Stanley No. 4 with PM-V11 Experience

[Bill McDougal]

My first post here and I'm pretty sure I'm jumping into the deep end with a "product review". But, I wanted to share my experience with a Veritas PM-V11 blade and chip breaker combo in my old Stanley No. 4 Type 11 smoothing plane.

Some background first. I'm new to the hand tool world, and in keeping with the "deep end" theme, the first thing I built was a new workbench kind of in the Paul Sellers method. I picked up my plane on eBay, had some old crappy chisels, got a set of DMT Dia-Sharps, watched some videos, and went at it. A bunch of weekends, sore muscles, frustration, and learnings later, I ended with a bench that I really enjoy. It's only pine, but solid, didn't cost a fortune, and I don't mind accidentally hitting it with a saw, etc... Perfect for where I'm at skill-wise right now.

During that build, I also learned what sharp was, what dull was, and became very familiar with chatter. I'm going to move into smaller projects this winter and decided it was time for an upgrade in surface smoothing. I'll most likely get a better plane down the road, but for now, I decided to just upgrade the iron and chip breaker and see how that could help.

Here are my first observations as a complete amateur, or "just a guy in the garage".

Out of the box:
- The back on the Veritas blade was nice and flat. Fit and finish was very nice and matched up with the chip breaker perfectly. As much as I had tried, I couldn't get that old Stanley blade as flat as this one. I came close, but nothing like the Veritas.
- I had to open the mouth of my No. 4 about .020", or 0.5mm, to fit the new Veritas blade.
- The Vertias blade wasn't sharp enough to shave hair, but still out-performed the old Stanley blade on long grain even when the Stanley was sharp enough to shave hair.
- The Veritas absolutely blew the doors off the Stanley blade when using the shooting board on end grain. This was a "wow" moment. No more fighting end grain.

I then ran the Veritas blade through the progressions on the DMT's and finished it up on a leather strop with Chromium Oxide. Probably spent 20 minutes. Nothing fancy.

After the sharpening:
What a difference in performance. Back to the shooting board first and it was actually fun to use. A nice shiny finish on end grain and I can make slow passes on the wood. On long grain pine, I was able to get thin shavings, but more importantly, I was able to focus on what I was doing with the wood instead of having to focus on the plane. In other words, I can now focus on flatness and making perpendicular surfaces instead of being concerned with the plane itself. On oak, the performance was equally good ending up with a shiny smooth surface. I attached a picture and attempted to show the light shining off the piece on the right which had been planed. I still get some chatter, but it is much less than before. My guess is that is a result of 100 year-old plane technology combined with less than a year of user experience. Rubbing the sole of the plane with candle wax helped.

I haven't used it enough to comment on longevity of sharpness, but my conclusion is that if you are not ready to pull the trigger on a high-end plane, at least upgrade the iron and chip breaker in your old plane to some modern technology. Hope this helps.

-Bill

[Mike Henderson]

Welcome, Bill. I absolutely agree with you - the biggest improvement you can make to an older Stanley plane is the replace the iron with a modern iron. And the PM-V11 is an excellent iron.

Mike

[Bill McDougal]

Thank you Mike. Of course, what I want to know now is how good an equivalent LN or LV plane is in comparison!

[Allen Jordan]

A LN or LV plane won't really be any better than a well-tuned old stanley with a good blade/breaker. They just take little to no fettling to make work out of the box (and look pretty).

[Bill McDougal]

Thanks Allen. That's good to know because I just won an auction on a Type 12 No. 5 Jack for less than $50. I'll go through flattening the sole on the Jack like I did on the No. 4 and grind a camber on the original blade of the Jack like more a scrub plane. My plan is to swap the Veritas setup between the 4 and 5 when needed. But, I think the Veritas will spend most of it's time in the No. 4 smoother.

[Gary Cunningham]

I have IBC Pinnacle sets on several of my old Stanley planes. They are miles ahead of the old irons.

[Derek Cohen]

A LN or LV plane won't really be any better than a well-tuned old stanley with a good blade/breaker. They just take little to no fettling to make work out of the box (and look pretty).

Our West Australian (and Australian) woods generally contain a high level of silica. This makes them particularly abrasive and hard on steel. I've experimented quite a bit with different steels, both in plane and bench chisel blades. A recent experience will highlight the attraction of some of the more "exotic" steels vs the more classic ones:

The older Clifton blades, which are hammered high carbon steel, are prized for the excellent edge they are able to achieve due to their refined grain. I have a couple of these. They dull after a dozen strokes in a LN #3. By contrast, A2 will last about 3 or 4 times this, and PM-V11 will outlast that by another 50 percent. Steel does make a difference .... but whether it is necessary will depend on the wood one work.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Frederick Skelly]

Welcome Bill!
Thanks for the review. I havent tried PMV11 yet but I replaced the original iron in my MF#9 with an LV in A2. Much better.

Never tried that blade for shooting though - am heading out to the garage to try right now.:D

[Bill McDougal]

Derek,

Thanks for the confirmation of dulling "after a couple of dozen strokes". Up north we have "pine" in the big box stores which is from New Zealand. It is soft, but beats up my Stanley blades something awful. By the way, I have never made it to Perth, but have been to Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide. I really enjoy Australia and hope to return someday soon.

-Bill

[Bill McDougal]

Thank you Frederick. The shooting board was my favorite part. Now I can go after end grain with slow deliberate strokes. With the Stanley blade, I had to "make a run at it" and hope the plane didn't bounce off of the wood.

