Hardness of Vintage Irons - Subjective Thoughts?

[David Weaver]

I've been on a bit of a bender with wooden planes lately, which means I've been preparing a lot of irons.

Tonight, I had to prepare an otherwise new ward and payne iron out of an unused or near unused griffiths and norwich try/jointer plane (24" long).

It's typical for a woody iron in a plane that size, 2 1/2" wide, beautifully made, and has a very cleanly made cap iron. But what's not typical is how hard it is. It is easily as hard as any modern western iron I've ever tried, it even grinds slowly. I don't know if it's extra on the carbon side (if the selection of cast steel was made and something in the range of 1.2% cast made it into an iron) or what, but it's extremely hard.

I know for sure that i have good quality japanese irons that are no harder, and maybe would say I only have one japanese iron that is.

It will only barely hone on a washita stone, which is about what japanese irons are also like (carbon steel japanese irons can be sharpened on natural oilstones very well, as long as you don't have to remove much material - you wouldn't want to use them to remove a nick).

It'll be interesting to see how this iron holds up. The plane that it came in is fantastic, with typical attention to the mouth, handle and the entire mortise and abutment area that only seems to be on english planes after about 1825 (that's just a guess).

But good God, the iron was a bear to prepare, and I still have the full complement of stuff to prepare an iron.

Here's my subjective thoughts on irons from this plane and other ones, not large sample sizes, of course:
* Ward and Payne - Extremely hard. May need a bit of tempering if it chips, definitely at a level of hardness where removing chips is miserable on the stones the iron was intended for
* Butcher - Very fine grained, slightly soft. Very nice iron, do wish it was just a little harder, though.
* Hancock - nothing of note that I can remember, middle of the road
* Sorby (older sorby) - very soft, bordering on too soft.
* ohio tool (common iron) - three of these, all of them middling in hardness, not good, but not bad that I can recall
* auburn thistle brand - i only have one of these, but it's middling hardness and very chippy - defective. Nothing good about it.
* mathiesen and son -glasgow - fantastic iron, fine grained, medium hardness, very pleasant
* buck brotheres - medium hardness (surprising for buck - their chisels are slightly soft), very easy grinding and pleasant to sharpen. Very nice.
* pugeout freres - not sure if I spelled that right. fairly soft, very easy grinding and easy sharpening. There are zillions of these in continental europe, kees can probably describe whether or not mine is atypical. not totally unpleasant for the softness - would prefer if it was slightly harder, though.

I would assume that all of these irons were designed initially for stones of the coticule, novaculite (arkansas stones for the uninitiated, charnley in the UK), hone slates. when I first started, I thought most of these were softer because they couldn't be made quality and harder. I thought the same thing about the vintage stanleys.

Once I dropped my other stones and went to a couple of oilstones, all of the sudden the hardness level made a lot of sense. You use them and immediately think "i get it, i get it". Same as the stanley irons, which i now prefer to the new replacement irons. The satisfaction of using them with a single washita, and how surprisingly long they last at what is not shaving sharpness to begin with, and how fast they are to sharpen with a washita. I get it.

Anyone else have any experience with any of the old woody irons mentioned above? Especially the ward and payne? I'm shocked by its hardness, my shoulders are screaming about it right now.

I did work the edge of the W&P on a diamond hone when I was squaring it up before grinding. Not surprisingly, working the bevel on diamonds doesn't amount to much of a challenge for diamonds, a diamond hone will raise a fat wire edge in an instant on M4 powder steel, so that's not much of a surprise.

[Steve Voigt]

Glad I'm not the only one into 19th c. plane esoterica.
I have reconditioned a bunch of these vintage irons, but right now there are 3 that are "in the rotation"--an A.C. Bartlett's single iron, a Buck double, and a Hancock double.
My main thought is that it's hard for me to isolate hardness because of the laminated construction. In general, they sharpen up pretty quickly (on oilstones), but how much of that is due to the hardness of the tool steel, and how much is due to the thinness of the laminated portion? I can't say. Maybe if I had japanese tools, I would have a better frame of reference. Also, I simply don't have your experience with a wide variety of steels--my tools are all either vintage or O1.
Anyway, the more important thing for me is the overall performance. The most outstanding thing about all 3 of these is that they never, ever chip, and they can go longer between sharpenings than my solid O1 irons. The Bartlett in particular is simply astounding. It's in my fore, and it can go all day even when I'm taking really heavy cuts and slamming into knots.
I spent the better part of Saturday reconditioning a 2 1/2" Butcher iron, paired with a Sorby cap iron. I wanted to test it out before wasting a bunch of time making a new plane stock for it, so I used it to chisel end grain for about 20 minutes, pushing it hard. It's the same as the other 3. I couldn't hurt it, the edge never rolled over, it just kept cutting.
Maybe I have just been lucky, because I have always heard the vintage irons can vary a lot. I've run into this with other tools--I have a Toga OBM chisel that's so soft, it might as well be mild steel. But so far, no dogs with the plane irons.

