Tapered vs Krenov/Hock vs Japansese Style irons

[Pedro Reyes]

At some point I would like to make a plane out of Beech, not a Krenov lamination but a traditional one.

I know Lee Valley sells some nice tapered irons, and that most (if not all) traditional planes had this style, using wedge mortises (sides) . The Krenov style, has straight blade/cap iron assemblies wedged using the cross pin, and honestly I ignore how the Japanese do it, I even think I heard once their irons are tapered fat at the top, thin at the business end.

In any case, Hock now offers longer blade/cap assemblies, so I thought, why not build a traditional plane using a double iron? Has anyone done this? Does anyone think it would not work because the blade/cap assembly is not really tapered? Can anyone provide insight as to what might change from what Whelan (or Perch & Lee) state in their books? Or any tips?

much appreciated.

/p

[Warren Mickley]

Double iron beech planes have at least a 250 year history. By 1790 or so double iron planes were the standard. At that time parallel or gaged irons were available at a premium. They were obviously more expensive to manufacture. I personally made my first double iron plane in 1975. They work well.

[Jim Matthews]

Steve Voigt built my mini-smoother that way.

It's a breeze to adjust, a bear to disassemble
because the fit between the cap iron and blade
create a vacuum seal.

Steve is a regular on the forum, and makes excellent planes in the traditional
style you and I admire.

[Jeff Heath]

I make traditional style planes, and I have used both the Veritas tapered single iron and the Hock 4 1/2" double iron. In my personal opinion, the planes perform equally well with either iron. It's a personal preference between single iron or double iron. With a tapered iron, as you tap the iron forward to advance it, you also loosen the wedge, so you have to remember to tap the wedge also with your plane hammer. If you set the iron for a thick shaving, and want to back it out, it's best to just loosen it, pull it out, and start over by advancing the iron and the wedge until satisfied with your depth set.

I'm making a strike block plane for use a shooting plane, and I'm using the Veritas tapered iron for it.

[Christopher Charles]

Hello Jeff,

Would love to see progress or at least completion pics of your strike block plane (pardon the highjack--perhaps you could do a build thread?).

Thanks!
C

[Pedro Reyes]

Thanks all for your feedback, quite valuable.

/p

[Steve Voigt]

Jim, thanks for the kind words.
Pedro, I have made double iron planes with both Hock irons and vintage tapered irons, the latter usually purchased on ebay. They both work very well. The lack of taper on the Hocks is not really an issue, for two reasons. First, even an untapered single iron can work fine in a traditional plane; tapered irons just work a little better. But more importantly, in a double iron, the "sandwich" of iron + chipbreaker is tapered, because of the bend in the chipbreaker. So you get the mechanical advantage of a taper even though the iron itself is not tapered.
I use the Hock 3 1/2" irons on small planes, like Jim's, that are intended for one-handed use. I radius the top, so that the blade nestles in the palm of the hand. But I wouldn't use one on a full size plane. The 4 1/2" should work on a full size plane, but it doesn't leave you with a ton of extra blade.
For the full size planes I've built, I've used vintage tapered irons. The upside is that they can often be had for super cheap. The downside is they can take a lot of labor to flatten, remove pits, and get the chipbreaker and iron to mate properly. If you go this route, try to get one in as good condition as possible. There's an outfit on ebay called "gandmtools" that sells NOS vintage irons. Even with shipping from England, it's still less than you'd pay for a Hock, and the irons are almost twice as long. But I've also done fine refurbishing used irons that I bought for $10 or less; it just takes more work.
It is harder to make a high-functioning double iron plane than it is to make a single iron plane. The main issue is getting the plane to feed properly. I advise keeping the wear bevel small. But, the rewards are greater. A well made double iron will outperform a single iron every time.
I have a blog, The Black Dog's Woodshop, with several plane builds on it. You may find it useful.

- Steve

[David Weaver]

At some point I would like to make a plane out of Beech, not a Krenov lamination but a traditional one.

I know Lee Valley sells some nice tapered irons, and that most (if not all) traditional planes had this style, using wedge mortises (sides) . The Krenov style, has straight blade/cap iron assemblies wedged using the cross pin, and honestly I ignore how the Japanese do it, I even think I heard once their irons are tapered fat at the top, thin at the business end.

In any case, Hock now offers longer blade/cap assemblies, so I thought, why not build a traditional plane using a double iron? Has anyone done this? Does anyone think it would not work because the blade/cap assembly is not really tapered? Can anyone provide insight as to what might change from what Whelan (or Perch & Lee) state in their books? Or any tips?

much appreciated.

/p

Find an NOS double iron set on ebay (from a beech wooden plane) and build your plane using it instead of a modern iron that looks tacky and amateurish in that style of plane.

I think I've used these sellers:
gandmtoolsales (http://www.ebay.com/usr/gandmtoolsales?_trksid=p2047675.l2559)
sigee6t4 (http://www.ebay.com/usr/sigee6t4?_trksid=p2047675.l2559)

[Winton Applegate]

I ignore how the Japanese do it, I even think I heard once their irons are tapered fat at the top, thin at the business end.

Why ignore the Japanese style ?
Since you listed it and brought it up and all.


Check out what this guy says.


http://video.pbs.org/video/2365001106/


Who needs a chip breaker ?:):):)


Can get some killer good blades.
http://www.japanwoodworker.com/category/12936/plane-blades.aspx


This style if made right works great.
Mine is not exactly the same as Mr. Fox's and it has that plate on there but I can't resist showing it off.
Still wouldn't plane bubinga but if put in a di with a steeper angle it would.
No I didn't make the plane but in the words of Bogart in the movie The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
"I coulda but I don't wanta. See?" ( actually it was more like : I-coulda-buh-ah-doe-wana-see!)


http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/IMG_0102_zps3df7d734.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/IMG_0102_zps3df7d734.jpg.html)


http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/IMG_0095_zpsd29cc94b.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/IMG_0095_zpsd29cc94b.jpg.html)


http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/IMG_0101_zps35114b04.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/IMG_0101_zps35114b04.jpg.html)

[Kees Heiden]

If I would make a traditional style wooden plane, I would want to stick the original style iron into it. A laminated iron with a nice taper and a capiron, crowned with one of these nice old logo's stamped at the top. You can buthcer an old woodie (plenty around) or buy one from the sources David mentioned.


But a parallel iron will work too. Maybe not as perfectly as the tapered one, but the difference wouldn't be huge.

[David Weaver]

To reiterate what steve said about the pitting, I have recovered irons that should've been thrown away, but in the balance of things, I think buying a fresh and clean iron from someone like the sellers I mentioned is far better on the value side. Plus, if you're making a fresh and new plane, you don't necessarily want to have a beater looking iron that may be wider on the left or right due to removal of pitting, or even compromised a little in thickness.

An excellent clean vintage iron and cap iron setup should be about $35 with shipping from the UK, where they (NOS older carbon steel irons) seem to still be in plentiful supply.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Pedro

I've made many planes with a variety of blades. The blades range from parallel Hock and Veritas (I've not yet tried the tapered ones) to vintage tapered and parallel. The reliability of the Hock and Veritas steel is one factor to consider. The vintage blades have been variable and unpredictable in terms of heat treatment, and this includes both used and NOS vintage blades.

There are pro and cons with parallel and tapered blades. Both are used by foremost plane manufacturers: HNT Gordon use shortish 1/4" thick parallel blades, which are held securely with a wooden wedge. Old Street use 3/16" (I think) tapered blades, and these are also held securely with a wedge. My logic says that a tapered blade will be more securely held than a parallel blade, and they would be the preference for a plane that takes a deep cut, such as a jack ... but then my jack has a parallel blade, and it does fine. The disadvantage of the tapered blade is that the mouth will open progressively as the blade wears. This is going to be more of an issue with smoothers that rely on a small mouth to control tearout. The other disadvantage of the tapered blade is that it is less easy to adjust. As Jeff pointed out, you have to drive the blade down and out, then start again if you wish to reduce the projection. A parallel iron can be adjusted for a reduced projection by a rap on the rear of the plane's body.

I cannot say that I find a strong enough reason to go with tapered blades in the future. Perhaps someone can convince me to continue using tapered irons?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

I've never found much favor in straight (parallel) irons in a wedge plane, whether it's a bench plane or (especially) a moulding plane.

If one is processing wood (starting with rough) it's likely that you'll start at a setting, decide to go deeper (as deep as you can comfortably plane) and then keep that setting until the plane is dull. The exception may be a smoother, but a smoother is the easiest plane to set (vs. trying to tap the back of a jointer).