[Bill McDougal]

Gary,

Those are thicker than the Veritas irons aren't they? If so, did you have any issues fitting them to older planes?

[Stewie Simpson]

Derek,

Thanks for the confirmation of dulling "after a couple of dozen strokes". Up north we have "pine" in the big box stores which is from New Zealand. It is soft, but beats up my Stanley blades something awful. By the way, I have never made it to Perth, but have been to Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide. I really enjoy Australia and hope to return someday soon.

-Bill

Bill; if the Stanley blades aren't coping with soft Tasmanian Pine, most likely the fault isn't with the steel. Some seek the assurance offered within exotic steels without fully understanding their is a lot of scope available within traditional steels to increase the longevity of the cutting edge. Taking the steel to a higher level of grit honing is 1 option. You also have the option to add a slight increase to the secondary bevel. It should be remembered that the traditional 25/30 rule is only there as a basic guideline, open to change dependant on the type of wood being worked. The old craftsmen were well aware of this. But the modern scribes tend to stick to its fundamentals like bees to honey, and then whinge and whine, when the cutting edge fails to hold up to more abrasive timbers, and that the only answer is to turn to exotic steels.

Stewie;

[Bill McDougal]

Ahhh! I was waiting for that reply. It is most likely user error/inexperience. However, if I can correct that (or shorten the learning curve) for a few $$, I'll take it. :)

[steven c newman]

Sometimes, when you put one of the "New & Improved irons in a plane...thicker is better thinking.....only to find out the tab at the end of the depth adjustor yoke will NOT even touch the slot way up in the chipbreaker. That tab has to go through the thick as all get out iron to reach the slot in the chipbreaker. I guess then one adjusts those new irons with a hammer's whack or three?

[Patrick Chase]

Bill; if the Stanley blades aren't coping with soft Tasmanian Pine, most likely the fault isn't with the steel. Some seek the assurance offered within exotic steels without fully understanding their is a lot of scope available within traditional steels to increase the longevity of the cutting edge.

I think that this is actually a very good way of stating it - A quality traditional HCS in the hands of a good craftsman will always outperform even the best exotic steel in the hands of a neophyte. It's the archer not the arrow, etc.

With that said, modern metallurgy *does* give us some options our forefathers didn't have, and IMO there's nothing wrong with taking full advantage of those. There's room for more than one approach, and it doesn't detract from the value or significance of your skills if somebody new to the hobby takes advantage of technology to speed up the learning curve a bit.

Playing devil's advocate a bit, why would I fiddle with bevel/clearance angles to optimize my blade for each wood if I can get an exotic alloy blade that Just Works (tm) at 25/30? I personally mess with angles a LOT (which is why I maintain that spreadsheet 'o' blades that you and others have had a good laugh about in the past) because I'm into that sort of thing, but I can see the contrary perspective as well. Some people just don't want to worry about that stuff.

[Patrick Chase]

Sometimes, when you put one of the "New & Improved irons in a plane...thicker is better thinking.....only to find out the tab at the end of the depth adjustor yoke will NOT even touch the slot way up in the chipbreaker. That tab has to go through the thick as all get out iron to reach the slot in the chipbreaker. I guess then one adjusts those new irons with a hammer's whack or three?

The Hock or Veritas replacement irons (0.095" and 0.100" thick respectively) aren't known to cause that particular problem. We're talking about a 15-20 mil difference in yoke engagement here.

Trying to put a 1/8" thick L-N or made-for-Veritas-planes iron in could ruin your day, though.

[Warren Mickley]

Thank you Mike. Of course, what I want to know now is how good an equivalent LN or LV plane is in comparison!

I have been to about seven LN hand tool events and tried their planes at every one. If you are not getting better results with the Stanley with original iron than the LN, something is very wrong.

[peter Joseph]

I have close to a full set of Stanley's, most with replacement irons, and will say that while they function quite well, they are not Lie Nielsen's and will never be. Only you can decide if the disparity in cost is worth it, but I can't devise an argument towards not picking up a bronze #4 at some point.

[Mike Holbrook]

I have a collection of Stanley planes, LA Veritas planes and a couple of the newer Custom LV planes. I also have a Blum plane and a few other wood planes I made from Steve Knight parts and a couple made by Steve himself.

I think a good deal depends on what you are use to. Any of these systems can produce very good results, which is why they all have advocates. The Norris adjusters, used in Veritas planes, are much quicker to make adjustments, in my experience, particularly when compared to Stanleys. That is, smaller movements of the adjustments make more change at the blade. There is often slack/dead space that must be taken up before adjustments start to move things with the Stanley system. If you are use to this and have a good feel for the adjustment pressures and positions, you may have very few problems with it, if not it can be frustrating. If you get acquainted with the tap/tap system on wood or even metal planes it can be just as fast or faster. The tap/tap system probably requires the most complex skill set though.

There are a few additional features unique to Veritas planes. There are set screws that can be adjusted to hold the blade in an exact spot. These planes also typically have adjustable mouths with set screws that can limit their travel. The handles on Veritas panes are different than either Stanley or LN planes. The new Custom Veritas planes offer several different handle options, one of which is more similar to Stanley planes and one more like the old Veritas handles. The front knobs and frog angles are also customizable. Another feature that may or may not be desirable is the weight of the planes. The Veritas planes tend to have lower centers of gravity and more weight.

