Does IBC matched set for Lie-Nielsen 4 1/2 work on Stanley 4 1/2

[Mike Nguyen]

Hi, do you know if the IBC matched chip breaker and blade set for the 4 1/2 Lie Nielsen plane would work for the Stanley 4 1/2? Woodcraft is clearing out these matched set right now for $76 instead of $105 for the set that is made for Stanley.
TIA
Mike

[David Weaver]

Call them and ask if they have tabs on them for the shorter adjuster on a stanley plane (you can solder your own on the chipbreaker, I guess).

You will very likely still have to file the mouth of a stanley for the iron to get through, and I'm guessing if the iron is intended for the LN, it doesn't come with a video?

craftsman studio always has hock irons and chipbreakers for cheap with no cost shipping. I think you would be better off with one of those if you can prepare and hone an iron (they don't come as well prepared as the IBC irons, but they are better than a vintage iron that hasn't been taken care of and aren't too much trouble to prepare).

I don't understand the rationale behind the IBC pricing. Take a look in the catalog at the LN BU plane irons vs. the LV plane irons and take a look at the LN irons (the LN irons appear to be a lot more simply because LN themselves charges more than LV, but why would that affect the IBC's pricing. Who else does that?) vs. the stanley irons. The LN irons have always been cheaper than the stanley replacement irons, which doesn't make any sense since the LN iron is thicker. The stanley iron costs almost as much as a hock iron and chipbreaker (from craftsman studio), and costs more than LN's stanley replacement iron last I looked.

I like woodcraft, but I think they missed the boat when they set prices on these irons.

[Tony Shea]

The tabs are the reason why the IBC combo set for the Stanley is more expensive than the one for the Lie Neilsen. This gives you a garuntee that the adjuster on the Stanley will contact the chipbreaker correctly. The LN version doesn't need these tabs as the adjuster mechanism is longer where it contacts the chipbreaker. I don't own the IBC set for the Stanley but would reccomend it as I've run into situations where replacement irons don't adjust properly with the extra thickness of the blade, especially a full 1/8" thick blade which the LN version uses. In fact I'm almost sure that the LN version will not work without adding some tabs on the chipbreaker as David suggested.

If it was me I would just pick up the IBC set intended for the Stanley and I'm sure you wouldn't be dissapointed.

[David Weaver]

The tabs are the reason why the IBC combo set for the Stanley is more expensive than the one for the Lie Neilsen.

Actually, I was talking about the irons themselves, without regard to the chipbreakers.

As far as the thickness goes, there is a reason that all of the other stanley replacement irons are about 3/32nd of an inch. I would avoid the LN thickness irons as replacements in stanley planes because the difference between 3/32nds and 1/8ths or 0.140 (I think the LN irons for a 7 are 0.140, not sure about the IBC), doesn't do you any good in reality, and all of the fixes (the tabs and the filing of the mouth) are workarounds to solve a problem (iron too thick and notch for the adjuster too far away because of it) that was created for no reason. The extra cost is money thrown away unless you really need an iron that is fully prepared, and in that case, LV's irons are the best I've seen in terms of flatness.

Once they're prepared, all of them are about the same for edge retention, and when you consider practicality (that you're resharpening them once they're dull), you can just assume they all hold an edge equally well if the alloy is the same and the hardness spec is the same (which is the case for all of the A2 irons).

[Mike Nguyen]

I think you're right Tony. The set for LN won't work for Stanley because of the tabs and that also the reason why the set for Stanley is more expensive. I probably go with Hock or Lee Valley.

[Mike Nguyen]

Thanks David. I just started wandering into the world of hand planes and enjoy it very much. I was under the impression that the thicker the blade the better after watching Rob Cosman video. I am going to order a set from Lee Valley.

[David Weaver]

In theory, I guess there is an advantage to thicker blades. In practice, you run into really diminished returns right around where the 3/32nd inch thick point is, even without buying a replacement chipbreaker, but especially if you're adding a thick replacement chipbreaker.

After that, in my experience, thicker irons might dampen the feel of the plane a little more, but the work product doesn't change a lot, and you're left with a thicker iron to grind (not a big deal if you have a power grinder, but worth consideration if you don't and you use a coarse stone). The normal stanley replacement iron types are plenty good enough to plane things like hard maple without chatter, and any time that's not the case, the problem is much more likely to be something like a tote that shrank as it dried (and is not tight to the plane), a frog that's not tight, a lever cap that's not tight, burrs on the frog face, or an iron that was placed on the plane without getting the adjuster into the adjuster spot....

[Tri Hoang]

You could make it work but it's too much trouble for the little benefit a thicker iron would bring. FWIW, a WoodRiver V3 #4 is a good alternative to getting an old Stanley and replace the chip breaker/blade combo.

