorter edge life than one bedded at common pitch, 45º. That's due to the increased friction, heat and wear to the top of the iron. What the performance of the low angle plane and 40º cutting angle tells me is that the wood is springing back from viscoelastic deformation enough that it's rubbing and pushing back on the bottom of the cutting edge. In other words, the built-in 12º clearance angle isn't great enough to handle the increased viscoelastic flex of the wood fibers when using a 40º edge. This means there's friction and wear on both faces of the cutting edge which will further shorten the life of the edge assuming you can even get the plane to work properly. Heat is a catalyst to wear of steel; doubling the heat isn't a good thing and I wonder were the limits of heat dissipation vs. edge life may be.Were you saying there's an advantage to bevel-up planes because you can increase the bevel angle? That the planes still work just fine? Have you tried this? Anyone else out there?Come on back, Jeff. Help me out here, is there something I'm doing wrong? I'm still going to try a 50º cutting edge as one manufacturer suggests, but I'm starting to smell snake-oil. I expect 50º to be worse rather than better.
Larry
It's not that complicated, so don't make it complicated. Alls I was stating was that a 5° microbevel was more THAN I PERSONALLY LIKE. I personally prefer a 2° microbevel, and this is for bevel down bench planes ONLY.
As far as low angle bevel-up planes go, the effective angle of the cutting angle is all that matters. Bed angle = 12° Bevel angle= 25° means effective cutting angle is 37°. Now, if you need to plane some squirrelly grain, get the effective angle between 50° and 60°, and you WILL get better results. I have 2 different blades for my low angle Jack (162). One with a standard bevel, and one with a 22° secondary bevel, which makes the effective angle 59°. I use in on some extreme-grained curly cherry, and on crotches, with very, very good results. Of course, it's harder to push, but that's what those arms and hips are for!
It's not snake oil, it does work.
Jeff
Edited 12/18/2005 12:47 pm ET by JeffHeath
"...The only time the effective angle changes is if the plane iron is bevel up."One of these days I'm going to play with this a little. I think there's a good chance some people are being sold a bill of goods on these low angle planes. Because of wood's viscoelacticity the wood fibers deflect ahead of the cutting edge. To me it seems that with an increased bevel angle you're trying to cut those deformed wood fibers with a very obtuse cutting edge. Would you try to work with a chisel honed to a 50º cutting edge as one manufacturer suggests for low angle planes?The bevel down plane I depend on every day is bedded at 55º. I hone its hollow ground iron to about 30º. As the honed flat at the cutting edge grows and it takes a little longer to sharpen. I've been known to get in a hurry and lift the iron a little as I hone. I don't have to increase the honing angle much before my docile and agile plane becomes a cantankerous SOB. I doubt I've ever honed the iron as obtuse as 40º. I think the same issues are at work in this case.My guess is that a iron honed at 50º in a 12º bed angle plane turns the plane into a self-limiting scraper because of the viscoelastic properties of wood. I'm not sure and I'll have to try this with my LN #164. I do know that even steel has a viscoelastic nature when being cut. Has anyone here actually tried to take a heavy shaving with a bevel up plane and a 50º iron?
Nobody is being sold a bill of goods over these bevel up planes. Jeff told it as it is in his post #13. Nearly everything in life is a trade off, so with a bevel up plane one can increase the cutting angle simply-by changing the honing angle or more radically by re-grinding the primary bevel-doing that on a bevel down is not effective. But as the cutting angle increases the plane becomes harder to push and one can only take fine cuts-to the point where it is more like a scraping action. But the trade off is that a bevel up plane is more versatile, but needs plenty of heft and weight.