[Michael L. Martin]

Nice work on the bench Bill! Looks like an excellent start to the workshop.

[Mark Gibney]

If Bill's original Stanley blade is dulling very quickly could it have been over heated at a grinder by a previous owner and have lost it's temper?


This is always a potential issue when buying older tools, I've read, but not something I know enough about to do more than pose the question.

[Robin Frierson]

"The older Clifton blades, which are hammered high carbon steel, are prized for the excellent edge they are able to achieve due to their refined grain."

I have a few Clifton planes( 4 1/2, 6, 7 and 410) and also found they were the sharpest irons I had but they didnt last as long. I kept one Clifton iron in a bedrock 4 1/2 for smoothing but replaced the rest with A2 LN irons with the exception of the little 410. I also like the the two piece Clifton chipbreakers.

I havent tried the new metal irons...For me working with mostly domestic hardwoods A2 last long enough.

[Mike Brady]

Gary, did you have any issues fitting them to older planes?

Bill, he did mention that he opened the mouth of the plane to accommodate the PM-V11 iron. This keeps me from trying one, for the reasons stated by Steve Newman: A too-thick iron often leads to adjustment difficulties because the adjuster tab does not fully engage the slot in the chip breaker. I don't think its a problem with every Stanley plane, but I'm not ready to experiment with my planes to find out. Why not just manufacture the irons in the original thickness?

[Derek Cohen]

I have fitted PM-V11 blades to a UK-made (circa 1960) Stanley #3 and Type 11 Stanley #4 1/2, #604 and #605. No problem fitting any of these. No modifications needed.

Keep in mind, if you are using the chipbreaker to control tearout, the mouth need to be slightly open.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Ray Selinger]

As I'm shaping and sharpening old blades for 5 planes, I think LV blade and cap iron are a Great Idea. It's pretty labourous, repairing the bevel from the previous owners attempts, flattening and polishing the bevel side, some are bent and the factory's grind can be pretty coarse, (this will cut down on chatter and ease adjustment) then of course doing that first proper sharpening. After all that you achieve something that almost as good, or in the case of PM-VII , half as good.

[Patrick Chase]

I think a good deal depends on what you are use to. Any of these systems can produce very good results, which is why they all have advocates.

A good deal depends on your sharpening system.

It's no coincidence that people who use natural stones (Arks or JNats) strongly prefer eutectoid low-alloy steels as found in classic Stanley blades or White steel, because those steels are basically the upper limit of what their stones can hone to ideal sharpness. I think that Brian Holcombe in particular does a very good job of acknowledging and explaining this interaction, and his posts are worth a read (and you really can't argue with his results).

[Patrick Chase]

"The older Clifton blades, which are hammered high carbon steel, are prized for the excellent edge they are able to achieve due to their refined grain."

I have a few Clifton planes( 4 1/2, 6, 7 and 410) and also found they were the sharpest irons I had but they didnt last as long.

That's a fundamental tradeoff in metallurgy. The Cliftons and the old Stanleys are low-alloy Carbon steels. They have refined grain structures as Derek says because they have low carbide content. That's also what enables you to hone them on natural stones. Low carbide content leads to relatively poor wear life as both you and Derek described.

That's why powdered metallurgy a la PM-V11 is such a big deal : It enables relatively fine grain structure (though still not as fine as HCS) in a high-alloy/high-carbide steel.

[Reinis Kanders]

I have recently been using both type of blades, PMV11 replacement and original stanley in my old No.4. Both do their job, stanley is way quicker to touch up on a washita stone, I got PMV11 blade just for the kicks, there is really no other need for it with the typical NA wood I work with.

[Patrick Chase]

I have recently been using both type of blades, PMV11 replacement and original stanley in my old No.4. Both do their job, stanley is way quicker to touch up on a washita stone, I got PMV11 blade just for the kicks, there is really no other need for it with the typical NA wood I work with.

I've honed PM-V11 on Norton hard white and Dan's translucent Arks. You can get decent results that way (which is something you can't really say about A2) but it's slow going as you say.

If I limited myself to Arks exclusively and didn't work exotics then I'd probably prefer HCS too. As one might expect, 19th century tool steels turn out to be well matched to 19th century honing techniques/media.

[Warren Mickley]

A good deal depends on your sharpening system.

It's no coincidence that people who use natural stones (Arks or JNats) strongly prefer eutectoid low-alloy steels as found in classic Stanley blades or White steel, because those steels are basically the upper limit of what their stones can hone to ideal sharpness. I think that Brian Holcombe in particular does a very good job of acknowledging and explaining this interaction, and his posts are worth a read (and you really can't argue with his results).

We use vintage irons because of superior performance. I have never seen a high alloy plane iron that yields a surface in the same ballpark as the surfaces from vintage irons. I would usually sharpen an iron before it got as poor as a freshly sharpened alloy iron.

[Pat Barry]

We use vintage irons because of superior performance. I have never seen a high alloy plane iron that yields a surface in the same ballpark as the surfaces from vintage irons. I would usually sharpen an iron before it got as poor as a freshly sharpened alloy iron.
I can't imagine a reason that you would get a better surface with your old Stanley as compared to a new PMV11. It makes me think you just haven't given the new stuff a fair shot. Probably makes sense because you are totally happy with the vintage tools. You have learned how to get optimum performance for yourself from the school of hard knocks. For new people the extra durability of the PMV11 makes a lot of practical sense. For you, you are so good at the quick honing process you can hone and get back to work very quickly. That's not as reasonable for hobbyists. There is no doubt that sharpness = surface quality. I doubt that PMV11 can't be made just as sharp as your old Stanley and the edge should be much more durable with PMV11.

