Renewing the Battle with my Paragon

[Clint Baxter]

Way back when Garret Wade first marketed the Paragon hand plane, I picked up a number 4 smoother. Their claims of tighter tolerances and the "improved" lever cap that was to hold the iron tighter for a "better planing experience", swayed me into the purchase. It is, and always has been, a sharp looking plane with the Padauk handles and the fancy lever cap. I lapped and polished the back of the blade to a mirror shine, honed the front edge at 30 degrees to a similar mirror edge, and shaved hair and sliced paper to verify it was ready to be put into use.

However, once I installed the iron in the plane and tried to take a shaving of pretty much any wood, I would get chatter from the plane. I've tried opening and closing the throat, replaced the iron and chipbreaker with thicker Hock units and I still get the same results.

Over the years, I will pull it out, try to plane some wood, and then return it to the tool cabinet after if kicks my butt again.

I picked up a Primus pear-bodied wooden smoother to take over the duties of the Paragon, and it is a beautiful plane that works great.

But the Paragon continues to mock me, even after all these years.

I pulled up some threads on the Paragon here recently and decided to attack the issue anew. I'm convinced that the problem lies in the frog area and feel it is allowing the chatter to occur. I took the frog out entirely and inspected the mating surfaces where it contacts the plane body. I don't remember if most other planes are similar, but the Paragon has four pairs of machined surfaces where the frog mates to it, a pair at each corner. Two pairs behind the mounting screws and two at opposite ends near the throat. Here is an image of the plane body with the frog upside down below it. You can clearly see all the mating surfaces.

269352

I have the impression, (ain't convinced of anything under the circumstances), that the mating surfaces on two opposing corners show more wear than the other two. (The two with the arrows pointing to them.) I put the frog into the plane on the mating surfaces, and without the mounting screws tightened, am able to rock the frog slightly side to side. I realize that tightening the screws down would hold it more securely, but am thinking that it is not being held tightly enough, hence allowing the chatter when I put it into use. I have tightened the screws to the point where I worry about them stripping with no changes occurring.

Seeing as this plane has been like this from Day 1, I'm thinking it's a manufacturing defect. (I've spent way too many years thinking it was something I did. Or didn't do.

Finally, my question. Before I take a file to the frog, and try to adjust the mating surfaces to a point where all four areas mate at the same time, I'd like some other opinions as to other possible solutions to my issue. I've been able to make all my other planes work for me, jointer, jack, steel and wooden smoothers, LA jack, shoulder plane and block planes, so I don't think it's me, but am willing to entertain the idea if you come up with any good alternatives.

Thanks for any help you can provide

Clint

[Alan Schwabacher]

It sure sounds like a poor fit at the frog mating surface. (That sounds funny.) Try blackening one surface with a marker, installing and removing the frog, and checking where the black has transferred. If it's only in a few spots, those are high in one of the surfaces.

To make it fit well, try to figure out which surface is flat, and blacken that one. Then install and remove the frog, and file down only where it's black. Keep doing this until the black transfers over the whole surface, and you have a good match.

[Jim Koepke]

If you feel pictures are needed, let me know and I can try to post some of the mating surfaces on the body and the frog.

This was my first thought at the beginning of your post, but the description was enough to tell me you have found the problem.

Alan gave a good description of what to do. Blue dykem is good for marking if you have it. Sometimes the marking may not transfer, but you can see where it was removed by rubbing against a high point.

My thoughts would be to use some pieces of paper as shims to see how much needs to be removed. You may also want to check the action of the plane with shims for a side to side check in case one side is higher than the other, effecting your lateral adjustment.

Go slow, use a fine file and check often.

Good luck and let us know how it goes.

Pictures might be helpful for people in the future with a similar situation.

jtk

[Clint Baxter]

When I go into the "repair", will try to document with pictures as Jim suggested, for the benefit of those who might desire/need to do the same.

Clint

[Stanley Covington]

If you can find a piece of thick float glass (3/8" to 1/2" thick) or a piece of steel flat ground (plane blade?) sized to cover all four contact points, combining it with wet/dry sandpaper and some Dykem or marking pen should make quick work of truing the contact points.

I would true the mating surface of the frog first (easier to do) and then the contact points on the body. Both parts have to be flat and fit tightly to work properly.

You should also check the tolerance of the face of the frog that supports the blade, and lap it flat if necessary. Now, so long as your blade is reasonably flat, all the critical surfaces should fit tightly to minimize vibration and chatter.

If the frog/contact points are out of whack, it seems likely the sole may be a problem too.