I have been tinkering around with making planes, and picked on the bevl up concept for the above reasons ,amongst others. To answer your question directly-I have taken a few heavy cuts with a bevel up, at 52³ to be exactand it takes some effort, the resulting surface is better than what one would get with the standard Stanley 45³-but the plane need sto be heavy, very heavy. But one does not use a cutting angle of 50³ plus to take heavy cuts....Philip Marcou
Edited 12/18/2005 3:54 am by philip
Philip, I'm wondering if all your absolutes are really absolutes. You wrote, "..Nearly everything in life is a trade off, so with a bevel up plane one can increase the cutting angle simply-by changing the honing angle or more radically by re-grinding the primary bevel-doing that on a bevel down is not effective..." One might argue that you could take your normal Stanley Bailey bench plane and add a 5º front bevel while decreasing the honing angle to 25º and have an effective cutting angle of 50º This avoids all the clearance angle and obtuse edge problems of what you suggest. Experience tells me you'll retain the depth of cut ability without all the struggle and extra work.Back when Lie-Nielsen was first expanding their line of bench planes beyond the #1 and I awaited the delivery of my #2, I would call every now and then to check on the #2's progress. I don't think Thomas Lie-Nielsen knew who I was back then and I took advantage of that--each call included a request for the #164. I wanted to make sure he got frequent requests for it. I knew what I wanted it for; end grain work and soft, low density woods like white pine. It excels at those. Like the #2, mine was in the first batch shipped and I'm thrilled to have mine with the LN's old extremely fine grained W-1 irons. I don't like wasting this precious steel on experimenting with things I doubt will work, so it's taken me a while to try the obtuse angle nonsense.You go on to say, "...as the cutting angle increases the plane becomes harder to push and one can only take fine cuts-to the point where it is more like a scraping action. But the trade off is that a bevel up plane is more versatile, but needs plenty of heft and weight."In my years of making my living in woodworking, one of the rules I've come to live by is that if I'm struggling and working too hard, it's time to reevaluate techniques and/or tools. Yes, the steeper the cutting geometry the harder it is to push the plane. But the difference is only slight. My middle pitch plane is easier to push than the #164 with the obtuse cutting edge. I don't have to stand on it to get it to work and it doesn't balk.My learning curve also included what makes for a good surface left by a plane. I learned pretty early that, if the surface was shiny and burnished, I needed to sand for good finish bond. A burnished surface also contributes greatly to problems with uneven stain penetration as well. The inadequate clearance angle of obtuse cutting edges in low angle planes results in the kind of shiny burnished surface that used to give me fits when finishing.There is one advantage I can see to low angle planes and obtuse cutting edges. The combination of the low angle and the self-limiting characteristic will make it easier for someone with limited experience to set the plane for a fine shaving. One problem is the depth of cut is controlled by the density of the wood rather than the relationship between the plane's sole and the distance to the cutting edge. I see this as especially problematic with a low angle jointer. It's not uncommon for the density of wood to vary within the same board. How do you get a straight edge when wood density changes?You also say, "...To answer your question directly-I have taken a few heavy cuts with a bevel up, at 52³ to be exact and it takes some effort, the resulting surface is better than what one would get with the standard Stanley 45³-but the plane needs to be heavy, very heavy. But one does not use a cutting angle of 50³ plus to take heavy cuts"I still often spend whole days standing at my bench using planes. I don't see heavy planes as an advantage. If I wanted to work out with weights, I'd buy a gym membership to do it in a controlled and limited way. I disagree with "one does not use a cutting angle of 50º plus to take heavy cuts." Why not? Why not use a York pitch or middle pitch plane for initial work? They do it and do it very well. It was common practice in the 18th and 19th Century. Old York pitch and middle pitch planes aren't uncommon and none of the old literature indicates they were just for fine cuts.At one point you said, "I have been tinkering around with making planes..." I've made a few myself. There are a few thousand of them out there with my name stamped in their toe. I have spent countless hours studying their history and I can tell you that plane technology was pretty mature and highly evolved by the 18th Century. A lot that's now touted as innovation is old or little more than hype and gimmicks. There's not much new out there.
Edited 12/18/2005 12:22 pm by lwilliams
Larry, you seem to be coming across a bit on the argumentative side here-or am I over sensitive?
I was merely supporting what other users have said, and I would not be doing that if I had not arrived at the same conclusion through some experience. I am the last one for absolutes, but I do like to arrange things in certain parameters-I don't believe I was stating anything to be absolutely written in stone.
I feel that there are two camps here-the low bed angles and the high bed angles,both having their advantages and disadvantages-or trade-offs.From what I see, people appear to be a bit more interested in low angle bedded bevel up planes at the moment, and the effect of different sharpening angles on the on the cutting angle and action.I have experimented with this too, and have settled on a bed of 15 degrees for the time being, as a compromise.
I have tried various back bevel angles on a standard plane ,and found that only the slightest suspicion of an angle is helpful-5 degrees being a bit much-but that is me and the type of timbers that I am used to.