[Patrick Chase]

I can't imagine a reason that you would get a better surface with your old Stanley as compared to a new PMV11. It makes me think you just haven't given the new stuff a fair shot. Probably makes sense because you are totally happy with the vintage tools. You have learned how to get optimum performance for yourself from the school of hard knocks. For new people the extra durability of the PMV11 makes a lot of practical sense. For you, you are so good at the quick honing process you can hone and get back to work very quickly. That's not as reasonable for hobbyists. There is no doubt that sharpness = surface quality. I doubt that PMV11 can't be made just as sharp as your old Stanley and the edge should be much more durable with PMV11.

We already know that Warren uses Arks. Everything he's said in this thread is valid if you attach one tiny little footnote: "This comment is true for people who hone like it's 1899"

PM-V11 still contains carbides, albeit much smaller ones than a conventional steel of roughly similar composition (D2). Natural stones can't cut those carbides, so if you're going for absolute maximum sharpness and using Arks then PM-V11 won't do quite as well as old eutectoid/hypoeutectoid low-alloy steels due to micro-chipping of the edge. That's where Warren appears to be coming from, and he's right for that specific honing process.

In my experience most people don't even notice the difference because the grain structure in PM-V11 is *very* fine. I noticed it once I got beyond a certain point, and that's one of the reasons why I've been steadily shifting towards diamond pastes/films, which have no such limitations with any tool steel. Interestingly, Rob Lee has mentioned that he's made a similar progression...

[Brian Holcombe]

If you have seen Warren's work in person you may start honing like it's 1899. :p

FWIW the Kezurou-Kai Japan winners use High carbon steel blades and finish them with natural stones, they're literally sharpening the same way that things have been sharpened for hundreds of years and yet they're able to produce a 3 micron shaving (or thinner!). That is something that requires the ultimate in sharpness. When you consider that the technology used by these guys to tune their blades (200x microscopes, etc) one would imagine that if alloy blades could make a blade as sharp or sharper then they would be using them.

WRT to the OP, I think that more work needs to be done on that plane and blade if you are still getting chatter. The shavings should be coming straight up and out of that plane, not turning into fuss.

[Patrick Chase]

If you have seen Warren's work in person you may start honing like it's 1899. :p

Very likely true. I couldn't resist the lyrical reference though.

[Patrick Chase]

FWIW the Kezurou-Kai Japan winners use High carbon steel blades and finish them with natural stones, they're literally sharpening the same way that things have been sharpened for hundreds of years and yet they're able to produce a 3 micron shaving (or thinner!). That is something that requires the ultimate in sharpness. When you consider that the technology used by these guys to tune their blades (200x microscopes, etc) one would imagine that if alloy blades could make a blade as sharp or sharper then they would be using them.

To be clear, nobody with a basic understanding of metallurgy would claim that a high-alloy blade would be sharper immediately after honing than a low-alloy one of similar quality. Whether they can be "as sharp" depends on a lot of specifics, starting with how you measure. In any case the main benefit of alloy steel is increased abrasion resistance, which translates into increased sharpness after the blade has seen some use.

If I'm not mistaken a Kezurou-Kai competitor only needs to get a very limited number of extremely fine shavings out of a blade before they re-hone. The thin shavings keep the forces on the edge relatively light, and that combined with the low shaving count means that their irons don't need to be at all abrasion resistant. It's basically a corner-case, "poster child" application for high-initial-sharpness, low-wear-resistance steels. Where I think we get into trouble is when we try to generalize from niche applications like that to broader conclusions about the relative merits of steels/stones/etc for real woodworking.

Like most other people, my "real world" planing consists of taking much higher numbers of much thicker shavings, both of which amplify the impact of abrasion/wear. I like PM alloy steels a lot precisely because they're fine enough grained to at least be "in the hunt" in terms of initial sharpness with modern sharpening media, while having sufficiently greater wear resistance that they're unambiguously ahead in terms of average sharpness across even a short planing session.

[Pat Barry]

If you have seen Warren's work in person you may start honing like it's 1899. :p

FWIW the Kezurou-Kai Japan winners use High carbon steel blades and finish them with natural stones, they're literally sharpening the same way that things have been sharpened for hundreds of years and yet they're able to produce a 3 micron shaving (or thinner!). That is something that requires the ultimate in sharpness. When you consider that the technology used by these guys to tune their blades (200x microscopes, etc) one would imagine that if alloy blades could make a blade as sharp or sharper then they would be using them.

WRT to the OP, I think that more work needs to be done on that plane and blade if you are still getting chatter. The shavings should be coming straight up and out of that plane, not turning into fuss.
I'd love to even see some pictures of Warren work.

[Gary Cunningham]

Gary,

Those are thicker than the Veritas irons aren't they? If so, did you have any issues fitting them to older planes?


Some needed the mouth filed, some fit w/no filing.

[Jerry Olexa]

Enjoyed reading your post....I detected the joy you are having with your "firsts"...I actually miss that now that I have built many pieces, tried various sharpening methods, used many planes...although it is still fun, the "first" time is always the best..I remember my first Dovetails or my first F/P, or first raised panels...Enjoy it all..Thanks for sharing your post.

[Brian Holcombe]

To be clear, nobody with a basic understanding of metallurgy would claim that a high-alloy blade would be sharper immediately after honing than a low-alloy one of similar quality. Whether they can be "as sharp" depends on a lot of specifics, starting with how you measure. In any case the main benefit of alloy steel is increased abrasion resistance, which translates into increased sharpness after the blade has seen some use.

If I'm not mistaken a Kezurou-Kai competitor only needs to get a very limited number of extremely fine shavings out of a blade before they re-hone. The thin shavings keep the forces on the edge relatively light, and that combined with the low shaving count means that their irons don't need to be at all abrasion resistant. It's basically a corner-case, "poster child" application for high-initial-sharpness, low-wear-resistance steels. Where I think we get into trouble is when we try to generalize from niche applications like that to broader conclusions about the relative merits of steels/stones/etc for real woodworking.

Like most other people, my "real world" planing consists of taking much higher numbers of much thicker shavings, both of which amplify the impact of abrasion/wear. I like PM alloy steels a lot precisely because they're fine enough grained to at least be "in the hunt" in terms of initial sharpness with modern sharpening media, while having sufficiently greater wear resistance that they're unambiguously ahead in terms of average sharpness across even a short planing session.

I mention Kezurou-Kai as an extreme example to provide some insight as to wether or not HC steel can be made keener. I do also use a few alloy steels, one is Togo Kou and the other being Blue steel 1, both are also sharpened on natural stones. That might surprise someone looking at the contents of both of those steels. I've taken 12 micron clear shavings with Togo Kou suggesting my sharpening procedure is successful.

Some tools are just very hard to find in white steel 1, so many joinery planes or small planes are blue steel 1 and not offered in other steels. Blue 1 is easier to forge with success and so it keeps joinery planes less expensive being that the majority of attempts will be successful. There is a high failure rate with very high carbon white steel in the forging process which is one of the reasons why it is more expensive.

I cannot use loose diamonds with Japanese tools due to the lamination, they readily embed into the iron and begin to abrade the substrate rather than the opposite way around.

I prefer plain HC steels in all areas of my work and also prefer vintage irons. They're easier to refresh and maintain a more even wear. I do still use A2 in a few planes (not by preference) and I resharpened it sooner than my plain HC steel blades becuase it does not wear as evenly.

So bringing things back to being relevant to this threads OP, the replacement iron is not doing something that the original iron could not be made to do unless it was somehow damaged (ruined temper or ground incorrectly).

[Jason Lester]

As a relative beginner too with handplanes, I did have problems in the beginning with stock blades, chipbreaker setup, sharpness, etc. I bought the Veritas PM-V11 blades and cap irons as well for a #5 and #8. I immediately started getting better results. The chatter was gone, they were sharp enough to actually use out of the box, etc. I know now it was my ability to sharpen and setup the plane that was causing my initial problems. I have since purchased more antique Stanley's and successfully tuned them and sharpened them just as well. The PM-V11 does retain the edge better in a "usable" sharpness for me. It is more difficult to sharpen though. I guess my point is that purchasing the aftermarket setup kept me from getting too frustrated with being able to successfully use a handplane. I had tried and given up multiple times in the past prior to that.

[Patrick Chase]

I agree with everything Brian says, so I'll just bring out a couple points...



I cannot use loose diamonds with Japanese tools due to the lamination, they readily embed into the iron and begin to abrade the substrate rather than the opposite way around.

Indeed. I chose diamond pastes as an extreme example, because they hone everything well. Quality alumina (most synthetic waterstones) or alumina ceramic (Spyderco) stones are sufficient for relatively honing-friendly alloys like PM-V11. Also, diamond films deliver almost all of the benefits of paste without the hassle of loose diamonds.




So bringing things back to being relevant to this threads OP, the replacement iron is not doing something that the original iron could not be made to do unless it was somehow damaged (ruined temper or ground incorrectly).

Indeed. The OP's remark that a not-completely-sharp Veritas blade "still out-performed the old Stanley blade on long grain even when the Stanley was sharp enough to shave hair" seems off. They should perform comparably when freshly honed, with any difference only becoming apparent after use.

The OP's repeated remarks about "chatter" may be a clue. In my experience that usually means that something isn't seated right. You shouldn't need a thicker replacement blade to avoid that. Perhaps the Stanley blade is warped?

[john zulu]

I am not sure about a PM V11 blade making a vast improvement in cutting...... I have A2 and PM V11 blades on my veritas tools. Both are equally sharp but PM V11 sharpness last longer.
As for the Stanley blades it is thin which I don't quite like but easy to sharpen as it is thinner. The Stanley blades don't last even a day at times.

I found the Veritas chipbreaker a very good upgrade for the Stanley handplane. Worth the value.

[Brian Holcombe]

I agree with everything Brian says, so I'll just bring out a couple points...



Indeed. I chose diamond pastes as an extreme example, because they hone everything well. Quality alumina (most synthetic waterstones) or alumina ceramic (Spyderco) stones are sufficient for relatively honing-friendly alloys like PM-V11. Also, diamond films deliver almost all of the benefits of paste without the hassle of loose diamonds.




Indeed. The OP's remark that a not-completely-sharp Veritas blade "still out-performed the old Stanley blade on long grain even when the Stanley was sharp enough to shave hair" seems off. They should perform comparably when freshly honed, with any difference only becoming apparent after use.

The OP's repeated remarks about "chatter" may be a clue. In my experience that usually means that something isn't seated right. You shouldn't need a thicker replacement blade to avoid that. Perhaps the Stanley blade is warped?

Could be a number of things;

Good chance that the back is not flat and so it's not seating with the chip breaker and instead of taking nice cuts with that blade as 'razor sharp' as it is, it's just jamming chips.

Chatter could be due to the blade being warped or incorrectly seated, but also likely that the bevel is too shallow and it won't actually stay in the cut.

The fact that the chatter remains suggest something is not seating correctly or that possibly the sole is out of flat.

This is my armchair assessment (quite literally as I'm sitting at an armchair).

[Patrick Chase]

The Stanley blades don't last even a day at times.

OK, *this* made me chuckle. If you're getting a day out of any blade then it either has truly miraculous abrasion resistance, or your standards are on the low side.

[john zulu]

OK, *this* made me chuckle. If you're getting a day out of any blade then it either has truly miraculous abrasion resistance, or your standards are on the low side.

Resak similar to Jarrah. If meranti it can last a day no issue. My standards are normal........ Cut a piece of paper like butter is sharp to me....... Maybe too high a standard....

[Allen Jordan]

I mention Kezurou-Kai as an extreme example to provide some insight as to wether or not HC steel can be made keener. I do also use a few alloy steels, one is Togo Kou and the other being Blue steel 1, both are also sharpened on natural stones. That might surprise someone looking at the contents of both of those steels. I've taken 12 micron clear shavings with Togo Kou suggesting my sharpening procedure is successful.

Some tools are just very hard to find in white steel 1, so many joinery planes or small planes are blue steel 1 and not offered in other steels. Blue 1 is easier to forge with success and so it keeps joinery planes less expensive being that the majority of attempts will be successful. There is a high failure rate with very high carbon white steel in the forging process which is one of the reasons why it is more expensive.

I cannot use loose diamonds with Japanese tools due to the lamination, they readily embed into the iron and begin to abrade the substrate rather than the opposite way around.

I prefer plain HC steels in all areas of my work and also prefer vintage irons. They're easier to refresh and maintain a more even wear. I do still use A2 in a few planes (not by preference) and I resharpened it sooner than my plain HC steel blades becuase it does not wear as evenly.

So bringing things back to being relevant to this threads OP, the replacement iron is not doing something that the original iron could not be made to do unless it was somehow damaged (ruined temper or ground incorrectly).

I've heard Konrad Sauer liken PM-V11 to O1 in terms of even wear rate. He dislikes A2 due to how quickly the initial razor edge is lost (though it stays "pretty sharp" for longer than O1), but praises the PM-V11.

[Patrick Chase]

I've heard Konrad Sauer liken PM-V11 to O1 in terms of even wear rate. He dislikes A2 due to how quickly the initial razor edge is lost (though it stays "pretty sharp" for longer than O1), but praises the PM-V11.

His comments on the topic are worth reading: http://sauerandsteiner.blogspot.ca/2014/06/pm-v11.html

To be clear, he likens PM-V11 to O1 inasmuch as they both fail gradually and evenly across the edge. My experience is consistent with that. I've also experienced the chipping failure modes he describes with A2 and other large-carbide steels.

[Brian Holcombe]

That is a good read, I refrain from speaking of PM-V11 specifically because I have such little experience with it. I have plenty of experience with A2 and as such I dislike it greatly.

Konrad Saurer's experience with HC steel sounds very similar to my own.

[Stewie Simpson]

No modern PM or A2 steel alloys in any of my tools. W1 and 01 steel has served my needs and I work with some fairly tough Aussie timbers.

[Patrick Chase]

That is a good read, I refrain from speaking of PM-V11 specifically because I have such little experience with it. I have plenty of experience with A2 and as such I dislike it greatly.

Konrad Saurer's experience with HC steel sounds very similar to my own.

Sauer also links to Steve Elliot's page, which contains pretty interesting studies of initial sharpness as a function of honing media for various steels (http://bladetest.infillplane.com/html/initial_sharpness.html). His metric is the amount of force to cut a loop of thread, so lower scores are better. He also includes high-carbon steels in his edge-life measurements (http://bladetest.infillplane.com/html/edge_retention.html).

Note that the L-N A2 blade is significantly worse when honed with Al-Oxide waterstones (Norton and Shapton) than when honed with diamond or CrO. It would be much worse still on SiO2 media (Arks, JNats). This jibes with my own experience - I pretty much only use diamonds for A2 these days. He also was of the opinion that A2 had unacceptable chipping below 35 deg tip angle, so that's another variable to consider.

A2 is positively friendly compared to CPM-3V, which is a train wreck on everything but diamond in Steve's test. "V" is for Vanadium, and Vanadium carbide is harder than any honing media other than CBN and diamond, so this shouldn't be a surprise. It also illustrates that PM isn't a panacea. The hard stuff is still in there even if it's much smaller.

In my experience PM-V11 is more tolerant than A2. It doesn't get to peak sharpness on SiO2, but it does well on Al-Oxide.

EDIT: Clarified that "train wreck" applies to Steve's results. See Derek's reply :-)

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Patrick

I have honed CPN-3V very successfully on both Shapton and Sigma. I have both a chisel and a plane blade in this steel. Indeed, I have honed M4 on these stones as well.

What makes it easier, is to use a maximum hollow grind, thereby reducing the amount of steel to be honed.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Brian Holcombe]

Sauer also links to Steve Elliot's page, which contains pretty interesting studies of initial sharpness as a function of honing media for various steels (http://bladetest.infillplane.com/html/initial_sharpness.html). His metric is the amount of force to cut a loop of thread, so lower scores are better. He also includes high-carbon steels in his edge-life measurements (http://bladetest.infillplane.com/html/edge_retention.html).

Note that the L-N A2 blade is significantly worse when honed with Al-Oxide waterstones (Norton and Shapton) than when honed with diamond or CrO. It would be much worse still on SiO2 media (Arks, JNats). This jibes with my own experience - I pretty much only use diamonds for A2 these days. He also was of the opinion that A2 had unacceptable chipping below 35 deg tip angle, so that's another variable to consider.

A2 is positively friendly compared to CPM-3V, which is a train wreck on everything but diamond. "V" is for Vanadium, and Vanadium carbide is harder than any honing media other than CBN and diamond, so this shouldn't be a surprise. It also illustrates that PM isn't a panacea. The hard stuff is still in there even if it's much smaller.

In my experience PM-V11 is more tolerant than A2. It doesn't get to peak sharpness on SiO2, but it does well on Al-Oxide.

Thats interesting, just to appease my curiosity I would like to see these tests done with an ideal honing method for each steel. An 8k water stone is not ideal for high carbon steels which should be honed with either very fine Arks or Jnats or similar natural stones.

The best edge I get with A2 is likely done with a 13k sigma. It's fine to do that it just becomes annoying to retain all of these various methods for each steel. Eventually I'll phase out A2 from my shop.

Really I use for 2 tools, the LN 7 jointer and the LN 4 plane.....so if anyone has an o1 blade and wants to upgrade give me a holler. I've yet to find a consensus on another blade that works in the LN planes....Ken may have arrived at one but I was unsure if it worked out completely.

[Patrick Chase]

Hi Patrick

I have honed CPN-3V very successfully on both Shapton and Sigma. I have both a chisel and a plane blade in this steel. Indeed, I have honed M4 on these stones as well.

What makes it easier, is to use a maximum hollow grind, thereby reducing the amount of steel to be honed.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Ah, I remember that now. You did well with CPM-3V, but couldn't get an edge on CPM-10V.

If I had to guess I'd venture that the difference is due to processing (heat treatment, tempering, etc). Like all PM steels CPM-3V starts out with extremely fine grain, but the structure can coalesce or grow (for lack of better words, I'm sure somebody like Tony Zaffuto could do better) as a result of subsequent handling. 3V contains Vanadium carbide, and neither of the stones you listed can effectively abrade that, but it's possible that in your specific tool the VC crystals remained small enough that the resulting micro-chipping doesn't noticeably impact overall sharpness.

I suspect that may also be what happened with the Holtey A2 iron that Konrad Sauer describes as breaking down "more like O1".

[Patrick Chase]

No modern PM or A2 steel alloys in any of my tools. W1 and 01 steel has served my needs and I work with some fairly tough Aussie timbers.

This makes complete sense. If I had your preferences and requirements I'd do the same thing, and I have a fair number of HCS/O1 tools laying around for applications where I don't want to deal with the hassle of exotic honing materials/techniques.

My only objection was to the claim that specific alloys are "the best" or "superior", period. I don't think that any two people around here can agree on what attributes to consider when ranking irons, and even if they could they'd probably still have different preferences if they don't hone the same way. That's really been my only point in this entire discussion (that, and something besides a difference between steels is going on with the OP :-)

[James Waldron]

No modern PM or A2 steel alloys in any of my tools. W1 and 01 steel has served my needs and I work with some fairly tough Aussie timbers.



Are you criticizing those who don't stick with the "tried and true" W1 and O1 or is there some other point you're trying to make?

No one has said that those steels don't get quite sharp; how long they maintain that sharpness is an issue for some, not so much for others. And some like the time on the stones as much as the time using the edge. And quite a few folks don't have the stones for the A2 or PM-V11 or other PM alloys and many seem not to have gotten the memo about the limitations of softer abrasives for honing these demanding alloys.

It's a good thing that you do good work on fairly tough Aussie timbers with W1 and O1 blades. And we all know you produce some fine work, but it's fairly tough to find your reasoning for the implied rejecting (?)/avoiding (?)/demeaning (?) of the A2 and PM alloys.

I, for one, don't have access to your tough Aussie timber. I do work ipe at times, and I've done so with O1 blades with decent success. On the other hand, I've also learned that O1 isn't the easiest way to approach the wavy, interlocked grain of this incredibly hard wood and given a choice, I'll go with my PM-V11 every time. Sometimes I have to make do, because I don't have PM-V11 blades for every edge tool in my shop. When necessary, I follow Ronnie's mandate, HTFU and get on with it. And hope for an offering of PM-V11 replacements for a wider range of tools someday.

After all, I'm a sailor and used to hard ships.

[steven c newman]

Hmmm, things getting a bit combative here?

I'll just stick to the irons that came with the planes I buy. I seem to only need to sharpen them about every other project.....which is all I ask. Works for what I do in my little shop.

I have no need to go on some Grand Crusade about the latest & "greatest" steel.

I go pop the popcorn.......:rolleyes:

[Brian Holcombe]

Are you criticizing those who don't stick with the "tried and true" W1 and O1 or is there some other point you're trying to make?

No one has said that those steels don't get quite sharp; how long they maintain that sharpness is an issue for some, not so much for others. And some like the time on the stones as much as the time using the edge. And quite a few folks don't have the stones for the A2 or PM-V11 or other PM alloys and many seem not to have gotten the memo about the limitations of softer abrasives for honing these demanding alloys.