The bonus is that you can take the iron out of any of the planes by just holding the wedge and bumping the plane on a bench above the leg.

I haven't seen a need for a small mouth in a smoother for a couple of years now. Use of the double iron illuminates why a lot of the older infills don't have super tight mouths. Same thing on the coarser wood planes. A wider mouth on a plane that isn't super quality is likely to cause less trouble.

While I have had variable experience with the vintage irons, the only one that I have had that wasn't any good was a thistle brand (was that prison labor?) cheaply made plane - the iron was chippy. The rest have been harder or softer than each other, but their hardness has been in proportion with their sharpening ease, a trade I'm more than willing to make. The last plane I got that had an iron that I thought was too soft, well actually two of them - first was a continental smoother with a pugeot freres iron, and the second is one of the cheap try planes I mentioned in a thread a month or so ago that had a dwight and french iron. In both cases, the irons seemed to yield unreasonably easily to oilstones, but in both cases, they hold up just fine in actual use.

[Kees Heiden]

The effect of a tight mouth on tearout is marginal at best when the sole is absolutely flat, and non existent as soon as the sole wears a bit in front of the mouth. Japanese wooden planes solve this with their particular shape of the sole, but even then, the effect on tearout is still marginal.

All my wooden planes behave a bit different when setting the iron. The most predictable are the ones with a tapered iron. They need a more decisive tap with the adjusting hammer. The iron can also easilly be retracted a bit with a rap on the back or just in front of the mortice. My Ulmia and my infill with parallel irons both need very light taps. My Krenov type can't be set precisely when tapping the iron downwards, and can only be set precisely when you retract the blade with taps on the back.

You just learn to live with the differences. Best is not to have too many planes....

[Kees Heiden]

In all my fiddling and cuddling with wooden planes I came to a conclusion about the shape of the mouth area. Double iron planes don't have a very tight mouth, not even in a smoother. 1 mm in front of the edge is fine. The wear (the face in front of the iron) has an angle between 80 and 90 degrees. This is confirmed in the Seaton chest planes, these have a wear of 87 degrees. Of course this means that the mouth widens when you repeatably flatten the sole, but luckilly that doesn't matter at all. Best is to limit the amount of material you remove when reflattening the sole. take it easy, usually you don't need to remove much.

Single iron planes have a wear which is much closer to the iron, usually 60 to 70 degrees.

The wedge in a double iron plane should end on top of the bulge of the capiron. In a single iron it should be deeper. Make sure the tips of the wedge are slightly pressing outwards to the sides of the abutments. The points of the wedge are tapered. Make the abutments the same shape. Insert the wedge and iron and tap them tight as in normal use. Then mark the abutments from the wedge tips and remove material as neccessary.

[David Weaver]

Best is not to have too many planes....

Agreed - learn the plane, learn how it likes to be set, done. And I am a plane pig, but I recognize there is much more value in using a few planes that are very capable than a whole bunch of specialized planes.

The subtle differences in how all of the planes like to be set is something that doesn't even require conscious thought - just some repetition. Just as setting the cap iron in the first place, it's better done by experience and experimentation than it is by trying to create an apparatus or shim or some other such thing to set the iron.

[Pedro Reyes]

This is going to the "Printed Version" and I will stick it inside Whelan's or Lee's book.

@Winston A.

I ignore how the Japanese do it

I meant I don't know how they do it, not that I purposely discard them. I don't own any, I do have a Dozuki, a Ryoba and several Chisels, but not a single plane. Most people who try them swear by them, I don't need another addiction to tools ;-).

Thanks again to all.

/p

[David Weaver]

No worries, there are a lot of people who buy a couple of japanese planes and don't use them often. Count me in that group (I have more than a couple, actually). They would make more sense for someone working mostly with softwoods, but the mechanism by which they are maintained (full bevel sharpening) and the fact that they're less convenient (more time consuming) to set the double iron and then adjust depth while it's set makes less sense where something like a bailey plane is ideal (medium hardwoods, especially if they are figured and you are doing more than smoothing).

It's nice to have a cheap japanese plane as a jack plane, though - one where you're not afraid to grind a significant camber on the iron and use it as a break from pushing planes.

Despite the protests of the ardent supporters, you're not really missing anything if you don't use japanese planes, just as if you were fully tooled up with japanese planes, there's no great need to use western planes.

[Pedro Reyes]

Despite the protests of the ardent supporters, you're not really missing anything if you don't use japanese planes, just as if you were fully tooled up with japanese planes, there's no great need to use western planes.

I figured, thanks. I have nothing against them, but already too invested in western planes.

inb4 the 47 Ronin storm in here to edmucate the crap out of us.

/p

[David Weaver]

inb4 the 47 Ronin storm in here to edmucate the crap out of us.

/p

You'll always get the most vocal insistence from the individuals on the fringes of both types. It will include comments like "definitely, my way is better, others are hacks" or lots of things that involve the words "you need" , "you must", or "you have to".

I can't think of much I haven't tried, other than "store bought" infill planes. Of the tools made when professionals used tools, and the tools made now in the same way, I can't see a lot that blocks progress with any of them as a user other than familiarity. The subtleties that you get from familiarity are worth more than the differences vs. something else.

[Jim Matthews]

You need to balance what works best with cost.

Lots of good quality tapered Western iron rolling around.
I can't make heads or tails of what makes a good Japanese blade.
(The information is asymmetric - my resource for research is also selling the stuff.)

FWIW - I really like the steel Ron Hock supplies, it's easy to sharpen and there's nothing to work around with fresh blades.

[Jack Curtis]

No worries, there are a lot of people who buy a couple of japanese planes and don't use them often. Count me in that group (I have more than a couple, actually). They would make more sense for someone working mostly with softwoods, but the mechanism by which they are maintained (full bevel sharpening) and the fact that they're less convenient (more time consuming) to set the double iron and then adjust depth while it's set makes less sense where something like a bailey plane is ideal (medium hardwoods, especially if they are figured and you are doing more than smoothing)....

There's no need to routinely use a double iron in Japanese planes, only when you're getting piles of tearout. Otherwise, a single iron is fine, normal use, all you need.

[David Weaver]

Someone trying to use a japanese plane on lots of figured wood would find that they're getting piles of tearout unless they choose to take very thinner shavings - unless they use a double iron.

Thinner shavings has not ever been my preference - it's boredom by a thousand swipes of the plane. or death of time by a thousand swipes of the plane.

In the event that the wood is straight and you can always plane downhill on it somewhere, it's less critical.

[Jeff Heath]

Find an NOS double iron set on ebay (from a beech wooden plane) and build your plane using it instead of a modern iron that looks tacky and amateurish in that style of plane.



So, what you're saying here is that if somebody builds traditional style planes, but they use a brand new, perfectly made, and high quality double iron from Ron Hock, or single tapered iron from Veritas, then that plane is "tacky and amateurish"??????

Wasn't it you just a few weeks ago steering a thread about old double irons where the quality was hit or miss? Some were too hard, and some wouldn't hold an edge for nothing???? I read that thread, and agreed with your assessment, because that has been my experience, too.

So, according to you, modern day planemakers are tacky and amateurish if they make a plane that works perfectly, fits well in the hand, feeds well, but use a high quality high carbon steel iron made consistently.... one after the next off the line from Ron Hock or Lee Valley. Or.......we should just go the hit or miss route buying up a bunch of NOS stock from antique dealers in England????????

Do you ever actually read some of the stuff that comes out of your keyboard before hitting the "enter" button???????????

It's this kind of thinking and spewing that results in the same 10 people talking to each other in this forum, and is why so many good, talented woodworkers from all around on other forums stay away from here.

Enjoy yourself and your sandbox.......

[David Weaver]

If someone made a plane in the style that old street tool makes, and put a square hock iron in it, I'd call it tacky, modernish, and amateurish looking. Yes. But a lot of what's being put out has compromises in how it looks because the makers either take shortcuts or just miss the boat in the little things that make the older english planes look really great. Larry is probably the only person making traditional planes who has the eyes right on the planes and does a good job with design, including how the iron looks. Larry didn't come to that by accident. Phil comes to mind as having nice design and nice crisp lines, too.