P.S Peugot, like the car and bike.
P.P.S. WTF with the avatar? Scary dude, scary.

[David Weaver]

That avatar is Phil ("Philadelphia") Collins from Trailer Park Boys. Chris has Bubbles for his avatar, and I figured it was time for a change.

In terms of the thickness of the lamination, there are obviously three factors in grinding - the thickness of the lamination, the thickness of the backer, and the hardness of each (especially the backer). One of the finest things in the world to sharpen is a japanese iron that has been stretched thin with extreme skill, and backed with supple soft wrought iron. It'll make you cast aside other irons, even if they hold an edge longer.

One of my makers, Mosaku, is my probably my most highly regarded plane. It is glass hard, though, and a lesser known maker that I have a plane from (takeo nakano) that has the fabulous thin lamination with very soft backing, and is probably not quite as hard is the plane I will keep when I unload all of my other japanese planes. That's especially valuable with japanese planes because you don't grind them, you generally keep them up with medium stone on unless they get damaged.

For vintage irons, I think there's a lot of sense in the same thing - there are some irons that you could easily just keep up with two stones, because the backing metal is so supple, and because they aren't over hardened. The butcher iron that came in my long jointer is that way (circa 1820-1840). The ward and payne iron gives the sense that it's some kind of mild steel or non-wrought iron, and it doesn't yield that well to the grinding wheel.

The only modern iron I still use at this point is the HSS iron that came in the muji. I've pretty much lost interest in anything that wasn't designed for natural stones. I thought it would never happen, but it definitely did. It's like woodworking in color after spending years of looking at high resolution black and white.

Like you, I don't have a lot of regard for irons that chip in regular use. failure by wear instead of chipping allows much more thrifty sharpening and much faster sharpening because of the thrift. oilstones and nicked irons don't mix.

(i'm not sure of the peugeot freres iron is related to the car maker.)

[Steve Rozmiarek]

I've no idea what stones were contemporary to the era, but I was sharpening molding planes with wet dry on dowels, and came across a Meier & Co, that is practically impervious to abrasion. I gave up on it and moved on. It needs a spot of pitting lapped out, but with the tools at my disposal, it's not happening. A couple Mathiesons in the stack, I agree, nice iron.

[Jim Koepke]

I do not know much about iron metallurgy.

Is it possible your blade missed an annealing process after the hardening?

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

I have one Peugeot freres iron. And it seems allright, not too hard, not too soft, but I don't use it very much yet. The plane needs further attention. Most of my wooden planes have a Nooitgedagt iron, prewar. These are perfectly allright. They don't chip, they don't bend and are easy enough to sharpen on my waterstones. I have a Mathiesson which is way too soft. It bends over quickly. I don't know if it has ever been overheated though.

[David Weaver]

I've no idea what stones were contemporary to the era, but I was sharpening molding planes with wet dry on dowels, and came across a Meier & Co, that is practically impervious to abrasion. I gave up on it and moved on. It needs a spot of pitting lapped out, but with the tools at my disposal, it's not happening. A couple Mathiesons in the stack, I agree, nice iron.

Put it in the oven at 375 or so, and see what color it is when it comes out. It should be manageable when it's done.

[David Weaver]

I do not know much about iron metallurgy.

Is it possible your blade missed an annealing process after the hardening?

jtk

It's what I'd call hard tempered. It's been tempered but not where vintage irons usually are. I'm wondering if they're all like that (hard tempered on purpose).

[Warren Mickley]

I will have some thoughts on the main topic later in the day. But I want to emphasize that the harness of a tool is largely dependent on the tempering process, not the brand of steel. All tool steels are very hard after quenching and all are tempered to a softer state. The ideal hardness after tempering is a matter of preference and can be influenced by the manner of use and the sharpening technique.

[David Weaver]

But I want to emphasize that the harness of a tool is largely dependent on the tempering process, not the brand of steel.

Absolutely, but I'm wondering if W&P may have made a practice of leaving the irons hard tempered on purpose. I'm not sure how the tempering process would've been done 125 years ago, but I'm sure it was much more controlled than backyard blacksmithing in full sunlight, and not as quick and hands off as modern induction hardening assembly line type setups.