Stan

[george wilson]

I was going to also recommend blacking with a marker. I use Prussian blue(Hi spot blue),but a black marker will do as woodworkers are not likely to have hi spot blue around. You need to be extremely careful to identify the surfaces that DO touch. File a MINIMAL amount of metal off each time,re black and try again. You can't put it back on(well,unless you resort to shim stock). Hi spot blue might be a bit more sensitive to places that touch since it is a paste applied VERY thin,but you should be able with care to see which surfaces are slightly marred and file them. Or,you could just shim up the low surfaces if you don't intend to take the plane apart again. Coke cans or aluminum foil make good shims. Foil is about .002" thick.

[jim goddard]

I think George has a good point. Rather than subtractive correct why not go w/ additive. Nothing is modified and you verify the theory that its the frog mating surfaces. You also know how much to subtract if you go that route.

[Jim Matthews]

I follow the steps shown by Paul Sellers in his YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQyjLV92224) videos for setting up planes.

Two comments as a disclaimer: I believe many sellers had problems with Paragon QC which lead to discontinuance of the brand.
(I could be mistaken, but I heard the tooling was sold to what has become Anant - but that's apocrypha I can't verify.)

Do you daub a little oil or paraffin wax on the bottom of the plane sole? I find that makes a tremendous difference in how much drag there is as I plane.
In my limited experience with cast iron planes, that's half the battle against chatter - if the rest of the plane glides, the blade comes along quietly.

I get chatter from standard thickness blades when the cap iron is improperly tensioned - it acts as a spring in opposition to the cutting iron.
I have the lever cap adjusted such that I can move the cap iron/cutting iron assembly in and out to vary the depth of cut.

If you can't advance the iron by turning the adjustment wheel with the lever cap down, it's too tight.
If you can move the iron laterally by finger pressure with the lever cap down, it's too loose.

I tune old #4s paying most of my attention to the bearing surfaces on the frog.
I can hand the front part of the frog off the edge of my granite substrate and get the surface very flat and silky smooth.

Likewise the lower part of the frog (where the 45 degree slope meets the mouth) can be similarly flattened on sandpaper.

Have a look at this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9IXw8taKkY) (around 1:20) for illustration of this step.

I don't get too worked up about accuracy on this, I'm looking for a continuous sheen on the bearing surfaces.

A little machine oil between the mating surfaces keeps the rust down, when the planes are stored.

[Tony Zaffuto]

I would also endorse "adding" rather than "subtracting" material to determine what is wrong. Paper shims may give you a quick view, though if they correct the problem, you may want to substitute a longer range solution. I've had good luck with a spokeshave using a Brian Boggs solution for tuning and that is bedding the blade in epoxy. With your plane, you will have to grease the spots where you do not want the epoxy to stick. The way Boggs did it was to coat with epoxy and then bed the blade with paper on top of the epoxy so the blade would stick. Something similar can be done to your plane.

[Charlie Stanford]

Way back when Garret Wade first marketed the Paragon hand plane, I picked up a number 4 smoother. Their claims of tighter tolerances and the "improved" lever cap that was to hold the iron tighter for a "better planing experience", swayed me into the purchase. It is, and always has been, a sharp looking plane with the Padauk handles and the fancy lever cap. I lapped and polished the back of the blade to a mirror shine, honed the front edge at 30 degrees to a similar mirror edge, and shaved hair and sliced paper to verify it was ready to be put into use.

However, once I installed the iron in the plane and tried to take a shaving of pretty much any wood, I would get chatter from the plane. I've tried opening and closing the throat, replaced the iron and chipbreaker with thicker Hock units and I still get the same results.

Over the years, I will pull it out, try to plane some wood, and then return it to the tool cabinet after if kicks my butt again.

I picked up a Primus pear-bodied wooden smoother to take over the duties of the Paragon, and it is a beautiful plane that works great.

But the Paragon continues to mock me, even after all these years.

I pulled up some threads on the Paragon here recently and decided to attack the issue anew. I'm convinced that the problem lies in the frog area and feel it is allowing the chatter to occur. I took the frog out entirely and inspected the mating surfaces where it contacts the plane body. I don't remember if most other planes are similar, but the Paragon has four pairs of machined surfaces where the frog mates to it, a pair at each corner. Two pairs behind the mounting screws and two at opposite ends near the throat. Here is an image of the plane body with the frog upside down below it. You can clearly see all the mating surfaces.