I have had (like I said) an auburn iron that wasn't very impressive - one (it may appear in some of my past posts as "ohio tool" because I incorrectly thought it was an ohio tool iron). The others vary in hardness, I feel like the ward is too hard for oilstones (though it's tolerable if someone absolutely wouldn't want to change), but a waterstone user would find no issue with it. It's easy to correct, and many times nicer looking than anything new. In its current state, it's probably about as hard or a tick harder than hock's stuff. So, anyway, out of about 20 double iron sets, I've had one that was very hard and one that was junk. that leaves 90% of them being perfectly fine for use right away, 95% if you don't mind really hard irons, and at an average cost of probably $15 (a completely NOS marples, nurse, etc, double iron set may be $40).

Here are some other examples of compromises in current planes (separate and aside even of function issues):
* unattractive handle designs or liberties taken on the horn of the tote that don't look good
* roundovers on long edges instead of chamfers, or sanding away of crispness on chamfers (perhaps for speed), heavy sanding around all curved surfaces
* wedges that lack in design (see an old english plane where the wedge was crisply made and chamfered all the way around, and there wasn't anything curved on it, etc)
* termination of roundovers or chamfers don't look right
* irons are modern irons with a look that doesn't match a plane
* wood is whatever is available (instead of beech or apple - getting large amounts of long apple is a pipe dream at this point, but beech wouldn't be for a maker with foresight)
* Modern fonts or laser engraving on metal parts instead of stamps with a font with serifs.

I don't automatically say anything that's OK that's made now is great just because it would make current makers feel good. I'm not aware of any current plane that is a match for the mathiesen try plane I posted in another thread. The cleanliness of the mortise, the style of the plane, the execution of the eyes, and the very lovely looking (if a bit hard for my taste) ward iron, and good quality beech are better than anything I can think of, short of larry's stuff (which I don't love because it's single iron), and possibly phil's.

Steve V is making some very nice planes, and I know he's got a lot of interest in the design and style of the older english planes - if he wants to make planes like those, it seems he's got the head and hands to do it. They were the best i've seen (the english planes). As george has pointed out before, most people who stray from the design of those older planes would be a lot better off if they'd just focus on making dead-on copies of them.

At any rate, I don't consider the english irons "hit or miss". I do consider them to vary some in hardness, but that's not really much of a problem. the only real problem with them would be a newbie spending $15 on a double iron set with pitting that they have no chance of removing the pits from, thus the suggestion to spend a few extra bucks and get one that's fresh and NOS-looking. Newbies might confuse consistency in hardness for irons from iron to iron for quality or utility (I did, I considered any iron that yielded quickly to an arkansas stone to be something that was probably not wear resistant enough). In reality, if the iron is within a usable range of hardness (something like 57-62) it will be fine. Above 62 doesn't really return a reward in durability equal to the extra effort to sharpen on anything other than diamonds.

Fortunately for most of the current makers, most buyers are beginners who really have no idea about planes because they haven't used many and they certainly haven't made any noteworthy planes. Most planes are tried out a little and then spend their life on a rack. It appears to me that it's more important for a current maker to be nice than it is for them to be good at design or execution, and most buyers will have no knowledge that the plane they buy for several hundred bucks has nothing on the matheisen plane that I got for about $80, or the jt brown plane that I got quite some time ago unused for either $25 or $40.

Anyway, I'm not going to carry water for mix and match modern planes and especially not for multi hundred (and sometimes thousand dollar) krenov planes. Other people can spend their money how they like, I hope they don't regret it if they ever go down the rabbit hole of actually learning about planes and using them very seriously for more than smoothing (which is really the only place where modern irons have some advantage - wear resistance so you can take the maximum number of 1 thousandth shavings before resharpening - for heavier work, the ease in sharpening and grinding of the vintage irons outclasses the modern irons).

It's one thing to make good new planes that work well and are "good" with some bumbles in terms of design elements, and another thing entirely to make a plane that is a match for a vintage english plane both in function and design. It almost takes a personality type like Larry or George to do it, and fortunately for the real fanatics of both ends of the deal, Larry chose to make planes, and unfortunately for the fanatics, George doesn't love making the same thing over and over.

[David Weaver]

Pardon me - the try plane is a griffiths of norwich, and a closed handle jack plane that I have is a matheisen. Comments about design elements still apply. Pictures attached (note the proportion of the eyes ans their even thinness along the side of the plane, and the fit of the wedge to what is probably a plane at least 100 years old. How precise do you think it was when it was new?). I was off, it was a little less than $80, also, I had to go back and look. It's new enough to start to have some compromises in design (some things about the wedge, the handle is good but not great - still tasteful, though, and the chamfers are not as crisp as they would've been on a plane 100 years older), but not many.

The mathiesen plane that had me confused came courtesy of fine tool journal's tool sales in similar condition to this one - for $32. It makes the argument for new planes hard to justify, unless one just has no tolerance for looking for a good older one or no idea what to look for.

286810 286811286814286816

[Chris Griggs]

It's this kind of thinking and spewing that results in the same 10 people talking to each other in this forum, and is why so many good, talented woodworkers from all around on other forums stay away from here.

Enjoy yourself and your sandbox.......

Hey don't insult the other 9 of us just because Dave is a Sponge Bob Cranky Pants....:)

[David Weaver]

Any time someone is actually precise about anything, there is always a "this is why nobody comes to this forum". It doesn't amount to a whole lot - it's been said on every forum that I've ever been on, and it's only really accurate when there are trolls at work (and there are none here that I'm aware of).

The best thing that ever happened to this forum, in my opinion, is George deciding he'd like to spend some time here after he retired and imparting some design wisdom on the rest of us. The *quality* of the discussion here, and the accuracy of it, over the last 3 or 4 years is better by a factor of 10 than the "everything's good!" type of discussion that preceded.

I am sponge bob cranky pants sometimes, but I try to provide measured accurate comments, and without being too specific about things that folks trot out here that they make -and some make for pay. I make some ugly stuff, too, and before george pointed us in the right direction in terms of style, I made a lot of ugly stuff and didn't really examine why it was lacking. If I was to make something for pay, I would feel obligated to do the kind of research that someone like George or Larry would do, and make things as well as they have.

At any rate, I don't think I do any beginners a disservice by mentioning that not everything that's new is better or even as good, just because it's new, or that not every turnkey tool is better in the end just because it's easier to use in the beginning.

[Steve Voigt]

I make some ugly stuff, too, and before george pointed us in the right direction in terms of style, I made a lot of ugly stuff and didn't really examine why it was lacking. If I was to make something for pay, I would feel obligated to do the kind of research that someone like George or Larry would do, and make things as well as they have.


It's an important distinction. If someone wants to make a plane purely to accomplish some specific, short-term task, then there is nothing wrong with making it out of buttcrack wood and using whatever iron or scrap of tool steel is convenient. Like the open-sided grooving planes that Dave posted a few weeks ago.*
On the other hand, if you're trying to make a plane that has a permanent place in your starting lineup, that's going to sit on your bench for the next 20 years, then the details start to matter. And that goes double if you're trying to charge money for a plane.


* though I think those were made of beech, not buttcrack.

[Chris Griggs]

I was just giving you and Jeff crap.:)

I don't have a strong opinion about this topic, but I do find the conversation interesting and educational, particularly the features of the plane you posted a pic of.

I do agree that the whole "this is why nobody comes to this forum" or "this is why this forum has a bad reputation" is a tired comment that I see on every forum. I read other forums, and I don't really see anything different or better.

I have some opinions on some of the other stuff you mentioned as well...like $800 Krenov planes being pushed as a good option/investment for someone just assembling a set of planes....but you already know my opinion on that...

As to the topic at hand, I personally would prefer to find a vintage tapered iron as well, for all functional and aesthetic reasons already stated.


...BTW...but just becasue I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, doesn't mean that I retract my Sponge Bob Cranky Pants comment :p

[David Weaver]

Worse...they were made of cherry!

I thought about making them out of beech (I have plenty of it), but I thought if I did that instead of making them out of offcuts of a current project, someone would say "well, I don't have beech, and I'm not going to build them".

I thought about making them look nice (they literally still have a rough opposite side), but figured also that might discourage someone from making them if they've never made a plane before.

If I was going to try to make a try plane, I'd try to better the plane pictured above. There are some things I could do a little better (the handle and the details around the edges of the plane, and maybe the aesthetics of the wedge), but I seriously doubt I could cut the mortise cleaner or fit the wedge as well as that one is fit to the abutments. That's kind of discouraging!

I couldn't do it for $66 either.