My experience with buck chisels that say "buck brothers cast steel", for example, is that they are very fine grained, but also tempered a little on the soft side compared to some other chisels, like PS&W.

Since I don't have enough of a sample size to make any kind of thoughts about who may or may not have made their irons hard tempered on purpose (like you say, as a matter of process), I figured I'd throw the idea up here.

Steve makes a good point that I've seen less of in western tools and more of in japanese, though, that when the lamination is thin and the backer soft, there can be an illusion that the iron is soft because it sharpens easily. I usually judge irons like that by how fast they release metal particles on a natural stone when they are lapped opposite the bevel side.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Thanks Jim and Dave, I'll try the annealing one of these days.

[David Weaver]

Thanks Jim and Dave, I'll try the annealing one of these days.

Tempering. Annealing is the process of bringing metal back to an unhardened state (and is not something you'll do in a kitchen oven, anyway).

* Annealing makes material unhardened so it can be worked or to remove stresses from it. Annealing requires critical temperature heating (This is something like 1400F - not sure exactly where because I go by eye to harden tools and wouldn't have any way to measure the temperature, anyway).
* Proper hardening makes steel hard, somewhere around its maximum hardness (where it's brittle). Heat to critical and quench.
* tempering is a slight reheating that reduces the hardness some but rids the steel of its brittleness (i.e., exchanges hardness in favor of toughness). On simpler steels with high carbon, tempering temperatures are within range of a kitchen oven. Only the highest carbon steels (like high carbon simple steel japanese toos) are threatened with degradation in oven temperatures of 375 or so degrees. Some of the western irons that are new (like hock high carbon) are probably tempered short of that by some amount, but whether or not you prefer something like that is highly subjective (I don't). I much prefer straw temper or so tools (and O1 has come out of my oven after 375 with a nice light straw color).

[Jonas Baker]

Hello David,

I would love to see a picture of this Iron and the plane it came with (you know the old "pics or it didn't happen" thing :)) I have found a wide variety of hardness in the vintage laminated irons as well. My favorite iron is a 2 1/4 inch wide butcher that came in a Martin Doscher american made jack plane. I have an old Buck Cast Steel iron that is very hard and a bit chippy, so I guess it just depends.

Best,

Jonas

[David Weaver]

I'll snap a few tonight. For some reason, this kind of stuff gets me enthused, I guess because there's so much more style in the irons and cap irons, and in the planes themselves, than there is now in mass produced tools (and that even though W&P was more or less a mass producer, and so was griffiths of norwich).

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Tempering. Annealing is the process of bringing metal back to an unhardened state (and is not something you'll do in a kitchen oven, anyway).

See, proof that I know practically nothing about working iron properly. Thanks!

[David Weaver]

Well, if it makes you feel better, the result of working irons by yourself from an annealed state is usually an acceptable iron that isn't as good as any commercially made piece of gear. And annealing an iron and rehardening it often doesn't do great things for it - it's OK once - but doing it repeatedly is probably not good because you, me and everyone else in the open atmosphere doesn't have the ability to heat the iron to critical and relieve all of its stresses and really control the temperature. I think the product of repeated annealing and rehardening is large grains or lots of internal stresses.

Still, put that iron in the oven and see if you can get a little bit of straw color on it, and then try it on the stones. That part is perfectly safe and should only improve an iron that is otherwise unusable.

[Steve Voigt]

And annealing an iron and rehardening it often doesn't do great things for it - it's OK once - but doing it repeatedly is probably not good because you, me and everyone else in the open atmosphere doesn't have the ability to heat the iron to critical and relieve all of its stresses and really control the temperature. I think the product of repeated annealing and rehardening is large grains or lots of internal stresses.


A big factor in repeat hardenings is carbon starvation. Every time you heat the steel to magnetic, the carbon on the surface burns off. You can mostly neutralize this by using a preventative coating (homemade or bought from a place like Brownell's), and by using a carbon rich fuel, especially charcoal. But yeah, the average shade tree heat treater, with a propane torch and no coating, will see some degradation after multiple cycles.

[David Weaver]

Yeah, I forgot about that. It's unrealistic for a shade tree person to believe they could get an iron to critical and keep it there. George could tell us how well steel foil works, and how perfect it has to be since I know he's used it on A2 where critical is past where carbon begins to migrate.

[george wilson]

I have to use stainless steel foil on A2 steel. It will badly decarb if left naked in the electric furnace. Sometimes I have put a little Kasenite into the envelope to add a bit of carbon. I always would put a small piece of brown paper inside the envelope to burn oiff any air inside the envelope,and wrap it up as tight as possible. I use double crimping on the seams to avoid air getting inside. You have to be careful how much paper you put in the wrapper,as it will blow the wrapper open if you use too much,ruining your piece of metal.