269352

I have the impression, (ain't convinced of anything under the circumstances), that the mating surfaces on two opposing corners show more wear than the other two. (The two with the arrows pointing to them.) I put the frog into the plane on the mating surfaces, and without the mounting screws tightened, am able to rock the frog slightly side to side. I realize that tightening the screws down would hold it more securely, but am thinking that it is not being held tightly enough, hence allowing the chatter when I put it into use. I have tightened the screws to the point where I worry about them stripping with no changes occurring.

Seeing as this plane has been like this from Day 1, I'm thinking it's a manufacturing defect. (I've spent way too many years thinking it was something I did. Or didn't do.

Finally, my question. Before I take a file to the frog, and try to adjust the mating surfaces to a point where all four areas mate at the same time, I'd like some other opinions as to other possible solutions to my issue. I've been able to make all my other planes work for me, jointer, jack, steel and wooden smoothers, LA jack, shoulder plane and block planes, so I don't think it's me, but am willing to entertain the idea if you come up with any good alternatives.

Thanks for any help you can provide

Clint

Life's too short, just use the Primus smoother you already own which you acknowledge "works great." It is a superior plane by design and by manufacture and it is bought and paid for and in your shop.

[jamie shard]

+1 on using a marker to determine the fit before doing anything. For what it's worth, I've found that using loose grit is the way to go for creating matched surfaces. Put a drop of oil and a pinch of coarse grit and just rub the two surfaces together.

[David Weaver]

I'd buy a millers falls #9 on ebay for $10-$20 and junk that plane if it's a frog problem. It's not like you can't solve the problem, but it's probably not worth your time. It's a pain to work on those little seats because it's an iterative marking project like george says if you're going to do it as accurately as possible (though jami's suggestion might be a good one), and looking at the design, I doubt it's better than an older millers falls plane. Might not be as good (that would be my hunch).

The bailey pattern smoother is my favorite, i've tried them all. But it's a pattern available in any vintage brand you want for cheap.

[Clint Baxter]

I ended up trying what George suggested, shimming the low spots with some aluminum foil. I ended up placing a two folded pieces on the two mating points indicated with the arrows. After placing the shims, I set the frog in place and found that the frog now rocked in the opposite direction. I ended up removing one of the folded pieces from both locations before the frog would no longer able to rock in either direction. The foil conforms nicely to the mating lugs and stayed in place throughout all my readjusting of the frog as I set the mouth for a narrow cut.

269352

Now I got to see if I could get it to cut decently. Grabbed a piece of Lauan I've been working with and tried the plane on both the edge and the face. Got a nicely planed surface and encountered none of the chatter the plane previously did. I then pulled out a piece of highly figured curly maple that had a significant amount of tearout from machine planing aggravated by the time it spent floating around in my shop during the flood we had in 2011. Success at last. The plane left a smooth polished surface as good as any I've gotten from my pear-wood Primus smoother.

I've always liked everything about this plane other than it's performance. I do like some of the heft of the metal body and, as long as my chatter is gone, look to get some serious use from it.

Thanks to all for their suggestions and to George for the solution I implemented. I did like Jamie's suggestion, but with the frog having so little movement when placed in the body, it would have been a long difficult process to work the high spots down.

Clint

[Mike Holbrook]

Encouraging, Clint.

I bought a GW #5 Paragon way back when too. These planes are an interesting testament to how far we have come since "the old days". Looking at the fit and finish on my plane is certainly a little disappointing compared to the new state of the art from Lee Valley, Lie-Nielson and others, especially considering how GW sang the praises of the Paragon.

Maybe there is hope for my #5. I have been planing to camber the edges of the blade and use it for rough work. Clint, do you think the Hock blade and chip breaker improved yours, now that it is working? Are these the best replacement parts for this plane?

[george wilson]

Clint,now that the chatter is got,think about replacing the aluminum shims with thin steel ones,in case the aluminum ones get pinched thinner in use. If the chattering comes back,use the steel shims.

[David Weaver]

I bought a GW #5 Paragon way back when too. These planes are an interesting testament to how far we have come since "the old days". Looking at the fit and finish on my plane is certainly a little disappointing compared to the new state of the art from Lee Valley, Lie-Nielson and others, especially considering how GW sang the praises of the Paragon.

This is, of course, only my opinion, but a lot of the old players who had high margin businesses and who focused on mail order catalogs haven't fared as well as LV once feedback online became easy to access. I don't think I have anything from garrett wade, though I have gotten some catalogs. Most of what's in it looks like a way to spend more than I would spend getting the same things elsewhere. A lot of the catalog companies sing the praises of things they have to sell but after you get them, you sort of wonder what all of the praise is about. The one and two stage turbines marketed at hobbyist woodworkers are one thing that I can think of where they came out and were pitched as solve all gadgets, but I tried one as a beginner and could not get it to work at all with half of my finishes. Those were pushed so hard with videos all over the place about how great they were. They still are, I guess, but I haven't seen as much chatter about them on here (maybe we're in the wrong forum to see it!).