[David Weaver]

...BTW...but just becasue I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, doesn't mean that I retract my Sponge Bob Cranky Pants comment :p

Oh on, it's accurate! It's not malicious or haphazard crankiness like is being alleged, though. It's honest crankiness and desire for some sort of progress in discussion. We have, at least, gotten away from the popular prevailing notions that were present five years ago (figured woods demand an infill, stanley planes are junky, old wooden planes are doorstops, LN chisels are far better than vintage, can't do accurate work without premium tools, anything but premium is a waste of time for a beginner.....There wasn't even the remotest discussion about design elements back then).

that's progress! Look how much better the average saw handle made by a forum user is now than 5 years ago.

[Steve Voigt]

Pardon me - the try plane is a griffiths of norwich…


It's a very nice looking plane. As you say, the fit of the wedge prongs to the abutments is pretty amazing for a plane that was probably made 150 years ago. Another nice feature is how the sharp line that begins the taper of the abutments lines up perfectly with the top of the wear bevel.

Two questions:
- How far from the bottom do the abutments terminate? From the pic, it looks like they go quite far down, but I can't tell for sure.
- How big is the wear bevel, and any idea what the approx. angle of the wear is? I was interested in Kees' remark that the Seaton double irons have an 87° wear angle. I really need to get my hands on that book.

[george wilson]

Even if some think David sounded cranky,I have read everything he said about design in his last few posts.I have to say,I do not disagree with any thing he said. I would not make a nice plane either,and put a blocky square iron in it. It spoils the lines of the planes. Truly it does. This just has to be taken as fact. They only seem to work in Krenov planes(which I am not crazy about personally),but then,the irons in Krenov planes always seem so short,they would not last for many sharpenings before they's be shorter than the wedge above them. I leave edges and bevels crisp. I do pay careful attention to carving the eyes of my planes (That plane above has very nice eyes,David)(It seems the English did have a knack for getting eyes correct).)

As for wood,I have a good supply of 16/4 hard maple that I might use instead of beech. It is much harder than beech,so why not? I think beech was just cheap and plentiful. I am sure David knows that. I had another "Master Craftsman" proclaim to me that "It was impossible to use a maple workbench". His own bench was oak. And,from oak's grain structure,it sort of fell apart if little knife,chisel,or saw cuts were made close to the same location. This master never designed anything from scratch in his life. He made the same thing over and over until he retired. My own bench was maple. There was no supply of beech when I first joined the museum. They did have 16/4 maple on hand. I needed a bench NOW.

It would be better instead of getting offended,if some members took good advice and used it. The problem is,some people do not know what good advice is. And I do not mean that in a sarcastic way. Do not take it as such,or as arrogance on my part. Truth is truth. I have seen plenty of beautiful craftsmanship that was impeccable,but poorly designed. Especially in knife makers,for some reason. They seem to get carried away by fantasy,and frequently design handles that only fit the hand in 1 position,while a knife WILL be held in many positions in real use. As a long time craftsman who has trained many people,I think the hardest thing for students to learn has been good design and good drawing skills. It seems like they either had it,or they didn't. I have had otherwise good craftsmen working in my shop who could only draw at less than a 4th. grade level. They were best left to straight copying.(fortunately for them,museum work often involved copying old work). If they tried designing anything, it was a trainwreck. I had one journeyman who tried designing a vine inlay on the neck of a lute. It looked like a thorn bush. He seemed to have no idea what LEAVES look like. Or how to draw graceful curves. Yet,he thought his design was good. It wasn't. But,the craftsmanship of his instrument was quite good.

[David Weaver]

Steve, that was the plane I originally offered to picture because I thought it had some extra work below the abutments, but found it's just cleanly done.

I'll check the angles and find out what they are. The mouth is tight on it for a double iron plane, but it doesn't get in its own way. The picture of the bottom doesn't do it justice, because the iron is partially retracted. Just how tight the mouth is while not interfering with feeding is a testament to how much the maker felt it was important to make it that way, even though they were fighting costs on some of the other aspects around the outside of the plane.

286819

[Pedro Reyes]

For the record, I was not discouraged, I appreciate the insight and value everyone's opinion on the matter. And while I am not shooting for an authentic look over function, much less please anyone, I will give that a shot (using an old traditional blade), because why not? Why not make it look nice without sacrificing function, I do have an old (German) blade that came off a wooden plane (freebie).

I hope I don't offend anyone, but usually only about a page to a page and a half is good on most threads, before it goes down an arguing path.

peace

/p

[Kees Heiden]

That looks like a really fine mouth for a wooden plane! I never stumble on stuff like that. Do you have some measurement, or maybe even pictures from the mouth and abutment area of that plane?

[Chris Griggs]

It's honest crankiness and desire for some sort of progress in discussion. We have, at least, gotten away from the popular prevailing notions that were present five years ago (figured woods demand an infill, stanley planes are junky, old wooden planes are doorstops, LN chisels are far better than vintage, can't do accurate work without premium tools, anything but premium is a waste of time for a beginner.....There wasn't even the remotest discussion about design elements back then).

that's progress! Look how much better the average saw handle made by a forum user is now than 5 years ago.

That's dead on accurate...I started about 5 years ago. At the time the majority of what was being said online was..

- Vintage planes are only good for coarse work..you NEED a newly made LN/LV smoother and jointer
- If you must use a vintage plane you NEED to throw out the iron it came with and get a new thick iron...(emphasis on word need vs want)
- Chipbreakers are only there to stabilize thin irons that Stanley made thin to save money
- etc...

Some of that still exists, but its much more individual sentiment and more often spoken about as a personal preference than a need/nice thing to have. There really is a lot of great info out there now being regularly shared that just wasn't present in the online or print woodworking world 5 years ago.

[Daniel Rode]

I have a couple of poorly made modern planes, a modern WR #4 smoother and a 100+ year old #6 with the original thin iron. The Wood River smoother is nicely made. Not a thing wrong with it and it works well. I'm sure the tolerances on the LV and LN smothers are even even smaller. However, I really don't think it slices wood any better. If I had it to do over, I'd go with a vintage #4 Stanley Bailey style.

The #6 works great and the junk planes work like junk.



That's dead on accurate...I started about 5 years ago. At the time the majority of what was being said online was..

- Vintage planes are only good for coarse work..you NEED a newly made LN/LV smoother and jointer
- If you must use a vintage plane you NEED to throw out the iron it came with and get a new thick iron...(emphasis on word need vs want)
- Chipbreakers are only there to stabilize thin irons that Stanley made thin to save money
- etc...

Some of that still exists, but its much more individual sentiment and more often spoken about as a personal preference than a need/nice thing to have. There really is a lot of great info out there now being regularly shared that just wasn't present in the online or print woodworking world 5 years ago.

[David Weaver]

That looks like a really fine mouth for a wooden plane! I never stumble on stuff like that. Do you have some measurement, or maybe even pictures from the mouth and abutment area of that plane?

Yeah, I'll take pictures either tonight or sometime in the next couple of days if I can remember. I was surprised how fine it is. Compare it to american planes of the same period, which generally have a pretty wide open mouth, probably just because it simplifies the fitting and testing process significantly when you use a double iron.

I can't remember why I was looking for such a plane on ebay, but when I stumble upon something inexpensive that is better than I can make (without spending an inordinate amount of time doing slow work to do it finely) I usually buy it.

I never do see stuff like it locally, though.

[Kees Heiden]

I just accidentally bought a Dutch 18th century rabet plane. In exchange for your pictures I will post pictures from mine ;) (as soon as it arrives).

[David Weaver]

accidentally...

You can be honest with us, even if you're just practicing with what you're going to say to your wife :)

[David Weaver]

As for wood,I have a good supply of 16/4 hard maple that I might use instead of beech. It is much harder than beech,so why not?

The mortise is so much easier to cut by hand with beech than it is with maple, and the beech is more forgiving when cutting the mouth. If i had your skillset I might consider maple, too! A couple of splinters around the mouth or splinters on the handle on a plane that I was trying to make nicely would drive me nuts, though.

if the makers were doing a lot of the work by hand 200 years ago, I'd bet they chose beech because it was plentiful and cheap, easy to work relative to its hardness, and because there wasn't a lot of higher priced competition for its use.

[george wilson]

By the way,a gauged iron is tapered. It is about twice as thick as a regular iron,but is still tapered the same. My Norris jack plane has a gauged iron in it. A gauged plane iron was always something to be prized if you came across one!!