I used the words "harder to push"- I was not saying that is a disadvantage (not for me at least), but if there's more resistance then I would prefer a heavy plane to a light plane. Obviously "more resistance" needs to be within reason-maybe I would have even a lower tolerance than you?In the same vein, I would rather not take the heavy cuts with a 50deg. plus cutting angle-because it takes more effort and by implication the idea is to remove as much wood as possible as quickly as possible-surface quality being relatively unimportant.I am open to correction here, but the few Norris, Spiers and similar that I have seen all had mouths so fine that they could only take wispies-let alone a decent curly shaving-but then Ihave not seen too many of them.
I am interested in your reference to a burnished surface-I have yet to experience this-even at York plus angles, and I think it is to do again with the timbers that I use. A scraped surface, yes.
How do you get a straight edge when the density changes? Well wood is not homogenous so that condition is there all the time , but I suppose it is more pronounced in softer woods, so I advocate a lower cutting angle ....
Anyway, that's some of my take on this issue, and I admit to hoping to provoke some action when I posted initially, unorthodox as I am. It would be nice to actually get together and demonstrate all these things. As you say there's not much new out there (especially bevel up stuff)but peoples perceptions do change-current flavour of the month can be next month's poison.I am always interested in how the changes come about.
As an aside-why are you talking of obtuse angles? To me an obtuse angle =90deg. plusand not more than 180* whilst an acute is less than 90degrees, which iswhat we are on about?
As another aside, I am familiar with W2, but cannot find any reference to W1 in a steel supply catalogue I have here-can you tell me more?Philip Marcou
Philip,I don't have a problem with low angle bench planes. My LN #164 serves its purpose well. I can even see a limited potential to bail people out when they hit difficult grain and don't have a better option. Unfortunately the way planes are being represented these days, one would only expect them to be for final finishing. That's a real shame. Planes can do be so much more than just a replacement for sandpaper when things go just right. In one-off work they can be more efficient than power tools for a lot of jobs. Well, they can if you have one that isn't limited by a supposed improvement that mostly limits their capabilities.In hard woods, a low cutting angle can case problems with tear out. Adding an iron with an obtuse bevel basically turns the plane into a finishing scraper. Yet I keep reading suggestions to buy a specialty low angle plane for general purpose planing and it doesn't make sense. If the goal is to get new people to try hand planes why not try to make their effort as successful as possible?W-1 is a common steel but I can't get it in sizes suitable for plane irons. I wish I could. MSC, Enco and others stock it as drill rod. I can look up its alloy content but I'm sure it's in MSC's on-line catalog. I'd like to find a source for W-2 in flat stock, if I remember right it has less vanadium than W-1 and would surely make fine plane irons if I'm right. I'm not wild about all the highly alloyed steels that are the big buzz today. I'll stick with the old proven steels that work very well and have some latitude in heat treating. Lie-Nielsen proves every day that A-2 can make high quality serviceable plane irons. I happen to be in a situation where I occasionally talk to the guy in charge of their heat treating. They've brought it in house to be able to maintain quality with the new air quenching steels. I doubt I get a very complete picture, but I know it's not simple or cheap. Their new A-2 irons are very good irons but I think their old W-1 irons may be the best plane irons ever made.I don't know where you're seeing the infills with tight mouths. Tight mouths in infills are more the exception than the rule. I had a late production Norris A-5. It was early enough that it was over-stuffed and had the fine adjuster. I spent two days in a machine shop tuning that plane. I worked until I thought it was perfect. I made a new iron that was slowly and carefully surface ground until the mouth opening was .003". Once when out demonstrating a guy who had infill disorder real bad offered me twice the going rate for an A-5 and I put his check in my pocket. I don't miss it because I didn't use it, it only went out to demonstrations but it did sell a lot of our planes. Ours worked better in hard difficult grain but simply because they had a cutting geometry better suited to those woods. Norris planes, like all mass produced planes, have a compromise cutting geometry--they have to be more general purpose to suit a wider market.
Edited 12/19/2005 11:50 pm by lwilliams
Larry, I am certainly glad you don't have a problem with low angle bench planes, as I think there is plenty of scope for those who want to experiment with various sharpening angles , in them.
I agree that at , er less acute angles the action becomes more of a scraping rather than shaving action, but it appears that there are lots of folk who don't mind taking 100 passes when the same object could be achieved by 25 passes with a more dedicated plane-it is a different market now , I surmise. So some can still take a speciality plane and happily get a 3 in 1 function, of which 2 functions could be rated as good and the third fair-but better than nothing.