How about the short stint where folks were recommending anant planes over vintage planes? I can only guess that was due to the fact that it's hard to sell a used plane when you're a mail order place selling new ones. Just gross.

[Jim Koepke]

Thanks to all for their suggestions and to George for the solution I implemented. I did like Jamie's suggestion, but with the frog having so little movement when placed in the body, it would have been a long difficult process to work the high spots down.

Just goes to show there is more than one way of doing most things.

Now that you know how much adjustment is needed, removing a touch of metal from the frog shouldn't take that long. Otherwise, you know just how much foil is needed to fill the gap.

Glad to hear you got it working.

jtk

[Clint Baxter]

Thanks George. Will keep that in mind. Or as Jim said, carefully dress down the opposing high spots to make it mate properly.

Now that I've spent lots of dollars on Garret Wade and Leichtung before that, I tend to agree with David on some, if not all, of their offerings. I got a dovetail saw from one of those two back in the day that tends to wander in use. Another less than stellar tool maybe? I'm still not confident in my saw sharpening skills, and as long as I don't use it to cut too deep, am able to get the job done. Least wise enough that I correct any issues with some judicious paring.

On recommendations from here and elsewhere, ordered a new dovetail saw and carcass saw from Mark at Bad Axe Tools and am eager to place them into service. Maybe I will he attack that saw and see if I can turn it round as well. Or send it off to Mark so I know it'll get done right.

Mike, I think he original iron would have probably worked okay if the frog would have been mated properly. I still have he iron and chip breaker, but don't hunk that I will ever go back to it due to the Hock being a thicker, (and most likely much higher quality), blade. If I put he thinner iron back in, I would need to readjust the frog if I wanted to keep that narrow throat. And seeing as ow it presently is working okay, will let dog sleep till it decides to wake.

Clint

[Erik Manchester]

Clint,

I have a Paragon No 4 made for LV in the early 80's as it has LV on the lever cap instead of GW. I picked it up years ago as a novelty item as it has never been used.

From what I can gather, there were some QA issues with the planes such that LV was replacing some of them and ultimately decided to build their own planes. The Paragon sure does not look like any of the other Veritas planes I own. I have not used it as I have others that work better.

[Clint Baxter]

Clint,

I have a Paragon No 4 made for LV in the early 80's as it has LV on the lever cap instead of GW. I picked it up years ago as a novelty item as it has never been used.

From what I can gather, there were some QA issues with the planes such that LV was replacing some of them and ultimately decided to build their own planes. The Paragon sure does not look like any of the other Veritas planes I own. I have not used it as I have others that work better.

Eric. Not sure I understand. How do you know others work better if this has never been used. If it was like mine, don't doubt that any working plane that you had was better. I do like the way mine currently works. Maybe you have a good one that doesn't need "work" to make it work.

Clint

[Erik Manchester]

Clint, I put a sharp blade in it and gave it a brief test and it works as well as any other Bailey type that has not been tuned. I have a bunch of Millers Falls, a few Stanley Type 11s and some Veritas planes so I didn't feel like messing with this one. It seems OK and the frog meets the bed OK. According to Rob Lee, the ones that LV had made were fettled in Ottawa before being sold.

[Clint Baxter]

Clint, I put a sharp blade in it and gave it a brief test and it works as well as any other Bailey type that has not been tuned. I have a bunch of Millers Falls, a few Stanley Type 11s and some Veritas planes so I didn't feel like messing with this one. It seems OK and the frog meets the bed OK. According to Rob Lee, the ones that LV had made were fettled in Ottawa before being sold.

Gotcha. The way the Paragon was touted, you supposedly were getting a better plane. One you shouldn't have to put a bunch of effort into tuning. Sounds like yours should be, as you said, "OK" if LV passed it prior to it going out". Seems that nowadays we can buy new ones that are better "out of the box" from makers such as LV or LN, or tune an older one at considerably less cost, (with probably the same amount of effort.). I may still get one of those new planes yet but at least have another tool in the stable regardless of what comes to pass.

Thanks for update.

Clint

[steven c newman]

seems I may have had a worse frog seat to level269506this is a KK7's frog seat area, nice, ain't it....