As for laminated plane irons,I always seemed to get the best wear out of those that I could BARELY get to file with a new,fine file. Hardness and toughness is a balancing act. Too hard,and the tiny sharp edge can break off,making the blade seem dull,when it is just broken away. Tempering introduces some toughness into the carbon steel.

[David Weaver]

Hello David,

I would love to see a picture of this Iron and the plane it came with (you know the old "pics or it didn't happen" thing :)) I have found a wide variety of hardness in the vintage laminated irons as well. My favorite iron is a 2 1/4 inch wide butcher that came in a Martin Doscher american made jack plane. I have an old Buck Cast Steel iron that is very hard and a bit chippy, so I guess it just depends.

Best,

Jonas

Here's pictures of the plane and iron. I overextended myself a little on ebay for this one and spent about $80 shipped, but it's uncommon to find a plane in this good of condition with so little wear and not have to spend a few extra bucks.

You can see the maker's mark on the iron, and it may be a bit tough to make out after the SMC image budgetizer takes a bite out of the file size, but there's an anvil at the top that says "W&P" and has two hammers crossed over it.

The iron and cap iron are made with consderable care given that they're not 200 years old, and the plane bottom, as you can see, has a very tightly made mouth, but unlike inferior planes, the escapement is properly made on the inside to give room for the plane to work when the iron is set. Chips are efficiently ejected straight up when the cap iron is set close and a very thick chip is taken, instead of clogging as they will on a lot of later american planes.

I can't complain too much about the price given what I've seen from a lot of the boutique makers lately, and i'm not talking about Larry. Larry makes nice planes. Some of the other things popping up make me think I should create a set of videos advising beginners what made a good plane when planes were sold to professionals who knew. 283536283537283538283539283540

You can see how much iron is there, and how clean it is. My irons don't have the bright mirror of a synthetic stone because I'm using a broken in washita stone. This iron was frozen solid into the sides of the plane and I had to stand on the plane to get the iron out, and then float the sides of the plane to make enough room for it to get back in. It was out of use for a while. The iron had a line of rust across it where the cap iron made contact, but that was it.

I'm sure I get more out of things like this than most people do.

[Warren Mickley]

I guess I would not get excited about the hardness without seeing a pattern. I kind of doubt that they were manufactured hard with the idea that the craftsman would temper it to suit himself;probably the maker could temper it faster and more reliably. One can however temper an iron by placing it on a wood or coal stove and watching the color.

Sandstone seems to have been the common coarse stone for centuries. Sandstone can vary in grit size, consistency, and strength of binder. Moxon says grinding was done on either a wheel or a flat sandstone. Roubo suggests that the flat stone is very common but I gathered he preferred the wheel. Nicholson talks about grinding wheels, coarse rub stones, and Turkey stone hones. Grindstones in the 18th and early 19th century tended to be 20 inches in diameter or so; very little hollow grind. I think that in your situation, David, I would use a coarse stone to get the thing sharp then just use the Washita and Arkansas to refine the edge, just removing the scratches.

Here is the flat grinding stone from Roubo
283546

[David Weaver]

I think my question about the hardness is misinterpreted, but maybe it's tended that way because everyone sees spec sheet hardness as ideal, and in this case, I think a couple of points softer on the C scale would be better.

The iron grinds slowly, but now that the primary has been properly ground, it's not a big deal. I have a pink wheel on my grinder, which is a wheel that grinds cool enough that you do not need to bring water to your grinder. I have made the edges of irons hotter with sandpaper. I can grind an iron like this for several minutes to re-establish a primary and cool it by wiping it slowly across my palm. I did complain a bit about how it grinds harder, but mostly because that makes the initial bevel restore take 5 to 10 minutes instead of 1-2.

I wouldn't buy another iron like this again just to get the hardness, and I am on the cheap side so despite having many more planes than I need, I often buy them for curiosity on price. I do like to avoid anything that might be overly soft consistently, but I am curious about whether or not any of the makers had a habit of making them hard. It is certainly true that german razor makers generally made their razors harder than english makers. I never asked anyone why, but I've had enough examples and have seen enough other people make the same statement to know that it's the case.

What's maybe a little more fascinating to me is that despite the considerable age of this plane and the iron, the iron only had rust where the iron and cap iron contacted each other near the edge, and removing that was not much of an issue. The rest of it was in excellent shape without pitting or rust, and it was almost perfectly flat. The cap iron is carefully made and accurate, as is the whole plane, and the bottom is just slightly convex along its length, just how I would've prepared it. And then seemingly it was set aside, but not in some place that it would rot and rust away.

I did finish it with a washita that I do not disturb the surface of, and because I had a freshly ground primary, that wasn't difficult to do.

[Noah Wagener]

I was trying to get info on another Sheffield maker Thos. Ibbotson because of a lot of their pigstickers on e-bay and i came across a UK forum where I guy said he got rid of all his non Ward chisels because of the Ward's edge retention. I assume it is the same Ward as Ward and Payne . Quite a few users confirmed his opinion.

I have an Ohio try that loses its edge quite suddenly. It does not seem to degrade but then suddenly i can not get it to cut at all. I just got a Sandusky "The Fulton" in the mail that was at 18 degrees. Out of curiosity i think i'll try it at that angle when i get some time. It did not look like someone ground it to make it look shiny for pics on e-bay. It looked like the last user had it that way. There were three little nail holes on the sole along one edge and it the body was slanted like a dovetail plane.

[David Weaver]

Same maker, I think. I don't know if I've had ward stuff before, but this iron made me pay attention because it's difficult to work the back.

I can imagine that folks might get a brand favorite (like you're saying about the Ward) and cast off everything else they have given a chance.

The real gems to me are the irons that seem to hold an edge a normal duration, but that sharpen up very easily. The ward I mentioned in this case is a novelty given its hardness, but I wouldn't want all of my irons to be like that.

[Warren Mickley]

Well, if it makes you feel better, the result of working irons by yourself from an annealed state is usually an acceptable iron that isn't as good as any commercially made piece of gear. And annealing an iron and rehardening it often doesn't do great things for it - it's OK once - but doing it repeatedly is probably not good because you, me and everyone else in the open atmosphere doesn't have the ability to heat the iron to critical and relieve all of its stresses and really control the temperature. I think the product of repeated annealing and rehardening is large grains or lots of internal stresses.

I agree with you that the carbon content can be compromised with repeated heating, but I don't think grain sized is affected. When iron is heated to the critical temperature, the crystal structure changes from body-centered cubic to face-centered cubic. There is a slight increase in density. When it is cooled it changes back to bcc. If it is cooled very slowly, the crystals have time to grow large and thus the steel is annealed. When it is quenched small crystals form very rapidly in a jumble. Thus it is hardened. My feeling is that any previous crystal history is erased when heated above the critical temperature.

I certainly do agree with you, David, about the quality of some 19th century gems. Very easy sharpening combined with very fine edge and very fine edge retention. If on an ease of sharpening scale a2 is 6 and o1 is 10, these tools might be 18. Current manufacturers might take notice.

[David Weaver]

There is something subtle about the irons that I missed when I was blasting everything away with aluminum oxide and harder abrasives. I'm convinced that the older irons don't really like that stuff, I know the japanese irons don't, but they are harder and it's easier to differentiate.

When I say something subtle that I missed, it's the matched near perfection of an iron that is of pure carbon steel and that is sharpened with natural stones simply (even with a single washita that the surface has been allowed to break in with use), and how much more satisfying it is to use that and sharpen quickly. The diemaking steels did not really facilitate that so much because they're not made for those stones, and when you branch away from tools with straight edges (smoothers and jointers, etc), the ability to grind and hone properly and very quickly and then see the edges last surprisingly long after a simple and quick routine is ...well, it's just nicer to work with.

I certainly don't spend a larger balance of my time sharpening, and I don't have any irons that aren't defective that leave me wishing they'd last longer. I'm not sure I could explain it that well, but I sure could prove it in the shop to someone who was with me for a couple of hours of work from rough to finish.

[David Weaver]

By the way, re: the change in crytalline structures - what I don't know and have never looked at (and probably never will) is whether or not the changes in crystalline structure occure effectively and completely when a shade tree hardener attempts to do all of the operations with nothing more than low light (e.g., how long does metal have to be at critical temperature to achieve the change in structure completely - is it instant?). Either way, you're probably right that the much greater danger is overheating and carbon migration.

[David Weaver]

One more iron to add to the bunch, from this plane - a maker that I haven't seen before, but I don't think it's uncommon. Dwight and French. It's soft feeling on the stones and sharpens very easily, but surprisingly takes no damage when used heavily. It's either wrought or soft mild steel, the cap iron and the iron both have high carbon steel inlaid, which makes the iron look older than it is (no older than about 1850, and possibly 50 years newer than that).


283953

The plane is something common from new york - one of the baldwin marks, but I can't remember which. It's a nice plane, though.

(for some reason, I'm bottom feeding planes with cosmetic issues off of ebay right now, I guess out or curiosity regarding the different irons)