[Mike Nguyen]

Hi Tri, I just got the WoodRiver V3 #3 and it's the reason why I want to upgrade the blade on the the 4 1/2 and eventually the #4 that I got from you that started me with this hand planes obsession.

[Joel Goodman]

I'll have a Stanley 7 with an almost 1/8th inch thick Ray Isles blade and stock cap iron. I did have to open the mouth of the plane and the adjuster has more backlash than it had before but works fine as one adjusts forward and takes up the slack anyway. Same experience with a Keen Kutter K5 with a 1/8" LN blade. If the blade was more than 1/8th I think you would have a problem with the adjuster. I am not sure if you need an iron that thick if you are adding an aftermarket cap iron which I would think adds support to the blade in a way the Stanley cap iron doesn't. Opening the mouth is not a huge deal but is another step. LV has blade (3/32) and cap iron sets for the 4 1/2 for $59.

[Johnny Kleso]

Tom LN needs to sell a extra long Yoke, they are only $5.00 each and very easy to change..

I bought a some a few years back but where just a tiny bit longer than a Stanley :(

[Jonathan McCullough]

You will very likely still have to file the mouth of a stanley for the iron to get through, and I'm guessing if the iron is intended for the LN, it doesn't come with a video?


Why couldn't you just back the frog off?

[Sam Takeuchi]

Some vintage planes have very narrow mouth from the beginning. No matter how far reasonably backed off your frog is, even commonly available replacement blade sometimes can't get through cleanly.

[David Weaver]

Why couldn't you just back the frog off?

What sam said. There is a limited amount of clearance even backing off the frog, you will get to a point where the iron isn't supported by the frog near the bottom at all, just by the casting at the base (which would be touching the bevel) and the iron still wouldn't fit through the mouth, and would then be unsupported for a span. (that span would include downpressure from the lever cap without support below it)

That casting area at the bottom is a bit rough (it's not going to be finely machined or fitted like the bottom plate of an infill plane), you want the iron resting on the frog.

That may sound like a bunch of hooey, but you'll find it to be the case at some point.

[Joel Goodman]

Backing the frog past a certain amount the bevel of the iron catches the back of the mouth and the iron will not seat on the frog.

[Brian Rabinovitch]

David,

A large part of the added expense for this product is the chip breaker. It is 0-1 tool steel (add cost 1), hardened at a mid range of 30-32HRc for added stiffness (add cost 2), precision ground on all surfaces to mate with the blade and to maximize squareness of the mated edge relative to the sides(add cost 3), hand polishing(add cost 4) serialized by laser etching (add cost 5), the microfilm rust inhibitor coating and paper supplied (add cost 6) and then there's the tabs (add cost 7).

I am very proud of the kind words recently offered by David Charlesworth, about this product and, the "Editor's Choice"award this product just received in American Woodworker magazine, Dec/Jan 2011 issue, as well as, all of the many other kind words that have been said publicly and privately about IBC's blades over the years.

My company has always been focused on manufacturing the highest quality products. In this case, according to various woodworking experts, we are offering a product that is a cost effective alternative to purchasing a new premium quality tool without having to sacrifice good performance.

Your numerous complaints about the prices for this product group on various forums never seem to mention the additional manufacturing processes listed above. I would appreciate and expect that your comments will now include these facts, especially the hardening at 30-32 HRc, a first in the industry.


Brian Rabinovitch
President / CEO
Industrial Blade Company Inc (IBC)

[Sam Takeuchi]

I would like to know something. Since I'm far away from the US, so I can't just order IBC cap iron to try, so I'm hoping you could provide tangible data of some kind. What kind of benefit does this heat treated and hardened to 30 - 32 HRc cap iron provide over other commercially available cap iron, i.e., Lie Nielsen (I have), Hock (I have), Record Stay-Set (not commercially available but I have), Veritas & Clifton? If you say there is, is this backup by a verifiable and quantifiable data?

I would appreciate it if you could answer my question. I'm not for or against IBC products, but this cap iron hardness really interests me and I'm curious to know how that is advantageous over others.

[David Weaver]

Brian, nothing at all to do with the chipbreaker, that was not my comment.

My comment was why is the stanley blade (no chipreaker) more expensive the lie-nielsen blade (no chipbreaker)? Both IBC blades, no other brands, no chipbreakers.

And why the huge difference in the cost of the LN and LV bevel up plane toothed irons?

The features added are fine if you want them, the irons are good quality.