I have not seen many Norris type infills here in Kiwiland-strangely it seems , they were all with very tight mouths, hence my impression that that was the rule. Iposted a picture of one in post #24450.1.-it had a ridiculous mouth-no wander it was of unused appearance! One lives and learns.
We have talked about d2 before-I am looking at using it here, as there is a speciality engineering shop near here who should be able to treat it for best wood working advantage.In my books it is a proven and tested steel with a good range of applications.Philip Marcou
Yes, a 38° angle in a 12° low angle smoother gives a 50° cutting angle, which works very well on highly figured wood. Leonard Lee explains that real well in his sharpening book, and it works just as advertised, along with his trick of putting a back bevel on a 38° Stanley bench plane to approach the performance of a York pitch plane. Ulmia and ECE planes all have higher angles and work better for squirrelly wood, than your average Bailey type.
kesac writes, "...Leonard Lee explains that real well in his sharpening book, and it works just as advertised, along with his trick of putting a back bevel on a 38� Stanley bench plane to approach the performance of a York pitch plane."Leonard Lee is a bright guy and has one of the premier collections of old tools on the Continent. I'm sure he's aware of Charles Holtzapffel's 'Turning and Mechanical Manipulation' Volume II, first published in 1846. In it, you'll find the back bevel and it's use on bench planes fully described. Holtzapffel's writings are well known to those who have an interest in hand tools and their history. How did this old practice get to be Leonard Lee's?As others have said, you lose control of the depth of cut when using an obtuse cutting edge in a 12º bedded plane. That's not what I keep reading around here--people keep saying planes equipped this way work just like a York or middle pitch plane. They simply don't. I've mentioned other problems I see with these planes and there's no need to repeat them.
I never said the practice was Leonard Lee's. I said he explains it well. It also work as advertized, no matter what problems you claim to "see".
Hi Jim, my name's James. I got a LOT of planes -- and want more!!! -- but I ain't no addict....Maybe I'm in denial.....
<< The mouths are a bit thin for Hock irons and if I replace the irons and chipbreakers, there's no way they'll fit in the mouth on either.>>
I've tuned several old Stanley planes, and have put both Hock and LN replacement irons and chipbreakers on various of them. The irons were the thinner (Stanley replacement) irons (generally about .090 or so inch thick) and haven't had any problems with them clearing the mouths of any of my planes. My experience is that the LNs handle "uncooperative" grain a little bit better than the Hocks, for roughly the same price, but both are very nice and work well.
Tuning: I usually remove all of the rust, clean all the dirt and grime off, lap the sole, hone the iron, flatten the inner edge of the chipbreaker, flatten the lower edge of the lever cap, oil moving parts, replace broken totes and knobs, as necessary, and file the mouth straight, if necessary; all the usual stuff....
All of my planes are users. I'm not overly particular about cosmetics (as long as something's not broken), but am more interested in functionality. If it works good, it can be (sorta) ugly....
<<I have one from the late 1700's to early 1800's (Braithwaite with John Green stamped on the front end) that I would like to use for one project. I also have a 7/8" dado plane from the mid-late 1800's (A.Mathieson & Son). The iron on both are in pretty decent shape (dado plane is better steel) but I think I could get a good edge on them. I'm trying to decide whether to use them or just preserve them. >>
If they were mine, I would incline toward preserving them. There are lots of other, more common, planes out here that could function as users, and it would also, IMO, depend on their condition. If they're in good or better condition, I'd hesitate to use them. If they're in so-so condition, then using them probably won't do much to their worth as antiques. Obviously your call.
Maybe we'll get some more commentary here....hope so!
Tschüß!!
Edited 12/13/2005 9:33 pm ET by pzgren
Jim....
I is just scanning the Knots right now, but if you want serous oldtool content to yer query, why not go to the serious oldtool listserver.
No electon-ichk discussion allowed there. just serious oldtools content. Not to say that the serious and/or naive interlopers ain't welcome, I guess all that I can say (and I ain't qouting gospel on this), but most newbies meet with succesful integration provided, grass-hoppper, that yer heart is at least purer than most.....Not a major hurdle to jump over......
If you cannot find it by googling "oldtools listserver" or encounter subscription difficulties, just give me a note, and I'll try and help ya as best I can.
Eric in Cowtown([email protected])PS subscribe in digest mode or you is gonna be regretting not doing so.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled