Why does it take me so much time?

[Kees Heiden]

In the tutorials from all the Internet wizards they always manage to prep a plane iron in 10 minutes max. And they imply that you are an idiot when it takes you any longer. So either i am an idiot or they are. At least with vintage irons it always takes me ages. I just bought 3 very nice old Stanley planes and yesterday I spend a major chunck of the evening to flatten the back of the #3.

First, it was very convex with severely drooped corners. There is some pitting but really not much. So I first get my floor tile and the 80 grit SiC loose grit. That works very fast to cut through the crap, so onto a 400 bester, a 1000 sigma and my polishing stones. Within half an hour I had a sharp edge. Next job is fitting the capiron, bending and hamering it straight again and then trying to mate it to the back of the iron. No such luck! After several fruitless attempts I checked the back of my iron with a straight edge and found a severely convex back! Somehow my stones have been hollow (despite flattening them).

That brings me to my rant. I have some diamond plates, which have given up the gost in no time. They are really useless for this kind of work. I have oilstones which are too slow. I have waterstones which dish on a wink of the eye. :mad:

In the end I want to have a good fit between iron and chipbreaker. Cutting corners just doesn't work to get them to fit nicely.

Ok. I went to bed way too late and am still nowhere near finished. The weekend is coming up luckily and it looks like I will have some black fingernails when I get back to work next week.

Thanks for ranting, feel much better now. :p

[ken hatch]

Kees,

Good rant. You hit on the reason I almost always replace both the iron and cap iron on old planes with either new Veritas or Hock iron. It ain't because they are "thicker" or even much better it is because time is too dear to spent it rubbing iron on stone.

ken

[Kees Heiden]

That's a very good reason! I like old tools, but this is the one aspect that I don't like too much.

[Charles Bjorgen]

Kees -- Regarding flattening the backs of plane irons, I picked up a tip from David Weaver that makes use of an easily-built jig. I simply use a chunk of 2 x 4 planed flat on one side. I mount the plane iron with nuts and bolts back side up and begin flattening on a DMT extra coarse diamond stone. This jig enables me to apply full pressure against the stone from my shoulders and arms rather than just my hands. David showed his jig in one of his plane building videos on YouTube. Here's mine:

From the photo you'll see the need to run the protruding bolt and nut ends off the side of the stone.

I've only had one vintage cap iron that was too twisted to fix the mating surface between it and the plane back. For that I simply ordered one from an online seller. I will admit though that I also have a few third party irons/cap irons from Hock and Lee Valley.

[Kees Heiden]

Yes that's what I use too. It saved a lot of finger sore.

Capirons can easilly be bent, twisted and untwisted. they are made from low carbon steel. You need a sturdy vise, clamp the tail end in the vise and use a crescent wrench or something like that, just under the hump and give it a twist. Likewise when your capiron has lost a lot of its spring, you set it in the vice, clamping just under the hump. Then hit the hump with a block of wood and a big hammer.

But still, I find this the most difficult bit of using the capiron. Luckilly you only need to do it once. Unless you are such an idiot like me and want to exchange your nice planes with even older ones.

[Robert Engel]

Kees, I would like to offer some advice, and some criticisms if you will bear with me and not take offense, OK?

I've done this procedure many times and I think I'm fairly good at sharpening. Even still, I have spend up to and hour and a half prepping a plane iron, so I understand your frustration because I've been where you are many times. But, after some experience sharpening, looking back, I realized it wasn't my tools. It wasn't the blades (not all the time, anyway).-- it was my technique. I watched about every video out there on sharpening and I agree they make it look easy, but what ww'ing video doesn't make you feel just a bit inadequate?

If I may, I would like to comment on a couple things in your post. First, a floor tile and sandpaper is not the best way to flatten the back of a plane iron (nor is a piece of glass). Even a piece of granite tile is not going to be flat enough for this. If you want to use sandpaper, then you need a piece of granite, or better yet, a piece of reference granite guaranteed to be absolutely flat. You can purchase them through various ww'ing suppliers.

Second every waterstone will dish so you have to keep them flat. Use either a flattening stone, a 300 grit diamond stone, or again, adhesive sandpaper on granite. Just like lapping or flattening, the stones you use for sharpening the edge have to be absolutely flat.

Third, I don't understand your problem with diamond stones. They should last a long time. What kind do you have? Perhaps if you could let us know what brands of stones you're using, that will be the clue as to why you're having some trouble. IMO, DMT and Trend have the best diamond plates (I have the DMT duo sharps) and most water stones are about the same (I have a 4000/8000 Norton and a couple Kings).

Personally, I use a large 3X10 diamond plate to lap the backs of irons. When I've restored old planes, I start out with 300 grit and work from there. You didn't say what grit you started with but if it took that long, you probably didn't start low enough. Fitting the cap iron is never done with a hammer. If it is that warped, its best to get a new one. Its also a good idea to put a back bevel on it to be sure its seated well to the blade.

I have had to give up on a couple irons and just replaced them with Lee Valley blade/cap iron upgrades (which I recommend anyway). The difference in plane performance is very noticeable with the thicker blades.

I keep the old blade irons around for removing glue and opening boxes ;-)
Chris Schwarz has a video on restoring an old plane its worth a watch.

[Archie England]

Kees, I feel your pain, er, . . . since I have it, too :)

First. IMO, it's the dogs that get us. Frank Klaus didn't attempt to resurrect that tough ol' bird like us. No, in his video he rehabbed a nice, vintage Stanley or Record #4. So, I contend that when we work with bottom feeder planes, it does take longer to rehab them since so many issues have to be addressed. OTOH, I've learned alot and have mostly given away a ton (hyperoble) of now working old planes. And, there's quite a nice feeling of satisfaction in that.

Second. I'm now discovering another way to address some of the more severe problems being encountered: (1) throw that bum piece away and replace it with a Hock or LV. Like the above post, these blades and cap/irons work nicely (some of the time). (2) grind past the offending low edges or pitted regions. Yep, I now do that, too. After spending some "get to know you" time with a rehab unit, I decide between surgery or amputation (so to speak). .... or the scrap pile for parts.

Third. I've had the same experience with diamond stones as you (evidently). IMO, this results from my "heavy handed" method of (aggressive) sharpening. I've dislodged the impregnated plates from the plastic base; I've worn down sections of the diamond plate to the point that it's noticeably slower, etc. So, I'm not a big fan of the diamond stones. I've now relegated my DMT to flattening my waterstones (and oil stones; but I use separate ones).

Fourth. I've invested (uh, kinda too much, but on with the story) in several quality low grit water stones: King deluxe 300, Cerax 320, Sigma 200 and 400, Chosera 400 & 600, and a Shapton 320. Each of these work; however, they work at varying speeds. The Shapton and Chosera (400) are the slowest; the Sigmas, the fastest (but the 220 will scar a blade back so badly that it's foolish to use on anything but a bevel); with the King and Cerax being delightfully in the middle (Cerax appears faster but not as durable (flatness). With these stones, I have truly lowered the amount of time I need to rehab a tough candidate! Oh, the metal type (A2, O1, etc.) really matters, too. The Sigma and Suehiro Cerax 320 chew threw A2 as quickly (remember, MO) as O1. I won't even get out the Cho 400 (or an oil stone) for A2 (yes, it's that slow). BUT, when reestablishing bevels, I will use grinders to do all the hard work. In the end, replacing tough, old rehab blades really is cheaper than teching up to handle them (grinders, waterstones, oil stones, diamond plates, perfect subtrates, and on and on...)

Fifth. You're not alone. There's plenty more of us, at the same or approximate level, struggling to do the same kinds of things. My planes may not be nice and shiney like those gorgeous LN or LV or Philly planes or Infills (yes, I've got plane envy), but boy do they cut wood well. And, if they don't, someone somewhere needs a boat anchor. :)

[Kees Heiden]

Certainly no offense Robert! And I know I could get some tips. The idea to start with a flatter substrate certainly is a very good one. This IS metalworking. So you need the appropriate tools.

I started with loose silicon carbide grit (80G) on a granite floor tile. I checked the tile with a real straightedge (with certification and all). But because the process is so messy, I do it outside, and it is very possible that the tile bends under the pressure. I wouldn't want to use this loose grit on a real reference plate, it wears the plate as well as the steel. Tiles are easilly replaced. This step is very fast but it doesn't quite match with the next step very well. Flatness of the tile could very well be the reason.

Then it is on to the Bester 400. Then a Sigma 1000. Both have been lapped beforehand with a DMT diamond plate, but that plate is loosing its strength, so I also sometimes lap them with the loose grit. Despite trying to get them as flat as possible, I still have a descrepancy between these two stones. The 1000 takes way too much time after the 400. The 400 dishes very rapidly. It is also quite thin allready.

After that a 4000 and 8000 Nanaiwa SS, which don't give trouble after the 1000.

I have two other diamond plates. I have now forgotten the brandname, but they are the well known poly cristaline ones. These are very dissapointing. After rubbing the 150 plate for a while, the surface is polished! With scratches of course, otherwise it could have served as a polishing stone.

So I could indeed use some tips. I may shell out for one of these granite reference plates. They are about 80 euro overhere. Loose diamonds on plexiglass on the granite reference plate would be an idea too.

BTW, I am bend on reusing the original irons. And I don't see a problem with bending and hammering the capiron. It's just a piece of sheet steel, and I am use to forming sheet steel.

[Warren Mickley]

It takes me quite a long time to get an iron and cap iron in the condition I like. The reason it takes a long time is because I hardly ever do it. I haven't refined a cap iron since 1983, haven't sharpened or polished a cap iron or anything. And the only plane irons I have brought into service since that time were replacements for ones that were worn to nothing. Since an iron can be sharpened 10,000 or more times in it's life, sharpening technique is much more important.

For me starting with a new tool is serious business. The cost is often trivial compared to the time to get it in shape, make a better handle or whatever, and learning to use it efficiently. But considering that most tools last a lifetime or at least a few decades of full time work, it is easy to amortise the initial cost. If you are preparing new tools often enough to be efficient at it, one has to wonder how many guys work in your shop.

Here are two techniques for someone who doesn't want to buy special equipment for flattening. One thing is to make a slight hollow behind the edge. I use a large wet sandstone wheel. It doesn't need to be deep at all, just enough to reduce the area that comes in contact with the stone you are using for flattening. You can renew this very slight hollow several times as you work. The other is to flatten on a coarse bench stone with the last 3/16 or 1/4 inch of the iron hanging off the stone. That way you are also reducing the area being abraded by a finer, flatter stone, but not introducing the rounding that can come from a coarse stone.

[Derek Cohen]

I have also lapped a few blade backs over the years. I have come up with two methods, one for large plane blades, and the other for small blades, such as for moulding planes or chisels.

The key to removing metal fast is to do so with the right media and the right technique in combination. One without the other will just end up being inefficient.

As with honing a bevel, the most efficient method is to be repetitive, that is, hone on the same spot. With a bevel, this would be either using a honing guide or honing on a hollow grind. Honing the same spot simply means that you are not doing it twice or more. Along with this, the media you use must take off the steel fast, and the media that follows it must remove its scratches, and so on ..

Do not use a diamond plate - the grits are too high (my lowest is 225 or 275, I forget which). Diamond stones may be used for small areas, but they are not efficient for large blades.

Do not use a waterstone - the surface is unstable and will alter the surface angle. You will wind up removing metal twice or more.

Do not use diamond paste unless the blade is small or you have no alternative - generally laps are small and a small area is inefficient.

What is efficient are long, continuous strokes on sanding belts, with a run of at least 1 metre (3 feet). My lapping surface consists of a 1m long by 200mm (8") wide and 10mm thick (3/8") sheet of float glass. This is glued to 19mm (3/4") MDF.

What is also efficient is to use a low grit to begin, such as around the 80 grit mark. The best (most durable) sanding belts are Zirconium Oxide (blue belts). These are available in 80 and 120 grit. I go from there to 240 silicon carbide (Norton wet-and-dry). That is enough to achieve a coplanar back, and from there you can go to your waterstones to hone the 1/2" - 1" at the rear of the bevel.


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/Lapping%20the%20Backs%20of%20Blades_html_m43b9470d .jpg


The aim is to hold the blade flat on the media, do not allow it to shift angle (the wooden bar can rock), and slide it for as long as possible. This reduces effort and creates efficiency.

Many years ago I introduced this idea for holding the blade, a magnet ...


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/Lapping%20the%20Backs%20of%20Blades_html_m569096a8 .jpg





The second method I use is an inefficient one. However it is for small blades. I use an Extra Coarse diamond stone (275 grit) followed by a Fine diamond stone (600 grit), and then move to a Shapton 1000 grit, etc. The steel area is small, and I do not see the point in pulling out the big gun.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[ian maybury]

A slightly more cynical view might be that some of the 'experts' have a vested interest in making the job look very simple Kees.

A personal/experience based view as posted about in the past year is that once you get into a requirement to flatten a largish area of steel that's not very close indeed to being flat hand methods are inevitably going to be very slow. Which is why so many (as Steve, David C, Derek Cohen - hope I have Steve right) go for methods of flattening that maximise the cutting speed - like long strips of self adhesive sandpaper stuck to a long strip of marble and means to hold the iron so that decent pressure can easily be applied, or the ruler technique. (i'd be very careful though of bolting down irons - the surface needs to be flat because if the bolt pressure bows the iron it'll spring out of flat when released. The same applies if grinding new bevel angles on thick irons - it's also painfully slow/needs a more aggressive method for the same sort of reason. (volume/area of metal to be removed)

A side effect of slow flattening is that the long working duration and attendant frustration and loss of focus greatly ups the risk of a slip up that may need even more work to fix - such as accidentally using a dished waterstone or out of flat plate. The key I think is to make a good initial assessment of the iron and choice of flattening method before starting work - otherwise you risk ending up trying to move a mountain with a spade. There's a world of a difference in what's required depending on whether an iron is flat, or whether it needs significant work to get it there. People when they describe techniques don't always realise or make this clear.

My feeling is that if you get an iron that's so pitted or out of flat that the ruler trick or one of the amped up flattening techniques can't quickly deal with it that it's either scrap/return to maker for a replacement time, or head for an engineer to surface grind it. (which latter may still need a fair bit of finishing)

David Charlesworth's ruler technique (especially started on a fairly coarse diamond plate) seems to be the obvious route to quickly getting a pitted or less than flat iron back to a state where it can be used. It's recommended by many, but in keeping with the opening comment less than flat backs (or unreliable flattening techniques) are rarely overtly stated as being the primary reason why it's most useful. (in my opinion)

+1 on Veritas/Lee Valley irons - all five or so i have done cleaned up all over in a few minutes on a 1,000 grit waterstone. They only needed enough to verify that they were in fact flat - it seems they are lapped at the factory to a very high standard of flatness, and this with the good steel is hugely valuable.

Getting stuff to mate properly (as in a chip breaker on an iron) is ultimately about flatness and correct alignment of planes. Get the first flat, and then the second if it's flat and the facet accurately aligned will rest on it with no gaps. That's FLAT (for all the stuff that gets talked about woodworking and sharpening not being a precision activity) WITHIN MICRONS. Like it or not getting this stuff working reliably is a lot about consistently achieving toolroom tolerances and finishes in key areas by craft means. Flattening a convex (as opposed to concave) surface is extra difficult - it requires very good technique to prevent the iron rocking on the abrasive.

Diamond plates don't seem to always be reliably flat and so they need need careful checking. (I've had two Atoma so far, both of which were very flat) I've used the top surface of the disc on a WorkSharp with an 80 grit diamond disc with success to flatten the back of a Clifton plane iron before finishing it on waterstones - it's a good bit faster than hand but it requires a very delicate touch to avoid doing harm.

Waterstones wear so quickly that in my opinion they are not suitable for more than verifying that the iron is flat as received, and then working up the already very close to flat surface to a polish. (for refining the surface finish) The japanese traditionally use carborundum grit on a steel plate for flattening for this reason, but i don't know how quickly it cuts. Even a tough waterstone like a Shapton when honing needs very frequent flattening (every few minutes - e.g. see David Charlesworth's early writings on stroke patterns and flattening) to stay truly flat. (:) most of my waterstones seem to go down the drain as sludge after flattening)

[Kees Heiden]

Thanks for all the tips. Plenty to try. I have two more blades.

[Prashun Patel]

Hi Kees. I'm substantially less experienced than the lot of the posters here, but it similarly takes me a while to flatten a back on old blades.

If you're amenable to a powered solution, a Worksharp with Diamond lapidary wheels (*bay $12/ea) make quick work of flattening anything. I use a 150 followed by a 220, and then on to my 600 stone. It feels like cheating.

I even have a 3000g wheel that is capable of a reasonable shine, but I prefer to finish on a stone (for no other reason than I feel good about myself for having done SOME of it manually ;)).

The WS2000 is quite cheap compared to the WS3000 and because you'd probably only use it for flattening, you won't miss the port and platform that the WS3000 has.

[Ron Brese]

In many cases the older irons just aren't worth the trouble. Much easier to buy what is usually a better aftermarket iron and get on with fitting the cap iron. The problem using stones for the back of the an iron is they are always changing even while using the stone. A reliable substrate with 3m psa back abrasive film will yield much more consistent results and it's the same every time you use it. To get that kind of consistency from any stone you would need to be constantly flattening it thru the process.

It's also important to use a well graded medium like the 3m micro abrasive film that has a consistent psa backing that pulls it down very tight to the substrate. Using loose abrasive paper can lead to removing too much material from the corners of the iron and the only way to repair that is to go back to the coarsest abrasive and start again.

A couple of keys. Use a reliable substrate and don't continue to use worn out abrasive. You'll get there faster with a better result.

The laws of physics dictate that you will always remove more material from the leading edge of anythings you're lapping. You need to swap edges and lap a different direction to get accurate results. This is the problem most run into when attempting to flatten the sole of a plane. They don't take into account the natural tendencies of being human.

Ron

[Warren Mickley]

In many cases the older irons just aren't worth the trouble. Much easier to buy what is usually a better aftermarket iron and get on with fitting the cap iron. The problem using stones for the back of the an iron is they are always changing even while using the stone. A reliable substrate with 3m psa back abrasive film will yield much more consistent results and it's the same every time you use it. To get that kind of consistency from any stone you would need to be constantly flattening it thru the process.


I use a 100 year old beech trying plane and a 100 year old Bailey smoothing plane. They are superior to today's offerings, irons, cap irons, and planes. They are worth a considerable effort to bring into service.

Further, I have been using stones to work the back of the irons for 45 years. As have some generations before me. The idea that they might not work is (to quote Todd Hughes) "interesting".

[Steve Voigt]

Lots of good tips in this thread. Two things that have helped me:

1) As others have mentioned, grind a hollow. Warren mentioned a sandstone wheel. Others use a Dremel. I use an angle grinder. This guy (http://timmanneychairmaker.blogspot.com/2014/01/tuning-up-and-re-handling-old-chisels.html) even uses a bench grinder.

2) I used to have a lot of difficulty moving from sandpaper (or sanding belt) to my oilstones. As others have mentioned, the sandpaper tends to dub, so when you move to the stones, they tend to work the center of the iron, and it takes a long time to get to the corners. I solved this by abrading my stones first. I abrade my medium India, soft ark, and hard ark, using loose silicon carbide grit on glass. After the sandpaper (I usually stop at 100 or 150 grit), I move to the medium India. If the back of the iron is not uniformly abraded within 3-4 minutes, I abrade the medium India stone again. With this approach, I never have to spend more than 5-6 minutes on that initial transition. Once I'm done with the medium stone, it is no more than a minute or two on the other stones.

For people who object to abrading their oilstones, a solution might be to reserve one side for flattening and the other for sharpening.

…

Ron Brese, I think I'm not understanding your point about stones. We obviously agree that there is an issue moving from PSA (or similar) to stones, but no matter what your sharpening method, you need to finish the back flattening on your normal sharpening media (whether it's oilstones, waterstones, diamonds, whatever), right?

[Jim Koepke]

The laws of physics dictate that you will always remove more material from the leading edge of anythings you're lapping. You need to swap edges and lap a different direction to get accurate results.

This used to cause me a bit of grief until it was better understood.

Replacement blades is a good idea for the real dogs. Turn the really bad blades into glue scrapers or marking knives.

Some of my blades have hours invested in getting them to work well. It was well worth it since it will not have to be done again.

Those people in the videos pick a blade that will go quickly. They can do that in movies and it makes the rest of us feel a bit inadequate.

jtk

[Ron Brese]

Warren the OP stated this was an iron from a #3 which I am assuming is from a Stanley plane. Many of those irons have been used, abused and generally not worth the time it takes to get them back to user shape if possible at all. I think time has a value and I'd rather be woodworking in lieu of spending hours on an iron that can be replaced for forty bucks.

I did not state that an iron could not be flattened on stones. But I did state one would have to be vigil to keep that stone flat during the process in order to attain consistent results. My comments was to suggest the use of a more consistent substrate and medium. There are many different ways to achieve the same end. Even when I use stones on the bevel side of the iron I typically wipe the burr off the back using the 3m film on a surface plate. It's the same every time I use it. The most common complaint I hear from people learning to sharpen is about inconsistency in contact when wiping the burr off the back of the iron. Most likely due to waterstones that have changed shape since last used for this purpose.

Many knowledgable people tend not to post here because you have a habit of twisting everything they state and then question the viability of those statements. I apologize for forgetting that you are the most superior woodworking being on earth. (tongue in cheek)

Ron

[David Ragan]

I have to chime in here, after done grinning @ the finish of Ron's last post--a point well made, and probably not often enough....

What's the deal with me reading (somewhere) that you periodically have to re-flatten the back of a blade? Once it's flat, that's it, right. We are talking the immutable laws of physics here, right?

[Brian Holcombe]

I've had one iron come out of flat after a year or so of use. It was an A2 iron for a number 7 plane. Not wildly out of flat, but it was enough.

So far so good since re-flattening

[david charlesworth]

Please note I have never advocated doing the ruler trick on anything other than an 8,000 grit waterstone or equivalent.

Flattening badly out of shape irons is serious work. I remember spending a day and a half flattening a new Stanley, 2 3/8" blade in about 1970. It should have been sent back!

I run courses in plane tuning and insist that the students have a Hock blade or equivalent, available. This way we don't lose two days on back flattening.

I particularly like the hardness of modern blades, when working difficult timbers.

Best wishes,
David

[ian maybury]

'The most common complaint I hear from people learning to sharpen is about inconsistency in contact when wiping the burr off the back of the iron.' That's another reason I suspect why (unless care is taken to the sort of level Ron describes to ensure a perfectly flat stone) the ruler technique is often a very good bet.

'Once it's flat, that's it, right. We are talking the immutable laws of physics here, right?' Yes and no David. The issue is that the back will probably stay flat, but that using the plane creates a tiny wear bevel on the front/primary bevel (and in this case especially significantly) on the back sides. This has to be removed when you re-sharpen to create the classic sharp edge formed of two polished surfaces intersecting at the required angle. This can be done by cutting back the front bevel enough (so that you get back into the flat part of the back), the new edge is then honed/polished to the required finish via a (normally) quick rub on the flat/back of the to eliminate any tiny wire edge remaining.

The problem that many seem to run into is as Ron summarised is that if the back and stone are not perfectly flat (or the honing has dubbed the leading edge a shade as a result of wrong movements), or the wear bevel has not been fully cut away then the cutting edge/line of the wire edge doesn't quite get to touch the face of the stone. Not only that - any out of flatness in the stone may also slightly dub the edge of the iron and worsen the situation. Additional working on a by now re-flattened stone won't easily solve the problem because there's such a large area of metal to be worked - which is why practical remedies include cutting the primary bevel back some more, or very lightly using the ruler trick to tip tip the iron up a little to get the edge back in contact with the stone.

Finish stropping (on a semi rigid/slightly flexible surface like leather) seems to be another technique that may reduce the dependency on very flat iron surfaces and stones to deliver a sharp edge - one reason why some may get better results using it...

PS to David: :) I guess once our children get out we lose control of them - but pardon my freehand borrowing/quoting your thinking. In terms of (careful) use of a coarser diamond plate to ruler trick a significantly less than flat iron into submission i was thinking of Rob Cosman's YouTube video where he preps a new WR iron. It's a horses for courses/what works works sort of deal (and as you know i've so far out of a purist sort of mentality been doing my best to keep everything flat enough to run without using the ruler trick) - but it's adoption and adaptation by so many and the results obtained are testament to its usefulness and practicality….

[Kees Heiden]

This is a great thread. Many thanks for all the ideas.

I certainly have an issue with the flatness of my sharpening media for this job. For normal sharpening this is not such an issue I find (within reason of course). But when I move from one medium to the next, flatness becomes paramount. It's a pitty my lead on granite surface plates dried up. Sometimes getting stuff like this overhere is difficult. Likewise with sanding paper. Only the most mundane stuff can be bought easilly.

And I still want to restore these irons. They have the patina matching the rest of the plane. They have the right patent logos. And I am very happy with the iron in my type 11 #7, so I hope to find similar steel in these ones.

[Ron Brese]

Steve my normal flattening media is the 3m abrasive film and I use that media all the way thru to a polished back. After working the bevel to create a new edge I just wipe the burr off using the finest grade of the 3m abrasive film.

Ron

[Alan Schwabacher]

For what it's worth, I've found loose grit to be much more effective than sandpaper for initial flattening, but it makes a difference what surface it's used on. Spent sandpaper glued to a flat surface, sprinkled with loose 80 grit SiC cuts much faster than 80 grit on a smooth surface, and the paper avoids damage to the underlying surface.

[ian maybury]

Another for what it's worth. I found myself doing so much flattening of waterstones to keep them microscopically flat that the otherwise excellent 400 grit Atoma diamond plate became a pain to use - and i'm guessing that maybe similar issues put some off from flattening frequently enough.

It's not pretty, but the ply handle below has worked very well for me. The first lasted for the life of the plate with no problems.

It's attached using a 1.5mm/ 1/16th in thick polyurethane foam permanent bonding tape. Choosing the right one matters. This is what i used - it may or may not be available in the US but there's likely something equivalent: http://www.amazon.co.uk/UniBond-More-Nails-Permanent-Roll/dp/B001DYS76Q

The key is that (a) it bonds really strongly (permanently after a time), (b) the foam tape while tough/strong and fairly firm is still flexible enough so that there's no risk of pulling a warp into the diamond plate (it's nothing like a stock double sided tape, or the typical gap filling open celled double sided self adhesive foam strip) and ( c) seems to be fully waterproof. Best to wash both surfaces with some lacquer thinner and let them dry before making the joint, push the joint together firmly on assembly with the plate supported on a truly flat surface, and (maybe) let the bond build overnight before use.

315144

[Alan Schwabacher]

One other thing I've seen on Paul Sellers's blog and not tried, is to deal with a convex surface on a plane iron by hammering rather than grinding.
http://paulsellers.com/2014/05/does-plane-iron-flatness-really-matter-this-blog-could-save-you-hours/

[Ray Selinger]

After getting a 1949 Stanley #4 flat and square and changing out the iron and cap iron, I concluded a Veritas plane is quite inexpensive.And I still want to put cocobolo tote and knob on it. I know it's the process not the product.

[Aaron Rappaport]

Regarding hogging out a back hollow with a bench grinder and Steve's link above to Tim Manney's blog post about it. I've used this method before and while it's very fast, there's always the danger that you will hog off too much. So I created a spreadsheet of the depth of the groove you make if you pull the back of your blade directly across the perimeter of your grinding wheel, as a function of the width of the groove. Unlike the depth, the width is something you can actually see and control while you're grinding.

In actual practice, Manney pulls the back of his blade across the edge between the wheel's perimeter and its face, as have I when I've used this method. Nevertheless, the table is still useful because it gives you an upper limit on depth of the groove you're making, so it's a good way to ensure you don't remove too much metal.

The table's values are calculated using good ol' trigonometry.

I heartily recommend practicing this method on a beater blade or two before using it on something whose use and/or appearance is important to you.




Wheel diameter









Max depth
5
6
7
8


0.001
0.14
0.15
0.17
0.18


0.002
0.20
0.22
0.24
0.25


0.003
0.24
0.27
0.29
0.31


0.004
0.28
0.31
0.33
0.36


0.005
0.32
0.35
0.37
0.40


0.006
0.35
0.38
0.41
0.44



















Aaron

[Kees Heiden]

It looks like I am getting somewhere. polished (at least along the edge) and FLAT. The trick was flattening the stones very often. i spend the most time on the 1000 stone, to correct the vagarities of the 400. Polishing after the 1000 was a minute job.

315161

And after all the work, even flattening the sole a bit, this was the result. At least it can plane pine.

315162

On to the next one.

[Kees Heiden]

Oh and I am glad to know others need more then ten minutes too to bring a plane back from the graveyard.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

I've been having the same problem for the past couple weeks. I have a couple plane blades that I've honestly spent 4 hours each on by now and I just couldn't for the life of me get the chipbreaker to mate to them well. Finally I got ahold of a combination square that I know is dead flat, lo and behold, all my plane iron backs are slightly cambered. I must have been rocking them while lapping.
Using double-sided tape to stick the plane blade to a block helped a lot. So did the ruler trick. It took me a while to understand what Ron said regarding the laws of physics and the leading edge but now that I get it, things are in perspective. For the chipbreaker I tried lapping forward and back instead of side to side. Took a lot longer since my lapping strokes were so short but it helped. I haven't tried grinding a hollow yet but I have an old abused blade that I'm going to experiment with. I imagine that will be the fastest method though you would also lose the most steel. In the end, what I didn't understand at all and what I imagine causes a lot of amateurs problems is that technique matters a lot when lapping. I assumed that because my glass plate was dead flat that my plane irons would end up dead flat. Nope. This thread has cleared up a lot for me. Thanks.

[Jim Matthews]

Oh and I am glad to know others need more then ten minutes too to bring a plane back from the graveyard.

I believe this is why replacement irons are so popular.

[Brian Holcombe]

I worked in a machine shop some years ago, we used to look for certain patterns to be made in the metal to show that the work was being done correctly. For instance; A hatch pattern of uniform scratches was a good indicator that a connecting rod was being honed properly.

Having had this experience I always try and alternate directions slightly when moving from grit to grit when I am honing the front portion of the back of the blade.

Here is a guide from Lee Valley on lapping;

http://www.leevalley.com/us/shopping/TechInfo.aspx?p=59780

[lowell holmes]

You guys might want to check out the granite plates that Woodcraft is selling. I bought one recently.

Spray the surface with water and slap some wet or dry sandpaper on it and you have a terrific sharpening/lapping surface to deal with.

I bought the half plate and I recommend it. I think it would make short work lapping irons if you use Dunbar's technique. Some 120, 220, and 400 grit wet sandpaper on it makes for quick work of chisels and plane iron bevels.

[ian maybury]

Metrology quality certified granite surface plates from China have got very cheap these days - the shipping cost me more than the plate last year.

It's to my mind worth buying a larger one if you can manage it as it opens up all sorts of other stuff like use for scraping in and properly testing flat surfaces. I for example was able to scrape in the tables of my planer thicknesser on one that cost less than $200 (plus shipping) from the UK. It's the sort of thing you buy once. (it would have cost several thousand years ago)

Even if you don't go scraping the associated bluing technique could be used to very quickly verify the overall flatness of the back of a blade (not however of the narrow band prepped using the ruler technique), or with great care (so the surface is not scratched) of a diamond plate. A skim of engineer's blue is rubbed on the surface of the (cleaned) plate, and it's rubbed out with a clean lint free cloth until there's only the lightest of films left. (just a haze of colour) The part of the blade surface that is of interest is then dropped down on to it, rubbed about for a moment or two. (taking great care not to allow it to rock about any high spots) Then lifted off and inspected.

Only the high areas will pick up blue - it's for example critical that there's blue right up to the cutting edge. i.e. no dubbing. It's also critical that the film of blue is as light as possible - if not it'll be thick enough to fill in hollows and will give a misleading result. Bear in mind that we're (unless the plan is to use the ruler technique or to finish strop on a softish strop) chasing flatness to within microns - but be aware also that a rubbed out film of blue can be so thin that it won't contact the entire surface unless it's maybe flatter than we need. i.e. it becomes clear with practice just how much to rub out the blue.

I haven't tried it (not sure if a tempered blade may be too hard for it to work well), and care/skill/a light touch would be needed not to gouge or scratch the surface - but if a carbide scraper could get a very light cut it might well amount to a nicely controlled and pretty speedy way of reducing any high areas as indicated by successive rubs on the blued plate. (there's lots of websites about setting out basic scraping technique - but it's not one to try for the first time on your sunday best tool)

On lapping/waterstone movement patterns. As before David Charlesworth sets out a pattern of movements in one of his books that works. (prob on video too) Also how to use a pencil to mark the stone surface - it can't be flat until it's all been removed. There's no doubt others that work (the more frequently you flatten the waterstone, the less critical the movement pattern is), but the point is that it's soooo tempting to miss the point and short cut.

From what i've seen i'm quite cautious about the idea of using wet and dry paper that's not glued down/self adhesive to flatten stones - it has a tendency to raise a ripple in front of the blade which risks dubbing it...

[Kees Heiden]

I gave up on the second blade before even attempting. It has real deep rust pits and it is getting a bit short too. Not really worth all the trouble. The chipbreaker was equaly bad. I am not afraid of bending and hammering, but this one was too croocked. For now it has the Ray Iles blade from my other #4 with the associated chipbreaker. Now I need another capiron for that plane, (I still have a newish Stanley blade). Going around in circles :)

The #6 is the next. It actually looks pretty flat and very clean allready so I hope it won't present too much trouble.

[Brian Holcombe]

You guys might want to check out the granite plates that Woodcraft is selling. I bought one recently.

Spray the surface with water and slap some wet or dry sandpaper on it and you have a terrific sharpening/lapping surface to deal with.

I bought the half plate and I recommend it. I think it would make short work lapping irons if you use Dunbar's technique. Some 120, 220, and 400 grit wet sandpaper on it makes for quick work of chisels and plane iron bevels.

Thanks Lowell, I did this today. I have been setting bevels with a DMT plate, but it's been a trying experience. I have an old DMT resin backed 'stone' that's probably 15 years old and I cant kill the thing, but I bought one of the precision plates and the cutting power has been absolute junk after using it for some time.

[david charlesworth]

Ian,

Surface tension does a good gluing job. Results will be minutely convex but this is infinitely preferable to concave!

best wishes,
David

[lowell holmes]

Thanks Lowell, I did this today. I have been setting bevels with a DMT plate, but it's been a trying experience. I have an old DMT resin backed 'stone' that's probably 15 years old and I cant kill the thing, but I bought one of the precision plates and the cutting power has been absolute junk after using it for some time.

Brian,


I am talking about a slab of granite. It must be used with the scary sharp method of sharpening, or honing. The slab of granite is absolutely flat.
It has retired my diamond hones as well.

[Brian Holcombe]

Indeed, the slab I bought is precision ground and 12 x 9 x 2. Heavy enough for my purposes (not flattening plane soles).

I briefly considered the 12 x 18 x 3, but hauling that into the basement is a chore beyond my enthusiasm.

[lowell holmes]

Brian,

I misunderstood your earlier post. We are on the same page.
My granite slab is absolutely flat. I'm sure in time it could become irregular on the surface, but my heirs will have to deal with it.

I ran across mine in the store and it came home with me. mine is the smaller stone as well.

[Brian Holcombe]

Ahh, would be nice, my fedex delivery person should be grateful that I did not opt for the 80lb plate.

[Jim Matthews]

...but hauling that into the basement is a chore beyond my enthusiasm.

I'm alerting the mods.
Understatement is out of keeping with our standards.

[Brian Holcombe]

:p

....now, If I can pass it by my wife as the top of a Paul Kjearholm coffee table....that just happens to be precision ground....then possibly I can avoid bringing it into the basement.

[lowell holmes]

:p

....now, If I can pass it by my wife as the top of a Paul Kjearholm coffee table....that just happens to be precision ground....then possibly I can avoid bringing it into the basement.

Why can't I find his work in my new book on mid-century modern furniture.

OBTW, some of the furniture in the book reminds me of the furniture we were buying at Fed-Mart back in the 60's.

[Tom M King]

Ahh, would be nice, my fedex delivery person should be grateful that I did not opt for the 80lb plate.

When the UPS guy brought one that weighed 85 pounds, he saw me at a local restaurant, and asked me to come out and help him put it in the back of my truck. I like the 25 buck ones (when they are on sale at Woodcraft) so much that I have several of them. I cut one up with the tile saw for individual Diamond Lapping Film sheets. I like not only the flat, and heft, but the height above the drain board for finger clearance. An appliance truck makes easy work out of moving such pieces as a 12x18 up or down stairs.

[Reinis Kanders]

I can still carry my 12x18, but it is heavy, glad that it is not 3 inches thick. I stuck mine on three hockey pucks that LV sells, hopefully it will not distort.

[Pat Barry]

I
The laws of physics dictate that you will always remove more material from the leading edge of anythings you're lapping. You need to swap edges and lap a different direction to get accurate results. This is the problem most run into when attempting to flatten the sole of a plane. They don't take into account the natural tendencies of being human.Ron
I agree with everything stated here except I am totally unfamiliar with the law of physics you are referring to. I believe this to be a misconception. In fact, I believe that the process provides the result and that the human error is the most important variable in the process, thus, the way in which the human applies the force results in the uneven results. For you, Ron, that might be the leading edge, whereas for others its the trailing edge.

[Pat Barry]

It looks like I am getting somewhere. polished (at least along the edge) and FLAT. The trick was flattening the stones very often. i spend the most time on the 1000 stone, to correct the vagarities of the 400. Polishing after the 1000 was a minute job.

315161

And after all the work, even flattening the sole a bit, this was the result. At least it can plane pine.

315162

On to the next one.
That sure is pretty Kees. Sorry to say this but you have totally wasted your time getting that degree of polish on that much of your plane blade. I don't think you had any fun doing it either which might be the biggest shame.

[Brian Holcombe]

Why can't I find his work in my new book on mid-century modern furniture.

OBTW, some of the furniture in the book reminds me of the furniture we were buying at Fed-Mart back in the 60's.

Some put Danish Modern as their own separate category and some further put Kjearholm in its own category due to the cult following.


When the UPS guy brought one that weighed 85 pounds, he saw me at a local restaurant, and asked me to come out and help him put it in the back of my truck. I like the 25 buck ones (when they are on sale at Woodcraft) so much that I have several of them. I cut one up with the tile saw for individual Diamond Lapping Film sheets. I like not only the flat, and heft, but the height above the drain board for finger clearance. An appliance truck makes easy work out of moving such pieces as a 12x18 up or down stairs.

Hah, I think mine would do something similar. It's good to know the fedex guy....until you order something really heavy...then it's best not to know him. :)

[Peter Evans]

Here are two techniques for someone who doesn't want to buy special equipment for flattening. One thing is to make a slight hollow behind the edge. I use a large wet sandstone wheel. It doesn't need to be deep at all, just enough to reduce the area that comes in contact with the stone you are using for flattening. You can renew this very slight hollow several times as you work. The other is to flatten on a coarse bench stone with the last 3/16 or 1/4 inch of the iron hanging off the stone. That way you are also reducing the area being abraded by a finer, flatter stone, but not introducing the rounding that can come from a coarse stone.
The tip for keeping the edge off the coarse abrasive is a great tip to avoid rounding over during coarse flattening. You can also use a Dremel with a grinding wheel to reduce the amount of steel to be abraided behind the edge, looks a bit like a Japanese chisel when you are done - saves a huge amount of time, and helps to avoid rounding as well.

[Jim Davis]

100 years ago any carpenter who spent 1/10th the time described above sharpening his planes on the job would have been fired immediately. Wood will move with moisture changes more than the difference between an OK planing job and the brain-surgery-planing done with a mirror-finished iron.

It seems to me that some folks are far more interested in perfection in a plane than in working wood.

There, I suspect I made more enemies than I need...

[Kees Heiden]

Now I hate you Jim! What's your adres, so I can paint some nasty things on your frontdoor! :D

This is NOT about the normal day to day sharpening. I do that pretty quick, sometimes even a bit half assed. No, this is about setting up the plane for its first use in my shop. I want a back without scratches or pits ( a pit in the back is a nick in the edge) and I want it flat along the front so the capiron sits properly. An ill fitting capiron, set close to the edge, just sucks the shavings under it, causing instant clogging of the plane.

And because the planes came to me in a pretty neglected state, that means a bunch of work. And I found (again, I must say, have been through this often before) that the quickest way to reach above goals is meticulously keeping the stones flat.

[ian maybury]

To be fair to Kees what he's been doing is a one time deal to get the iron set up Jim, and possibly not the sort of thing that would be done on the job back in the day. Re-sharpening is the work of a few minutes. The larger than needed polished area seems to be mostly a consequence of how the situation developed.

Even at that it's a horses for courses sort of deal. I guess that whatever the era or the sharpening method high end cabinbet making was a precision woodworking activity that required very sharp tools capable of the finest control and leaving a glass smooth surface on potentially difficult woods.

We don't of course all have to aspire to high end cabinet work, there's lots of of other things to be done with wood...

[Brian Holcombe]

100 years ago any carpenter who spent 1/10th the time described above sharpening his planes on the job would have been fired immediately. Wood will move with moisture changes more than the difference between an OK planing job and the brain-surgery-planing done with a mirror-finished iron.

It seems to me that some folks are far more interested in perfection in a plane than in working wood.

There, I suspect I made more enemies than I need...

If it's anything like temple carpenters of today, they do the heavy re-working at night after the day is done.

I try to avoid anything but the finish stone and strop during the day, but in the morning with a coffee or later at night I'll take a moment and regrind a blade that's been causing me grief. I'm not on a clock so I can do this during the day if the need arises, but I generally try to avoid it.

[Warren Mickley]

100 years ago any carpenter who spent 1/10th the time described above sharpening his planes on the job would have been fired immediately. Wood will move with moisture changes more than the difference between an OK planing job and the brain-surgery-planing done with a mirror-finished iron.

It seems to me that some folks are far more interested in perfection in a plane than in working wood.

There, I suspect I made more enemies than I need...

The reason I got interested in historic work back in 1970 was because the quality of 18th century work was so much higher. I talked to quite a few old woodworkers back in that era. It was obvious that none of them knew much about using a plane.

As an example, in 1976 I met an old man, about 85 years old, who was demonstrating woodworking at a historic site. There was a beech trying plane sitting there and I asked if he knew how to use it. "Oh yeah I used them all my life." Then I asked how he adjusted the iron once the wedge was in place. "You can't adjust it, you just have to take the wedge out and start over." This was typical; when compared to woodworkers of the mid 20th century they knew a lot, but compared to 18th century woodworkers they knew next to nothing.

[Jim Davis]

Scrapers are to follow up planing. That's why they were invented.

[Pat Barry]

I guess that whatever the era or the sharpening method high end cabinbet making was a precision woodworking activity that required very sharp tools capable of the finest control and leaving a glass smooth surface on potentially difficult woods...

I doubt that they really concerned themselves with leaving a glass smooth surface back then. Things like that are a function of the perfection we strive for today. Back then they were concerned about getting things done, feeding their family, dealing with their toothaches, etc. Oh sure, their may have been a couple doing precision woodworking, probably more focused on joinery, inlays, and finishing work

[Warren Mickley]

Scrapers are to follow up planing. That's why they were invented.

A double iron plane will leave better surface with less time and less effort than any scraper. That is why they were invented.

[Steve Voigt]

It's kind of funny when people make authoritative-sounding claims about the past without anything to back it up. Usually these statements have very little truth to them. For example:


Scrapers are to follow up planing. That's why they were invented.

I doubt anyone can say when scrapers were invented, because they are among the old and simplest tools and date back to the stone age, predating planes by millenia. I think it's more likely that planes were invented to overcome the limitations of scrapers. A plane cuts at a much lower angle and produces a much better surface than a scraper.
Scrapers are invaluable, especially for curved surfaces. I use them all the time. But if I'm making something flat, I'd much rather finish straight off the plane.

Another example:


I doubt that they really concerned themselves with leaving a glass smooth surface back then. Things like that are a function of the perfection we strive for today. Back then they were concerned about getting things done, feeding their family, dealing with their toothaches, etc. Oh sure, their may have been a couple doing precision woodworking, probably more focused on joinery, inlays, and finishing work

I'm not sure when "back then" is but have you ever looked at 18th century furniture? Or the Japanese temple carpentry that Brian referred to? To be sure, not all 18th c. furniture is high-style, or nicely finished, or finished with a plane, but a lot of it is. You can find no end of historical examples of "glass-smooth" work, finished straight off the plane.

[Brian Holcombe]

I doubt that they really concerned themselves with leaving a glass smooth surface back then. Things like that are a function of the perfection we strive for today. Back then they were concerned about getting things done, feeding their family, dealing with their toothaches, etc. Oh sure, their may have been a couple doing precision woodworking, probably more focused on joinery, inlays, and finishing work

Pat, I'd have to disagree. Having tools capable of leaving a glass smooth surface makes for a lot less work later on. I would have to presume that this was important then, just the same as it is important now if you are not using a sander.

I try and get a very high quality surface right off the jointer plane, as that means my efforts with the finish plane are very minimal and I can take the part right to finishing.

[Jim Davis]

I guess I have to admit that my thoughts on planes are skewed in the direction of carpentry, as opposed to cabinetmaking. And as far as the invention of scrapers, I should have said the mass production of scrapers. But, my views on the past are taken from books such as "Handwork in Wood" and others of the 1890s and 1910s. Where do you get your understanding of that period and the previous years, the practices of which formed the basis for those books?

[ian maybury]

Oh dear. I didn't mean anything controversial, and i certainly don't have the background on historical stuff to get further than the obvious. I just wanted to politely head off the emergence of any thought that the achievement of a good finish on the cutting surfaces on a plane iron (or chipbreaker) is a waste of time.

This little video by Garret Hack of his preparing a scratch stock to cut beads is a nice case in point. It's a very basic scraping tool made on the hoof from a bit of old saw plate, but even there he shows the need to finely finish the cutting surfaces: http://www.finewoodworking.com/how-to/video/how-to-make-a-scratch-stock.aspx

My thought was that for sure high end cabinet makers back in the day achieved very high finishes. My inclination is to think they must have been able to obtain a good finish off a plane, if only for practical/productivity reasons - but even if scraping played a big part being able to highly finish/polish the tool must have mattered.

It's less the case now since power tools, but back in the day there must have been a sizeable chunk of woodworking using planes (even back in my youth - i remember site carpenters hauling out a Stanley and sharpening it on an oilstone) that didn't need or seek to get to quite that standard. Fancy cabinet making was fancy - presumably because not every Joe was prepared to put the detail effort in to make similar stuff, and because not everybody would pay for it etc etc. Which was why i was trying to say that there's types of woodworking that require huge precision, and others somewhat less. There are of course faster and slower ways of achieving this precision, but you have to hit the standard before it becomes possible to figure out how to get there more easily.

The Japanese carpentry tradition however suggests that perhaps high standards of tool prep (if only for convenience/ease of working) were possibly more the norm than not anywhere that well finished work was required off hand tools.

It's in the end though a choice we're all free to make...

[Ray Selinger]

Well, after this thread, I'm going to keep track of the time I spend on my latest find, a $5 Millers Fall #9C, 2" smooth. I think it's a late '40s, I''ll call it 1949, because that has meaning to me. So far the stripping for the Evorust bath, the rinsing and scrubbing has taken a little over 1 hour. Unfortunately the iron back is pitted for 1 1/2", so a Stanley iron will be sharpened.

[david charlesworth]

Keeping the edge of a blade off the stone is a very powerful technique, which works really well.

I describe my methods, in detail, in my third book and first and fourth DVDs.

David Charlesworth

[Pat Barry]

I would argue that trying to get more than about 1/2" back from the edge truly flat is wasting time and energy. This is the region where the chip breaker would contact the blade and this is where the flatness is needed. Flatness mind you, not a high level of polishing. Everyone agree with that? If not how would you clarify or improve on the area and need for flattening and / or polishing the back?

On the other hand, with a bevel up plane, is there any real need to truly flatten the back at all?

[Brian Holcombe]

I'm not sure about every circumstance, but for my BD planes I work the last 1/2" or so to be very flat, then if I can remove the burr without fail I will swipe it off, otherwise I will use David Charlesworth's method on the final finish stone (13k for me). So yes, definitely agree there.

There are other circumstances where I prefer a completely flat back, like on chisels, because I use it to register a cut.

[Kees Heiden]

Yes, indeed absolutely, 1/2" is plenty! BUT, there's always a but like we say overhere. When the blade is as wicked as this one, I invariably end up with a much larger area. I make gross movements over the stone. I am not deliberately keeping only a narrow band of 1/2" on the stone. Moving the blade fast gets the work done quicker, but is less precise. Maybe I should try next time if it makes a difference in speed to only keep the narrow band on the stone, but my gut feeling sais it is harder to keep the blade flat.

The last blade, the #6 was in much better shape and is now showing only about 1/2" of polished area.

[ian maybury]

No disagreement on flatness versus surface finish Pat, but by and large you need both present to get a really good cut finish. It's very easy to end up with lots of polish, and not very flat however...

To Ray's. I guess how much time we feel it's worth putting to e.g. recover an old iron is a personal decision for most of us that are not working commercially. My instincts tend to be along the lines that I'll often do more than strictly necessary to get something set up, but once done it needs to be capable of ongoing maintenance (e.g. sharpening) for minimal time input. If not it gets in the way/becomes a frustrating impediment to getting a project done...

[Steve Voigt]

I guess I have to admit that my thoughts on planes are skewed in the direction of carpentry, as opposed to cabinetmaking. And as far as the invention of scrapers, I should have said the mass production of scrapers. But, my views on the past are taken from books such as "Handwork in Wood" and others of the 1890s and 1910s. Where do you get your understanding of that period and the previous years, the practices of which formed the basis for those books?

Good primary sources include Moxon, Roubo, Nicholson, Holtzappfel, and somewhat later Denning's Art and Craft of Cabinetmaking. The bookends of that list are interesting. Moxon is very early and may have had less practical experience than the others. Denning is writing for amateurs because by the 1880s cabinetmaking with handtools was already becoming a hobbyist pursuit. It's a great book, but you can sense how things are already sliding downhill. So the middle three of the above list are the meatiest.

Secondary and historical sources: The joiner and cabinetmaker, edited by Schwarz and Moskowitz, The tool chest of Benjamin Seaton, and many of the other books put out by Colonial Williamsburg.

Plenty of good web sources too, like Peter Follansbee's blog (focusing more on the Moxon period), Pegs and Tails, The Workbench Diary, Anthony Hay's, and Chris Schwarz's LAP blog. Some might disagree with that last one, but not me; he's done a ton of really serious and rigorous historical digging.

I'm sure I'm missing a bunch of sources; maybe others can pitch in.

[Raney Nelson]

There are no words to express my distaste for having words I chose quite carefully selectively edited by someone for what is clearly nothing remotely in violation of the TOS here, in either letter or spirit.

[Pat Barry]

I would disagree with your statements about not needing to polish the back. There are ways to hone the back without mirrored finish (natural Japanese stones, esp.)
raney
There is no need to get a mirror polish on the back of a plane (other than that very small bit, right at the cutting edge itself). That's pretty simple. Going further, to get a half inch section of the back polished to point it looks like a mirror is way beyond the scope of what is necessary.



also, I have to take exception with the idea at cabinet makers were not concerned with extremely high quality edges and plane work. As stated by several people, this sort of work had already degraded to a Huge degree by the mid to late 19th c., but cabinetmakers in the days prior to that ran the gamut as much as woodworkers today do. Certainly there were poor workmen back then, but high end cabinetmakers then we're certainly every bit as mindful of their tools as any woodworker today is. They were almost certainly faster and more adept at such work, as they apprenticed into their skills at very early ages. But the idea that fastidiousness is a modern 'fascination' is simply absurd.
raney
So, I don't dispute that you can find some examples of very high levels of finish on work from the past, its just that the work you and others are referring to and holding in such high regard, were pieces made for Kings and Queens and churches and the very rich. Not for the sort of middle class customers of the times. I find it to be amusing that some folks hold, for example the 17th and the 18th century woodworking as the ultimate examples of craftsmanship. Again, I do not doubt that there were fine pieces produced then by certain makers, just that the major amount of work that was done was done to a 'get er done' mentality because that's what put food on the table (and still does as a matter of fact). In this mode of work, achieving a mirror finish right off the plane was not a driving factor. Getting the piece completed and sold was the pressing need. When you look at the majority of work that was done in the 17th century you will not see high degrees of finish because it wasn't important. If you can offer specific examples that contradict this then please do so.

[Steve Voigt]

Yes Pat, you tell that Raney. He's only one of the top planemakers in the world, not to mention an incredible designer and furniture maker.

[Raney Nelson]

I have zero time to indulge an online ego competition. You're welcome to disagree with me.

[Jim Koepke]

There is no need to get a mirror polish on the back of a plane (other than that very small bit, right at the cutting edge itself). That's pretty simple. Going further, to get a half inch section of the back polished to point it looks like a mirror is way beyond the scope of what is necessary.

If one is using a chip breaker the plane iron needs to be prepared on the back to mate properly. If this is done to the minimalist amount advocated by Pat, then when the iron is sharpened in the future, one may need to tend again to the back. Preparing a bit more of the back at the beginning may save time in the future.

For what it is worth, my blades get a few rubs on the back side every time they are honed. If someone else has a better way to remove a burr, surely most readers here would enjoy hearing about it. A burr off of my 1000 grit stone doesn't act nice on a strop.

jtk

[Steve Voigt]

There are no words to express my distaste for having words I chose quite carefully selectively edited by someone for what is clearly nothing remotely in violation of the TOS here, in either letter or spirit.

There was nothing offensive or derogatory in any of these posts, just a little blunt wording and some light sarcasm. And yet, several posts were removed and others hacked to pieces. The thread makes no coherent sense now.

[Prashun Patel]

I explained in PM's to both Steve and Raney that it was only my intent to stop this thread from going down an unfriendly road that usually originates at the corner of blunt wording and sarcasm. If I've erred, let me know what in specific what should be restored.

[Pat Barry]

Yes Pat, you tell that Raney. He's only one of the top planemakers in the world, not to mention an incredible designer and furniture maker.


Interesting! I'll try to look for more info

[Tom McMahon]

This thread is getting hard to follow, posts appear then disappear then appear again. It's hard to tell what I may have missed.
it'

[Kees Heiden]

Here the picture again of the mirror. When you zoom into the picture and look carefully you'll see that the left corner is still dubbed over and the right corner just barely manages to be polished. This is what I get when reallity takes over and the polished area grows larger then 1/2". I would like to hear some practical tips how to keep all the effort on that narrow band. How do you keep the blade nice and steady on the stones? How do you keep your stones flat?

315161

[david charlesworth]

Kees,

Techniques which deal with all these issues are on my first DVD, Plane Sharpening.

Available from me or L-N.

It would take much too long to try and explain them all here.

Best wishes,
David

[Kees Heiden]

I know David, I do have your books. But you are not really advocating to only do a narrow 1/2" band behind the edge. I am curious how people who advocate this are doing it in real life and what kind of problems they have. Or not of course.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Kees

While we say that all one needs is the immediate back of the bevel to be polished, it is simply not possible to do this small section in isolation. In reality we end up lapping a wider area, simply because it is an issue of control and registration. The polish only needs to be done at the edge, but a large area of the back ends up lapped just to get this small area flat.

The most critical grit is the first one, the coarse one that flattens the back of the blade. Polish is easy to do over the entire blade back once the lower grits have been completed. Seeing a fully polished blade back does not tell the story about the blade. Indeed, I am more inclined to view a full polish as indicating that the blade was mostly out of flat. By contrast, a blade with a small polished area is one that is .. was .. flat to start. All one has to do is examine a new LV blade to see this.

Brand new Veritas chisel out of the box on the left, and 30 seconds of lapping on 12K Shapton on the right. The full back was polished only because it looked nice. But I could have just done a small section ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasChiselReview_html_6305ec5c.jpg

Compared to a Galoot Tools (reviewed several years ago) that was rather "unflat" to start, but just look at how much of the back is polished! ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/Galoot%20Tools%20Performance%20Series%20Bench%20Pl ane%20Blade_html_15007104.jpg

The trick to speed is maintaining registration at the same angle. I mentioned this in an earlier post. A long (1m) lapping (glass) board is easier to do this on that a short waterstone.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Pat Barry]

I think the ticket is that the very top of the cutting edge needs to be straight and meet the bevel at a nice sharp edge. That's the beauty of the ruler trick approach. The balance of the back only needs to be flat, not polished. It can be argued that polishing the blade all the way to the chip breaker interface improves cutting performance. I wouldn't argue that point although I think it would be a pretty subtle improvement. Anything after the chip breaker interface is purely incidental to plane performance. To achieve the necessary flatness and polish, use you normal process, just quit when the edge up to and under the chip breaker interface is flat and polished to your satisfaction.

[Pat Barry]

If one is using a chip breaker the plane iron needs to be prepared on the back to mate properly. If this is done to the minimalist amount advocated by Pat, then when the iron is sharpened in the future, one may need to tend again to the back. Preparing a bit more of the back at the beginning may save time in the future.

For what it is worth, my blades get a few rubs on the back side every time they are honed. If someone else has a better way to remove a burr, surely most readers here would enjoy hearing about it. A burr off of my 1000 grit stone doesn't act nice on a strop.

jtk
1/2 inch of blade material might just last several years for most of us. I think though, that you have a procedure you are comfortable with and you should stick with it. Under your use conditions you probably use up 1/2 inch of blade on a semi annual basis so that additional back side work you do pays off nicely.

[Kees Heiden]

The polish is not the problem. Takes at most another minute. It's a bit like the cherry on the cake. After all the work to get the back flat, the polish gives a satisfied feeling.

[Jim Koepke]

Under your use conditions you probably use up 1/2 inch of blade on a semi annual basis so that additional back side work you do pays off nicely.

Actually my blades seldom receive anything but hand sharpening and last quite well. If each trip to the stones took off 0.001" and each blade was sharpened daily, it would still take more than a year to get to 0.5". Since it is more likely that it takes a few sharpening sessions to remove 0.001", it will be a long time before some of the pits and nicks will be a bother to my work.

For me it is easier to register the back of a blade and work a larger area than trying to just work the last half inch of a blade.

jtk

[Phil Mueller]

I don't have nearly the experience of many posters here, but the one thing I have learned is to quit being hesitant on course grits when there's metal to be removed. I picked up an old Stanley chisel for .50 the other day. A few swipes on 220 grit wet/dry, indicated there was going to be some serious metal removal needed. Given there was little investment, I decided nothing lost.
I put down some 50 grit metal sandpaper and got after it. Took about 15 minutes to flatten. Then over to the bevel side to square up the tip and remove some minor edge nicks...another 10-15 minutes.
From there, 100, 220 sand paper, and then wet stones to finish it up.
Of course a 3/4" chisel is a lot less surface than a plane iron.

[david charlesworth]

I have never understood the benefit of polishing 15/32" of metal that does no cutting.

Flatness at the front is important for chipbreaker fit.

The methods I describe for 800g and 1200g stones will produce polish if repeated on ever finer grit stones, but this is tedious work.

David

[Brian Holcombe]

Part of the reasoning is that 15/32's of the 1/2" is doing the registration for that last 1/64.

Agreed it's very tedious work, once the back is flat on a western plane blade I will only work the front and for my jointer I use the ruler trick. For Japanese stuff I run the full series of stones on the back and then on resharpenings I only work the front 1/2"~ on the the finish stone, pretty much never reworking the back again on lower stones unless I cant get the burr to come off, which would imply there is an issue.

[ian maybury]

Think the point Derek makes about getting it flat with a coarse stone first being the step that matters most/is most demanding is an important one to take on board, as is Kees' about bringing up a polish being a quickie job once the first has delivered a truly flat surface. As should be wiping the wire edge off a flat back - if not it suggests it's not quite flat. Marathon honing sessions on waterstones as before are a recipe for losing focus/ending up out of flat. If nothing else rubbing away forever on a fine stone seems likely to greatly increase the wear/volume of stone removed per volume of metal removed, and to exacerbate the possibility of uneven wear of the stone.

Phil for this reason i think is correct about not messing about getting frustrated with too fine grades if there's significant metal to be removed. One problem with this is that if it becomes necessary to bring in the really heavy guns (light grinding - to use a WorkSharp, or a long length of coarse abrasive or a sanding disc or belt) it gets so that a lot of harm can be done in a few moments by heating or removing metal in the wrong places. i.e. the skill/proven technique requirement escalates.

I've for example not had much luck with a 120 grit Shapton which I had hoped might shift metal fairly quickly for minimum risk. It seems just to wear awfully fast, to scratch quite deeply but to actually not remove metal a great deal faster than a 1,000 grit stone. (not so that it's an alternative to light grinding anyway) I'd love to hear from somebody who's done significant work using carborundum on a steel lapping plate - regarding speed, finish/scratching and staying flat over a decent time period. (it also begs the question of what plate to use, as your average bit of steel plate unless it's been ground or more likely lapped isn't actually all that flat in terms of the territory we're talking about.

The honing question i've not yet sorted in my own mind is whether going straight from say 1,000 grit to 12,000 as some do is advisable. For sure it brings up an apparent polish, but not sure it removes the deeper scratched. Not sure either if this matters - but it conceivably could contribute to chipping/shortened edge life.

As the concensus the extent of the area polished is pretty clearly mostly just a consequence of the sharpening technique used - but it's hard to see how good performance requires more than a narrow strip of flatness/high finish right behind the edge. Ruler technique = narrow band, on the flat = necessarily wider band.

[Jim Matthews]

You're right on the beam with this one Mr. P.

Go with your gut, it won't steer you wrong.
Keep up the good work.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

I'd love to hear from somebody who's done significant work using carborundum on a steel lapping plate - regarding speed, finish/scratching and staying flat over a decent time period. (it also begs the question of what plate to use, as your average bit of steel plate unless it's been ground or more likely lapped isn't actually all that flat in terms of the territory we're talking about.



I just bought some 60/90 and 150 silicon carbide grit (which is what carborundum is from what I understand) to try this. I initially tried lapping with 80 and 220 grit sandpapers on plate glass and had the same problem you had with your Shapton stone--it scratched the metal a lot and seemed to be removing a decent amount but then every time I held an engineer's square up to the blade it looked like the shape hadn't changed much at all and thus the blade wasn't any flatter.

I haven't used the silicon carbide grit enough yet to give any conclusions but I will say be careful with how much pressure you use or you risk embedding grit in whatever you're lapping. The grit needs to roll or tumble underneath whatever you're lapping. I tried lapping a soft arkansas stone with it and embedded some of the grit in it by putting too much pressure on it. I then tried lapping a plane iron back on a piece of sacrificial plate glass (anticipating that it would be ruined but that the grit wouldn't embed in the glass) and the grit still seems to be embedding in the blade a little bit. At least, the scratch pattern looks like it was. From what I've gathered if you use a soft steel plate the grit will embed itself in the plate which would give you a more consistent scratch pattern, which would be nice, but perhaps also not be very quick. If that's the case then it would be the same as using silicon carbide sandpaper. I'd love to hear from someone who's tried this method before because I'm just figuring it out as I go.

[Steve Voigt]

I have never understood the benefit of polishing 15/32" of metal that does no cutting.

David

The benefit is, as the old saying goes, that you can pay me now or you can pay me later. Flattening tools as Kees is doing (and as I do) is tedious, but it's a one-time investment. And once it's done, working the back consists of taking half a dozen strokes to remove the burr. When I see people using the ruler trick, they are taking about the same number of strokes. So, there is no big time savings. But with the ruler trick, you are adding one more step to the sharpening routine. Find the ruler, lay it in position, presumably clean it off when you're done. It is not an onerous step, but it is a complication nonetheless. I'd rather put the time in once and be done with it.

It was recently suggested that a stone was not enough to flatten the back, that in addition to stones you should keep a piece of lapping film on a lapping plate to remove the burrs. OK, that's another step added to the routine. If you use a honing guide, that's a third step. All these little steps add up, and suddenly sharpening is a pain in the butt. I prefer to keep it simple, two stones and nothing else. That way sharpening doesn't interrupt my work routine.

I have no objection to the ruler trick. I do not deny that it works. I just prefer not to use it, for the above reasons.

[Jim Koepke]

I have no objection to the ruler trick. I do not deny that it works. I just prefer not to use it, for the above reasons.

+1 on that. If something is working for you, fine. If something else is working for me, fine.

It is amazing how evangelical folks get about creating a cutting edge on a piece of steel.

jtk

[ian maybury]

My instincts are much the same. It's less about absolute right and wrong than understanding what's going on between the iron and stone - and if necessary changing tack to respond to a new reality.

If for example a person works from a flat back on e.g. plane irons - but through a slip up (e.g. forgetting to flatten a waterstone frequently enough) manges to dub the edge then it's very possible that the next rational option is the ruler technique - or stropping - or something else that doesn't require a perfectly flat back.

This because it's not very realistic for example to cut back the maybe 5mm or more of the edge/bevel to get rid of it, or to thin the entire polished area of the back of the iron enough working on the flat over what is a big area to restore flatness.

[Pat Barry]

+1 on that. If something is working for you, fine. If something else is working for me, fine.

It is amazing how evangelical folks get about creating a cutting edge on a piece of steel.

jtk

I think you are forgetting Jim, that in the internet world we are part of, that there is a right way to do things, a best way, my way for example (LOL). You can choose to go your own way (and have by the sound of it). More power to you and I'm happy you get satisfactory results. This whole thread started because someone was frustrated and wondering why it was taking so long, more or less asking for help. Lots of responses and some degree of controversy ensued because not everyone does it the same. I bet you could put all the woodworkers in this forum together and walk through their respective sharpening processes and tools for sharpening and not find two that are the same. Sure their are similarities and maybe a handful of general methods shared by subgroups but not everyone does it the same way (nor do they have to in order to achieve acceptable results). On the other hand, if we don't have discussions like this, whether they are evangelical or not, that means everyone is in agreement and things are very boring.

[Jim Koepke]

(Clipped for brevity)

This whole thread started because someone was frustrated and wondering why it was taking so long, more or less asking for help. Lots of responses and some degree of controversy ensued because not everyone does it the same.

I bet you could put all the woodworkers in this forum together and walk through their respective sharpening processes...

Maybe it would have been better if I had done a +1 on the posts that may have actually addressed a possible cause of the OP's problem, unintended rocking of the blade while attempting to flatten the back. On a stone the swarf can lift the edges of the blade to cause this effect or prevent it from changing.

It is my tendency to bail out early on sharpening threads. My approach is to keep it simple. One plane meets another, no need for all the other tricks. For me, sharpening is a necessary part of woodworking, not a practice of rituals with secret handshakes and sacred incantations.

jtk

[Brian Holcombe]

Well, I feel I picked up a pretty worthwhile tip from this thread.

I've been using diamond plates to set bevels and flatten backs, more or less to my satisfaction with exception to the time commitment, and so I took to trying the Granite plate and sandpaper method and put it to use on some back flattening.

Working my way up from 120 grit through 600 on the plate, then going to stones. So far so good. I feel like I get a better finish at each level of grit by comparison to diamonds. I'm finishing up at 600 and the finish is very fine by comparison to diamonds. It doesnt take long at all to remove the minor dubbing on the 1k cho stone.

[ian maybury]

I'd tend to agree Brian - there's something 'scratchy' about the diamond plates I've used. When new anyway. As though they tend to have stray grits standing high or something.

The other issue for me is that they are definitely not all as flat as is desirable for back flattening and the like.

[Kees Heiden]

The tip that was the most usefull for me in this thread was KEEP THOSE STONES FLAT.

[Brian Holcombe]

Ian, I've noticed that, I think it is something to the effect of some standing high. It's interesting how much a different medium can affect the result of something that should be very similar.

As far as flatness goes my diamond plate seems to leave a lot to be desired, and I dont know if it is the plate itself or the result of it's use. Meaning I dont know if some fillings are causing it act out of flat, where the water on sandpaper does not.

Kee's, it's so very accurate. I literally work from one side of the stone to the other when lapping the back, then return, and by that point it needs to be flattened.