When speaking about plane irons,David was speaking in terms of aesthetics,not reliability of hardness,etc. I had to use antique planes daily for 16 years,and found them good for the most part. I found the most durable ones could barely be cut with a new,fine cut Nicholson mill file. That was my test back in simpler days,when I had no hardness tester. But,today's metallurgy is of course more reliable,and hardening and tempering is also. However,it would be nice if SOME modern makers would give a little effort to aesthetics. If I had to use a Hock iron,I would at least grind the top of it into a more pleasing shape. Luckily,I don't have to rely on other guy's irons though.

[David Weaver]

Kees/Steve - two more pictures.

The mouth is about a 64th or so. The wear is 78 degrees. the iron was super tight and I had to relieve the sides to get some lateral space to adjust it, so the fact that the wedge isn't lined up with the abutments has to do with my laziness in getting a picture.

The abutments terminate gradually starting 3/4ths inch from the mouth or so, and the wedge follows them neatly all the way down.

286884286885

[Steve Voigt]

Kees/Steve - two more pictures.

The mouth is about a 64th or so. The wear is 78 degrees. the iron was super tight and I had to relieve the sides to get some lateral space to adjust it, so the fact that the wedge isn't lined up with the abutments has to do with my laziness in getting a picture.

The abutments terminate gradually starting 3/4ths inch from the mouth or so, and the wedge follows them neatly all the way down.



Thanks for the pics!
So, remember when you said (I'm paraphrasing here) the mouth of this plane was cut a little differently, that it was a more difficult way to make a plane? You retracted that later, but I think you were right the first time. It's how the hard lines where the abutments begin to taper match up perfectly with the hard line that is the top of the wear. Three lines meeting perfectly, like a big left-handed bracket. That's a much cleaner look than most other oldies I've seen, and it seems like it would be a very functional thing as well.
I admit, most of the old planes I've seen, particularly double iron planes, are late 19th/early 20th c. degenerate examples. So maybe this kind of thing was common earlier, but it's new to me.

[Kees Heiden]

That is a brilliant plane! Like Steve sais, very well executed. If I may be so cheaky, can you also make a picture without wedge and iron? I am curious how the abutments terminate at the wear.

This is a very instructive thread on so many levels.

[David Weaver]

Thanks for the pics!
So, remember when you said (I'm paraphrasing here) the mouth of this plane was cut a little differently, that it was a more difficult way to make a plane? You retracted that later, but I think you were right the first time. It's how the hard lines where the abutments begin to taper match up perfectly with the hard line that is the top of the wear. Three lines meeting perfectly, like a big left-handed bracket. That's a much cleaner look than most other oldies I've seen, and it seems like it would be a very functional thing as well.
I admit, most of the old planes I've seen, particularly double iron planes, are late 19th/early 20th c. degenerate examples. So maybe this kind of thing was common earlier, but it's new to me.

I think you're right, it is cut a little different (more precisely) and at the time I thought it was different for another reason, I had thought maybe there was an extra cut into the wear that gave it a little bit more space for relief. But the difference in how its cut is more in how clean it is and how all of the lines come together, which probably has a lot to do with why it can be tight with a wear at 78 degrees and a tight mouth and still have no feeding problems. As you say, maybe it's common on earlier planes. I'll take a picture of the jtbrown jointer, which is also very well made (but it's single iron) to see if all of those lines meet. While it's not different in the way that I thought it was (the wear is just straight from the mouth at 78 degrees), there is a level of care and neatness that isn't in most of my planes, and I think that organization and neatness counts and really wouldn't take that much more time to do than just hamming it out less neatly and leaving it more open.

If I ever make another traditional plane, I intend to copy it exactly in the mortise and mouth, though I might only make the mouth that tight on a smoother.

[David Weaver]

That is a brilliant plane! Like Steve sais, very well executed. If I may be so cheaky, can you also make a picture without wedge and iron? I am curious how the abutments terminate at the wear.

This is a very instructive thread on so many levels.

I'll get a picture of that tonight.

[Jack Curtis]

Someone trying to use a japanese plane on lots of figured wood would find that they're getting piles of tearout unless they choose to take very thinner shavings - unless they use a double iron.

Thinner shavings has not ever been my preference - it's boredom by a thousand swipes of the plane. or death of time by a thousand swipes of the plane.

In the event that the wood is straight and you can always plane downhill on it somewhere, it's less critical.

And you know this from your vast experience not using your Japanese planes? It's just not true, David. And I speak from a lot of experience using and making Japanese planes.

[David Weaver]

Curly cherry, from rough, or anything similar. You don't use a plane without a cap iron and get to the same place in the same amount of time you get there with a cap iron. I know it from using my japanese planes, but once using a cap iron comes into play, they lose out because they are not well designed to use a cap iron and make any adjustments. I do like adding a jack in, because you're not going to use the cap iron for much of anything on a japanese jack, anyway. It helps keep the work flowing even when you're out of shape, to switch up types of planes. Once you get past the jack, though, you can get through the rest of the work twice as fast with two bailey planes - and with no risk. You can do no risk work with japanese planes with a cap iron installed, too, but it takes longer to set the cap iron and is significantly less convenient, and the old myth of them holding an edge many times longer than western planes just isn't true, so you sharpen just as often, the sharpening process takes longer than the 90 seconds it takes to sharpen a western plane and setting the cap iron and then adjusting depth of cut once it's set takes much longer.

That's just the way it is.

I did use my japanese planes quite a lot before the whole cap iron thing came up, but at the same time, I was dimensioning wood from rough more with machines until the last two years.

Jack, you like to target my posts, but this is going to end up just like the thread about rip saws where you were just wrong. I'm still ripping with western saws that cost $25, and the only saw that came close so far was one that was almost a grand. And a lovely saw it was that I'd love to have, but I'd be kidding myself if I thought I'd work as fast even with that as I can with a western saw.

[David Weaver]

That is a brilliant plane! Like Steve sais, very well executed. If I may be so cheaky, can you also make a picture without wedge and iron? I am curious how the abutments terminate at the wear.

This is a very instructive thread on so many levels.

286972

Not a whole lot to see, Kees. But that's probably part of why the plane works well. (the abutments stop right around where there is a little bit of fuzz...one of the reasons I thought there was an illusion of extra room at the bottom there is because where the abutments run out, it happens cleanly and then there's a whole bunch of open space and nothing for chips to catch on. )
)

[Pat Barry]

No worries, there are a lot of people who buy a couple of japanese planes and don't use them often. Count me in that group (I have more than a couple, actually). They would make more sense for someone working mostly with softwoods, but the mechanism by which they are maintained (full bevel sharpening) and the fact that they're less convenient (more time consuming) to set the double iron and then adjust depth while it's set makes less sense where something like a bailey plane is ideal (medium hardwoods, especially if they are figured and you are doing more than smoothing).

It's nice to have a cheap japanese plane as a jack plane, though - one where you're not afraid to grind a significant camber on the iron and use it as a break from pushing planes.



Just catching up with this thread - Interesting! Would never have occurred to me that someone would actually want to grind a big camber into a Japanese plane so it would provide a break from pushing planes. It sounds more like masochism.

[David Weaver]

It works well, for real. The inexpensive japanese planes usually have irons that sharpen agreeably on just about everything and are soft enough to be more on the tough side than hard - good for coarse work, or you can just use a fine belt on a belt grinder or sander and then just run a small microbevel onto them (i've done both, just by hand now). (Trizact belt followed by a polish stone works well if one goes the belt grinder route).
.
You never really have to take a break, though. By the time you start to get tired of pulling with your left arm, it's time to pick up a plane that you push. And then the converse.

[Steve Voigt]

Not a whole lot to see, Kees. But that's probably part of why the plane works well.

Dave, I'm not seeing the attachment. Would like to see it if you have the pic.

[David Weaver]

Fixed it. Not exactly sure what went wrong.

[Steve Voigt]

Fixed it. Not exactly sure what went wrong.

Thanks!
One last question. Are the abutments a consistent thickness all the way down, until the sharp taper for the last 1/2" or so? Or, do they taper gradually for most of their length, and then taper sharply at the end?
By the way, nice to see the square bottom of the chipbreaker slot. I'm able to cut those slots by machine, but setting that up is such a hassle that I usually just chop it by hand. Nice to see some precedent for that--every other plane I've seen, old or new, has a round, machine-cut slot.

[Jack Curtis]

...
Jack, you like to target my posts, but this is going to end up just like the thread about rip saws where you were just wrong. I'm still ripping with western saws that cost $25, and the only saw that came close so far was one that was almost a grand. And a lovely saw it was that I'd love to have, but I'd be kidding myself if I thought I'd work as fast even with that as I can with a western saw.

As I told you once before, I do whatever I can to avoid your posts. Only when you're so wrong do I speak up. You were so wrong about Japanese planes. I don't remember any specifics about your western rip saws; but my basic attitude is I don't care what you use. Nor should you care what I use. I use Japanese saws mostly these days because I get better and faster, much better and much faster, cuts than I ever did with western saws. And yes, I used western saws to very good effect, just not as superior as the Japanese pull saws.

So, if it bothers you that I respond to any of your posts, I'd suggest that you make sure you only speak from experience and that your experience is good. Once that happens, I'll gladly never speak to you again.

[Kees Heiden]

Not a whole lot to see, Kees. But that's probably part of why the plane works well. (the abutments stop right around where there is a little bit of fuzz...one of the reasons I thought there was an illusion of extra room at the bottom there is because where the abutments run out, it happens cleanly and then there's a whole bunch of open space and nothing for chips to catch on. )
)

Thanks for th epicture David. Indeed, not much to see :D
I wonder, could you cut the abutments with a saw, or sidefloat in this plane? I have seen planes where the front edge of the abutments, if continued down, would end up in the wear, so you wouldn't be able to use a sidefloat to cut that line.

[David Weaver]

Jack I don't lack "good" experience with any Japanese tools I comment about. Now, the original context was that someone earlier in the post said they didn't care how japanese get things done, because they didn't think they were missing anything by not learning (paraphrased) and the answer to that is it's true. There is no great deal of difference once you have familiarity with either one. That's true. I said that when you say something like that, the fringe elements come forth with a negative reaction - now that's happened. If charlie were still here, he would poke some fun at the mysticism and ask someone how they intended to cut an intricate curve with japanese tools.

And the rip saw issue is out there still - find a widely available Japanese rip saw that matches the speed of a $50 vintage western ripsaw when working rough lumber in quantity-hard or soft-a very practical issue that I'd love forum discussion to solve by encouraging a maker of manufactured saws to offer such a thing.

[george wilson]

Starting to get tetchy again.Jack? Now,play nice with your toys.

[David Weaver]

Thanks for th epicture David. Indeed, not much to see :D
I wonder, could you cut the abutments with a saw, or sidefloat in this plane? I have seen planes where the front edge of the abutments, if continued down, would end up in the wear, so you wouldn't be able to use a sidefloat to cut that line.

Kees, I believe you could. I'll place a saw in all of the places a cut would need to be made and make sure that's true, but I believe that the abutments terminate into the side of the plane tapering to nothing there (into the cheeks) rather than turning at the bottom into the wear. If that makes sense. It's a very "copyable" plane.

[Kees Heiden]

Yes I think I understand what you mean. You would have to take short strokes, to avoid hitting the sidefloat against the wear.

[Steve Voigt]

I don't think you would ever use a side float to cut the abutments. You use an edge float or a saw.
On any double iron plane, the line of the abutment, if continued down, will always hit the wear. On a single iron plane, that line will more or less coincide with the front of the mouth, so when you add in another 1/8" or so for the cap iron, the abutment has to be forward of the mouth. So, you're always making a stopped cut on a double iron, whereas on a single iron you can just run the saw right through the mouth.
My favorite tool for cutting the abutments is an old drywall saw, with all the set removed and the teeth reshaped for cutting wood. It cost me zero yankee dollars. :)

[Kees Heiden]

Yes edge float, sorry. And I think ou are right. Only a jack plane with a huge mouth would have enough space for a double iron with the abutments all the way down.

[David Weaver]

My favorite tool for cutting the abutments is an old drywall saw

Somewhere, I got a stiff cheap japanese zero clearance saw somewhere, and I've always used that. Cheap is good for a saw that does so little actual cutting and makes up such a small portion of time in terms of planemaking.

I forgot to answer one question, and that's whether or not the wedge arms taper gradually before their final steep taper. I don't know for sure, I'll check tonight.

I obviously have made a big deal about this plane because I'm hoping that the planemakers who stumble through forums might think that it's worth copying, and the same for everyone else who is only going to make one or two for personal use. As a friend of mine (english) says often "you have to go out of your way to do something and not spend 10% more time to do it right". It helps to have the resources to know what "right" is, and this is the "rightest" plane I've been able to get my hands on so far. Very tidy, tight mouth, attractive eyes, no clog with the cap iron close.

[Steve Voigt]

I forgot to answer one question, and that's whether or not the wedge arms taper gradually before their final steep taper. I don't know for sure, I'll check tonight.


Thanks very much; no hurry.



I obviously have made a big deal about this plane because I'm hoping that the planemakers who stumble through forums might think that it's worth copying, and the same for everyone else who is only going to make one or two for personal use. As a friend of mine (english) says often "you have to go out of your way to do something and not spend 10% more time to do it right". It helps to have the resources to know what "right" is, and this is the "rightest" plane I've been able to get my hands on so far. Very tidy, tight mouth, attractive eyes, no clog with the cap iron close.

This has been a really useful and interesting thread. The supply of really good double iron planes, particularly early ones, is a lot more limited than for moulding planes, just because the bench planes got used up a lot faster. And while the web is full of info on making Krenov planes, there's a real dearth of info on the finer points of making traditional planes. So I think it's helpful.
Some negative comments were made earlier about the level of discussion on this forum, but I don't think you can find this level of high-level detail on most other forums. The one exception is wood central, but unfortunately the volume and interest seems to be drying up over there.

[David Weaver]

The arms on the wedge taper very slightly before their steep taper - like less than half a mm over their length. The mortise is steeper at the abutment (slightly) than it is toward the front of the plane, but only slightly. It's almost vertical at the abutments.

Kees - like steve said, the abutments terminate in the wear, or at least the line of them does. They actually taper into the cheeks of the mortise at the same time they reach the wear.

[Kees Heiden]

I've saved all the informations and the pictures. I still have some long planes needing extensive work, and this is a good guideline.

[Steve Voigt]

The arms on the wedge taper very slightly before their steep taper - like less than half a mm over their length. The mortise is steeper at the abutment (slightly) than it is toward the front of the plane, but only slightly. It's almost vertical at the abutments.

Cool, thanks for checking.

[Jack Curtis]

Starting to get tetchy again.Jack? Now,play nice with your toys.

Seems that every time I disagree with David he accuses me of targeting him. I'm not tetchy, but I do know when someone is speaking from ignorance and I don't like it at all, always results in bad advice being given. Again, I don't care what kind of tools anyone uses; but I do expect everyone here to only speak from personal experience, not what one has read, heard, blah, blah, blah.

And why you of all people would join in the criticism is beyond me. What? Are you David's second punch? Why? I've never said anything that remotely criticizes you, nothing but accolades.

[David Weaver]

Seems that every time I disagree with David he accuses me of targeting him. I'm not tetchy, but I do know when someone is speaking from ignorance and I don't like it at all, always results in bad advice being given. Again, I don't care what kind of tools anyone uses; but I do expect everyone here to only speak from personal experience, not what one has read, heard, blah, blah, blah.

And why you of all people would join in the criticism is beyond me. What? Are you David's second punch? Why? I've never said anything that remotely criticizes you, nothing but accolades.

Jack, if you think any of my suggestions don't come from personal experience, you're exactly wrong again. The same as you were wrong when you made accusations that "nobody would lend" a rip saw like the one I described several months ago. You should speak about things you know, not conspiracy theories you'd like to guess about.

I would, however, prefer you take your conspiracy theories elsewhere as this thread has a lot of valuable information in it and doesn't deserve your reckless verbiage.

[Stanley Covington]

Interesting discussion.

I have been using Japanese planes as a hobby for most of my life, and as a professional for years in my career in the construction industry. Of course, I also own and use Stanley planes and Lie-Nielson's reproduction planes. Both have advantages and drawbacks.

The Japanese plane is elegant, simpler in design, less bulky, and relatively lightweight. And of course, it has the wooden sole which is more pleasant in use. Tearout is no worse with a properly setup Japanese plane than with a properly setup Western style plane. Perhaps a bit better, IMO. And the blades really do cut better and much longer than modern Western planes due to the harder, hand-forged, laminated high-carbon steel construction. But the wooden body wears and can be cantankerous. This is the same for all wooden bodied planes.

Stanley, Bailey, LN planes have the advantage of a much tougher sole, and a body that doesn't care at all about humidity changes (temperature is another matter, though). And if they are in tolerance, David is absolutely right, they are quicker and easier to adjust. And the two big handles are easy to grip and put some serious back and leg power into. I own them and I use them and I believe them absolutely superior for some applications. And they are certainly easier to become proficient with. But they are bulky, very heavy, and are a fire-hardened bitch to true and fine tune. But the biggest downside of the modern Western plane, in my opinion, is the blade: it just won't get as sharp as even an average Japanese plane, it gets dull much quicker, and is more difficult to sharpen. That hurts productivity. Hand forged high carbon steel at a hardness of RC 62-64 laminated to a low-carbon steel body is just superior in every way.

Please don't flame me. Excellent work can be done with Western planes.

I am having a replacement blade and chipbreaker for LN planes made in Japan which I hope to have on the market later this year. Identical dimensions, but both blade and chipbreaker are hand-forged laminated high-carbon steel with a shallow ura (which will probably never need to be tapped out). The prototypes so far have been Blue Steel, since QC is so easy, but we need to finalize the steel to be used. Performs amazingly, turning my staid LN No.6 from a family sedan into a nitro-methane dragster.

I am going to give some details of a conversation I had yesterday with the blacksmith about one potential steel on a new post.

Let me know what steel you think would be best.

Stan

PS: Also working in parallel on a tapered and laminated blade with chipbreaker specifically for the Krenov-style plane, but a bit longer than the Hock. Please share your thoughts.

[Kees Heiden]

Something similar is available for Stanley planes, made by Tsunesaburo.

http://www.toolsfromjapan.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=339_514_546

[Jack Curtis]

...I would, however, prefer you take your conspiracy theories elsewhere as this thread has a lot of valuable information in it and doesn't deserve your reckless verbiage.

Ah, yes, the disparage and dismiss tactic. Sorry, David, I'm not going anywhere, particularly at your direction. As Stanley explains above and as I've explained many times, there are significant advantages to well tuned Japanese planes which are undeniable among reasonable people who've used both western and eastern planes extensively; and none of those advantages involve tearout. So when someone says there is more tearout, I know that person, whoever it is, is speaking from ignorance. And when that someone has preceded that statement with statements such as "Oh, just buy Japanese planes and throw them in the corner to never be touched again?" Well, you work out the math.

[David Weaver]

Nothing disparaging jack, you're just missing the mark. You still are. Maybe you work wood that's easy to work, and that's all. If you do, that's fine.

Your paraphrase (thrown in a corner) is also incorrect. For 5 years, I used both types of planes just about equally. Mostly in combination with lie nielsen planes. Proper use of the cap iron ended all of that, as it is slower to do with a japanese plane. To work quickly through what I usually work (mildly figured medium hardness stuff), you either tolerate tearout or you use the cap iron. I can't figure out why I'd spend a longer time doing it with japanese planes. That's it, pretty simple. I wish their use of the cap iron was better set up, but even Odate describes the cap iron on japanese planes being a later-era add on, perhaps to copy western planes.

You could tell us what the other advantages are. Higher cost, or maybe less clearance. They do provide a brighter surface on softer woods, without a doubt. That's about where it stops for me.

I stand to be corrected on the edge holding (re: the comment about blue steel vs. A2), but all there is to do is prove that Brent Beach's actual measurements are not correct. As stan has pointed out, the forged irons are much better quality, but in my experience the forging adds toughness, but the wear from planing across or with the grain (as opposed to end grain) doesn't benefit a lot from forging like impact type of wear does.

Like I said, which is relevant to the OP. If someone doesn't get into japanese tools, they aren't missing anything, and they only have the (apparent here) disapproval of the fringes. Same if someone has an entire kit of japanese tools and no western tools, why bother if there isn't a problem to solve? Someone who has worked competently with both would come to that conclusion.

[David Weaver]

Back to the topic here, got something in the mail today. $22 for the iron and cap iron and $11 to ship. Apologies for the picture quality, with flash at this point (it is night time), any straight on picture results in glare.

I'd love to comment on how lovely the iron is, but I'll have to build a plane around it to know. I've got no business building another plane right now, but I have a nice 4" thick 9x9 cocobolo bowl blank that may be perfect for it.

It's a nurse iron of the more modern flavor (1920s era maybe?), and as was discussed earlier on here, it came from one of the ebay sellers in the UK. Spotless and attractive, completely unused. It appears for the most part to be machine made, or at least finished a little more coarsely (in terms of abrasive marks) than an older iron.

This is the kind of thing I was advocating buying, and it would look right at home in a nicely built late 18th or early 19th century style plane.

287292

[Steve Voigt]

Back to the topic here, got something in the mail today. $22 for the iron and cap iron and $11 to ship.

Sweet. Was that from gandmtools, or the other one?

[Winton Applegate]

Stan,
I'm catching up here late in the game.


turning my staid LN No.6 from a family sedan into a nitro-methane dragster.


Finally . . .
I'm not the one causing trouble roundcheer.

What do you think of turning that blade over and going from a family sedan to a mach II fighter ?

Bevel up laminated any one ?
Ohhhh yah.

I think PART of what makes the Japanese planes great is the custom support of the body supporting the bevel down blade nearer the edge than the iron bevel down planes.

A bevel up iron body plane is still heavy but has superior edge support to both wood or iron bevel down.

You get to show off breaking the sound barrier
AND
there are no unwieldy parachutes to repack. Assuming we don't have to bail out.

[Winton Applegate]

I may as well add my own experience with Japanese, high quality but not ultimate high level stuff (see my photo early in this thread).

That plane tore out slightly on purple heart (my everest). I back beveled it (yah I know that is kind of silly and not a desirable thing to keep doing) and it eliminated the tear out.

I was not using the chip breaker for anything but ballast.
You know . . . because it tis there.

I am not choosing sides here.

I have since learned that a Japanese plane body cut to a steeper blade angle would have properly solved the problem. No need to "set" the chip breaker in the Japanese plane in that case. Don't have one for all it does in that extreme case.

I am not going to make one, yet.
I ultimately solved the "problem" by going to a bevel up plane with a wide cutting angle.

Yes the micro setting of the chip breaker on my LN bevel down plane would, probably, have solved the problem as well and would have been ultimately simpler by using an off the shelf plane with no modification to the blade or body.

Live and learn.

[Winton Applegate]

nurse iron of the more modern flavor (1920s era maybe?)

Say . . . now I could get interested in something like that.
I say that because I see the chip breaker is made right with more than two threads to hold the screw from falling out while putting the two together. One of my pet peeves about modern ones is the screw always falls out and rolls under the bench in the wood chips.

[Roderick Gentry]

(figured woods demand an infill, stanley planes are junky, old wooden planes are doorstops, LN chisels are far better than vintage, can't do accurate work without premium tools, anything but premium is a waste of time for a beginner.....There wasn't even the remotest discussion about design elements back then).

that's progress! Look how much better the average saw handle made by a forum user is now than 5 years ago.

That kinda reads like a Newbie's Progress. A lot of that stuff wasn't around when I started out, and I can't remember ever holding any of those opinions. They weren't in the literature either. What remains consistent to some extent is that every few years some new fads pop up, then they lie down. And every few years some newbie prophet pops up and spreads the word, while those who have been around decades just shake their heads. Take old wooden planes are junky. The longest running hand woodworking show on TV the WWS has been pushing wooden planes, literally, for 33 years. Dunbar wrote 2 books on rehabing old tools, and on and on.

[Winton Applegate]

And how's it going with your "one stone" nonsense?

Isn't that kind of harsh ?
Sounds like something I might have said (without the nonsense).

I have to ask because, from what I have seen second hand, aren't many/most serious Japanese blade users sharpening on one or two stones ? Using the "slurry" to make the stone finer as the sharpening progresses ?

Certainly not my way.
I hate slurry, non cutting stuff that acts like ball bearings under the blade, and I wash it away when ever it forms and go to a finer and finer and finer and finer . . . . . .
stone.

I'm just saying.

aren't you two on the same page there ?

[Roderick Gentry]

So far, I have never bought a bad one. Japanese tools are overpriced, not in the sense that there isn't some rationale for the prices, but in the sense that they make many cheap tools we never see and those are better blade, and blade design wise, than any of the western ones. One of my most useful blades was purchased from LV for 13.50, when they sold Japanese tools as a line. Today that would be around 45 dollars. But in fact Japanese tools have not gone up 3x as far as I can tell.