Few of the features make the iron perform better, though. In order, and we'll include the chipbreaker.
* rust coating - it is of benefit for keeping the iron nice looking. however, the rust only matters at the cutting edge, where the coating is honed off. Over the long term, if a plane isn't used, the most common spot of rust is between the iron and chipbreaker, just behind the edge.
* O1 tool steel chipbreaker - this may be the one difference for people who use the chipbreaker to break chips (i.e., people who set the chipbreaker within about .002-.004" of the edge). I don't know of many people who do - maybe warren mickely, but warren recommends buying a stanley brand replacement iron for less than $10 when someone asks. Added stiffness implies other iron and chipbreaker combinations are lacking, which isn't the case, not even on hard maple. Added wear resistance for anyone who could confidently say they wear out an unhardened chipbreaker using it to break chips would be a benefit. I have seen vintage planes with chipbreakers worn through, but never a new one.
* laser etching (user value?)
* squareness of sides of iron to edge - this isn't an issue with any replacement irons, except perhaps those made in china
* tabs - a fix to a problem that doesn't exist on the other irons due to the thickness

I didn't comment on the paper because it doesn't stay on the iron when you're using it, nor when the plane is stored with the iron in it. most other irons are shipped in it, anyway, though I can't recall if LV does it. Mine don't stay in the paper long, and none have arrived with rust.

What I care about, and what every user should care about is the quality of the steel and whether or not the hardening is executed properly (This really isn't a problem on any of the quality irons). How does the iron fail? Does it fail by uniform wear, or does it fail by chipout (the latter is something to avoid). Early chipout, even small, always leads an iron to fail before another that doesn't have the same problem. I can't really comment on one iron being any better than another in this respect, because it seems like it's only really a problem with the irons when they're new (though some don't even do it then) and after a few grinds only a defective iron will have a lot of issues.

People will all have their opinions about the additional features. In my opinion, they are nice to have but not worth additional cost (I do not use chipbreakers to break chips). I can only state my opinion, and that's all I do. You will probably not like it unless i say "yours are better and the value is there due to the features".

I have not found the language on the packaging implying that they hold an edge longer than other irons of the same type to be true, either. It is a bit presumptuous to state that.

[Jonathan McCullough]

Some vintage planes have very narrow mouth from the beginning. No matter how far reasonably backed off your frog is, even commonly available replacement blade sometimes can't get through cleanly.

How much of an aperture are you guys putting on your smoothing planes? It should be about .002". I have a thick Hock blade in my Bailey and I adjusted the frog until the distance between the front of the throat and the blade was the thickness of two pieces of paper. I suppose if the bevel angle on the iron is also large (another argument against A2), you could have a problem. But on a Bailey type the blade really is (or should be) only resting on the frog if you have the frog adjusted correctly.

[Sam Takeuchi]

Ok let's try again. Some vintage planes have very narrow mouth to begin with that even moderately thick Hock blade can't get through no matter how you set your frog. Vintage planes (mostly referring to Stanley) with this issue isn't rare but it's not every other plane either. If you never had a vintage plane with mouth like that, lucky you. But there are plenty of them like that.

So no, it's not because we want gaping 1/16" mouth opening or forgot to move the frog back. It has nothing to do with bevel (do people actually do that? Move frog so far back that bevel rests on the back of the mouth?).

[Mike Brady]

I don't understand the rationale behind the IBC pricing.


Yes, Dave; but, you get a CD with every set that tells you how make that $20 Stanley into a L-N killer. Who can put a price on that?;)

[David Weaver]

I have not found the language on the packaging implying that they hold an edge longer than other irons of the same type to be true, either. It is a bit presumptuous to state that.

Since this came back up to the top, I thought I would rephrase this for IBC's benefit. It is not meant to imply that IBCs don't hold an edge similar to other A2 premium irons, which may be inferred from it - that is not the case. What I mean is that all of the good quality A2 irons seem to hold an edge a similarly long time (IBC included), and only very small lines or specialty makers appear to have ever had wonky irons on a regular basis.

That much can be determined just looking at Brent Beach's page where he measures the wear bevel and shows close-ups of the damage, but I have stroke tested some irons until they stopped cutting and noted the surface they left at various wear points, and have not found much difference. I've never done all four main types at once (LV, LN, IBC, Hock), because it takes forever to dull an iron stroke testing it on something someone would actually plane (i.e, I don't think destructive tests or intentionally accelerated tests prove anything - those being the types of tests someone with FWW will do - because they're not usually with the materials that people work. A2 looks like a horrible steel if you compare it to M2 in silicon filled cocobolo, but it's not quite such a big difference on hard maple. When you do a test like that, it doesn't really turn much evidence up other than if you have a defective iron, but you could spot those without a test and nobody in the business of making irons makes defective irons on a regular basis).

With a 100% pennsylvania german background from both sides, I'm not much into paying extra for noncritical elements unless they are a curiosity (like natural stones, etc).

Other people may feel differently, and that's fine, and if they get an IBC iron, I doubt they'll worry about the difference, especially if they are a rank beginner. If they don't do a good job of using their tools often, then they'll benefit from the coating on the irons. I like mine quite a bit, I just am hard to separate from dollars when there are many similar choices. Woodcraft certainly had a need for them due to the recent debacle, and I hope at some point, woodcraft will build a plane around them. As positive as the press has been for the WR #3 version, maybe that's been shelved, who knows?