I once got hold of a Japanese tool catalog that had page after tiny type page of plane blades, all really inexpensive compared to what we get actually on offer. I am sure many/all of them would be fine. But Japanese tools are not going to displace western tools, the only real chance was with the saws, and that no longer seems likely either. So what is offered is the heritage level tools, that really few people over here should even touch.

At one time you couldn't buy a chisel plane or saw from even LV that actually worked. But today that is not the case for LV or many other western suppliers. There are too many choices, not too few. And they are all pretty good. So while Japanese tools have an edge, it is nowhere near as large as it used to be. It's reverse SONY. At one time all the Japanese consumer products were cheap, and the US ones were good, but over the years Japan became known for many quality products, they learned. And the same was true in the 70s and 80s, the US did not make good hand tools, but today they do. So it is really difficult to differentiate all the tools out there, but for anyone who wants to try, I have never found a bad Japanese woodworking tool.

[Kees Heiden]

David, you're still wrong about needing subblades/cap irons, and the like with Japanese blades. Sometimes you do, depending on the wood (NOT soft vs hard, btw, more grainy vs smooth), in which case you add a subblade and optionally use a dai with a landing. I normally utilize cherry, walnut, mahogany, mesquite, boxwood, desert ironwood (talk about hard), white or red oak. Tearout would ruin the chatoyance, and therefore is unacceptable. You bore me. I even bore myself having to repeat this time after time after time after time, hoping beyond hope that eventually it will get through your head, at least to the point you stop repeating it. It is impossible for anyone to have used well tuned Japanese planes as they were intended and still moan and groan about tearout. Impossible.


Jack, exactly what mechanism makes the Japanese planes immune to tearout? "Well tuned" is a bit vague. How do you tune it, how do you use it, particularly in respect to tearout problems?

[David Weaver]

David, you're still wrong about needing subblades/cap irons, and the like with Japanese blades. Sometimes you do, depending on the wood (NOT soft vs hard, btw, more grainy vs smooth), in which case you add a subblade and optionally use a dai with a landing. I normally utilize cherry, walnut, mahogany, mesquite, boxwood, desert ironwood (talk about hard), white or red oak. Tearout would ruin the chatoyance, and therefore is unacceptable. You bore me. I even bore myself having to repeat this time after time after time after time, hoping beyond hope that eventually it will get through your head, at least to the point you stop repeating it. It is impossible for anyone to have used well tuned Japanese planes as they were intended and still moan and groan about tearout. Impossible.

And how's it going with your "one stone" nonsense?

Jack, that's just talk. If you add a subblade you're doing exactly what I said I do. It's less convenient than a stanley plane with a cap iron by a large margin. If you say you're planing wood with reversing grain with an 8/10 bu plane, taking 5-10 thousandth thick shavings to hit a final mark and getting no tearout without a subblade, you're not being honest.

If you can't take those types of shavings without tearout, i'm not interested.

The one stone approach works well. It would not be ideal without a cap iron. With a cap iron, it's very useful, and it slides the balance of planing vs. maintaining even further toward planing.

For years, you've contributed to the forums mostly with snark, but no pictures or projects, no videos of what you're doing. I'd like to see a demonstration of planing wood with reversing grain, even if it's mild - 5 to 10 thousandth shavings, hand dimensioned from rough (not wood straight out of a planer), and just a few fine shavings after that to finsh a surface. Not 10 or 20 passes to remove tearout, but 2 or 3 to clean up the surface. It's time for you to demonstrate for real. Snark doesn't teach anyone anything or add to the discussions.

[David Weaver]

Sweet. Was that from gandmtools, or the other one?

It was from a seller named sigee6t4, I can't remember what he calls his spread. Forlorn planes or something else sounding like they are castoffs.

I think this iron is a solid piece of steel instead of a lamination, but that doesn't amount to a whole lot in a more modern iron (whether or not it's laminated). It's probably modern oil hardening steel, i expect it will sharpen like a more modern O1 iron. Just a hunch.

[Steve Voigt]

It was from a seller named sigee6t4, I can't remember what he calls his spread. Forlorn planes or something else sounding like they are castoffs.



Ah yes. From looking at his pictures, I had the impression he was grinding the backs on the side of a grinding wheel, which (as you know) is something certain sellers do that renders the iron more or less worthless. I'm glad to see that wasn't the case for yours.

[Winton Applegate]

"Well tuned" is a bit vague. How do you tune it, how do you use it, particularly in respect to tearout problems?

Good one Kees !
I"m glad you asked that.
I am looking forward to the reply.

[David Weaver]

Ah yes. From looking at his pictures, I had the impression he was grinding the backs on the side of a grinding wheel, which (as you know) is something certain sellers do that renders the iron more or less worthless. I'm glad to see that wasn't the case for yours.

I'm not sure if it's factory fresh the way it is, but it has an ungodly long primary, just like some of the very old planes I've gotten that appear to have been put up from work and never abused. He may have done something to make it look the way it does, but it will be easy to flatten compared to any iron with any pitting. The picture makes it look a lot worse than it is - it's almost mirror with some 200 grit kind of spiderwebbing lines, but the sides of the iron and the bevel have deeper grinding marks in them. No sign of any past heat, though, but bluing can be easily polished off so use will tell.

Same seller has a couple of other irons I wouldn't mind having, but I really don't have use for more irons.

[Winton Applegate]

"Well tuned" is a bit vague. How do you tune it, how do you use it, particularly in respect to tearout problems?

?
?
. . . .
(sound of crickets)
. . .
I guess it is a secret.
We will just have to take his class . . . you know . . . shell out the big bucks.

[David Weaver]

?

I guess it is a secret.


Looks like it. Any styx fans?:


(Secret, secret, I've got a secret)
With parts made in Japan
(Secret, secret, I've got a secret)
I am the modren man
I've got a secret, I've been hiding under my skin
My heart is human, my blood is boiling
My brain I.B.M., so if you see me
Acting strangely, don't be surprised

[Stanley Covington]

Stan,
What do you think of turning that blade over and going from a family sedan to a mach II fighter ?
Bevel up laminated any one ? Ohhhh yah.

I think PART of what makes the Japanese planes great is the custom support of the body supporting the bevel down blade nearer the edge than the iron bevel down planes. A bevel up iron body plane is still heavy but has superior edge support to both wood or iron bevel down.

You get to show off breaking the sound barrier AND there are no unwieldy parachutes to repack. Assuming we don't have to bail out.

Winton:

The blade could easily be turned upside down and used bevel down in a metal bodied plane. Another project I'm working on in parallel is a tapered, hand-forged laminated blade. Low angle planes don't work well in wood, although it can be done, I am told. kick in the afterburner!

[Winton Applegate]

Low angle planes don't work well in wood

Yah, I was thinking one of your laminated blades for my iron body BU. I understand making a BU body in wood isn't so smart.

[Stanley Covington]

Yah, I was thinking one of your laminated blades for my iron body BU. I understand making a BU body in wood isn't so smart.

I'll let you know when i have something to sell. Doing second round of prototypes now. Thinking of dumping Blue Paper Steel and going with White Paper or Swedish Steel. The Blacksmith likes Blue because it is so much easier to use, but plain high-carbon steel makes a superior blade if done right, and he knows how to make it jump onto the table and take off its blouse when the music starts.

[Winton Applegate]

I'll let you know when i have something to sell.

Yes ! Please do.


dropping Blue Paper Steel and going with White Paper or Swedish Steel. . . . plain high-carbon steel makes a superior blade if done right

Yes that sounds good to me as well. I have plenty of the A2 blades and would like some more traditional White steel blades for "normal" sane person's wood working.

As the youngin's say "I'm down wid that".

[Roderick Gentry]

I don't think you would ever use a side float to cut the abutments. You use an edge float or a saw.
On any double iron plane, the line of the abutment, if continued down, will always hit the wear. On a single iron plane, that line will more or less coincide with the front of the mouth, so when you add in another 1/8" or so for the cap iron, the abutment has to be forward of the mouth. So, you're always making a stopped cut on a double iron, whereas on a single iron you can just run the saw right through the mouth.
My favorite tool for cutting the abutments is an old drywall saw, with all the set removed and the teeth reshaped for cutting wood. It cost me zero yankee dollars. :)


I also use japanese keyhole saws, and HSS hack saw (they may need grinding).