It's a good thing that you do good work on fairly tough Aussie timbers with W1 and O1 blades. And we all know you produce some fine work, but it's fairly tough to find your reasoning for the implied rejecting (?)/avoiding (?)/demeaning (?) of the A2 and PM alloys.

I, for one, don't have access to your tough Aussie timber. I do work ipe at times, and I've done so with O1 blades with decent success. On the other hand, I've also learned that O1 isn't the easiest way to approach the wavy, interlocked grain of this incredibly hard wood and given a choice, I'll go with my PM-V11 every time. Sometimes I have to make do, because I don't have PM-V11 blades for every edge tool in my shop. When necessary, I follow Ronnie's mandate, HTFU and get on with it. And hope for an offering of PM-V11 replacements for a wider range of tools someday.

After all, I'm a sailor and used to hard ships.

I think you may be reading into that reply far more than necessary. Stewie stated what he uses plain and simply, nothing offensive about what he's written there and provides evidence that hard woods can be worked with Olson HC steels with great success.

[Stewie Simpson]

Are you criticizing those who don't stick with the "tried and true" W1 and O1 or is there some other point you're trying to make?

No one has said that those steels don't get quite sharp; how long they maintain that sharpness is an issue for some, not so much for others. And some like the time on the stones as much as the time using the edge. And quite a few folks don't have the stones for the A2 or PM-V11 or other PM alloys and many seem not to have gotten the memo about the limitations of softer abrasives for honing these demanding alloys.

It's a good thing that you do good work on fairly tough Aussie timbers with W1 and O1 blades. And we all know you produce some fine work, but it's fairly tough to find your reasoning for the implied rejecting (?)/avoiding (?)/demeaning (?) of the A2 and PM alloys.

I, for one, don't have access to your tough Aussie timber. I do work ipe at times, and I've done so with O1 blades with decent success. On the other hand, I've also learned that O1 isn't the easiest way to approach the wavy, interlocked grain of this incredibly hard wood and given a choice, I'll go with my PM-V11 every time. Sometimes I have to make do, because I don't have PM-V11 blades for every edge tool in my shop. When necessary, I follow Ronnie's mandate, HTFU and get on with it. And hope for an offering of PM-V11 replacements for a wider range of tools someday.

After all, I'm a sailor and used to hard ships.

Jim; to better understand my reasoning for sticking with W1 and 01, you can refer to my comments in post # 18.


Bill; if the Stanley blades aren't coping with soft Tasmanian Pine, most likely the fault isn't with the steel. Some seek the assurance offered within exotic steels without fully understanding their is a lot of scope available within traditional steels to increase the longevity of the cutting edge. Taking the steel to a higher level of grit honing is 1 option. You also have the option to add a slight increase to the secondary bevel. It should be remembered that the traditional 25/30 rule is only there as a basic guideline, open to change dependant on the type of wood being worked. The old craftsmen were well aware of this. But the modern scribes tend to stick to its fundamentals like bees to honey, and then whinge and whine, when the cutting edge fails to hold up to more abrasive timbers, and that the only answer is to turn to exotic steels.

Stewie;

[Patrick Chase]

Are you criticizing those who don't stick with the "tried and true" W1 and O1 or is there some other point you're trying to make?

In both law and marketing there is a concept called "puffery", which refers to words or phrases that serve mostly to increase the attractiveness of a product or argument, but have no deeper meaning or implication beyond that. For example I've seen lots of people using words like "durable" to describe alloy steels. We all do it, and I'm sure that if we each looked back at our own posting history we'd find plenty of occurrences.

"Tried and true" as used in this context is utterly harmless puffery, no different from what's said in most any other post. Nothing worth objecting to there IMO, and no deeper implications to worry about. As Stewie points out he's already explained his actual reasoning in any case.

[Matt Lau]

I'll chime in. Hopefully, bring some peace to things.

First, I agree with both sides.

I love PMV-11. I find that PMV-11, M3, and other high speed steels handle fairly well to serious abuse (like rough dimensioning african blackwood or a nasty stump). PMV-11 takes a significantly nicer edge than my A2 LV blade or my Mujingfang blade (maybe I just can't sharpen).
PMV-11 and the mujinfang blade both hold a "working edge" that lasts far longer than most white steel.

With Lee valley's excellent quality control, I'm not spending half of a precious day lapping over exotic stones.

However, I LOVE good white steel and other simple high carbon. After Stan Covington sent me some chisels, I got hooked on the edge quality and longevity that good, superbly heat treated white steel can offer. I find that those chisels get sharper, faster, and last a significant amount of time on pretty much anything that I do on solid wood--however, I will never use it on plywood or carbon fiber.

Just like a certain plane shines in various situations and falls flat on others, Steel is the same.


Oh, and regarding old steel. A lot of it is better than most of the modern junk manufacturers (Stanley, Nicholsen). However, there may occasionally be a bad batch of steel at times.


To Bill the OP, just enjoy your blade! Also, please post pics of some of your work! Have fun with your new plane blade.

[Patrick Chase]

I'll chime in. Hopefully, bring some peace to things.

You're delusional if you actually believe that. Or was that just puffery designed to get people to read your post? :-)



However, I LOVE good white steel and other simple high carbon. After Stan Covington sent me some chisels, I got hooked on the edge quality and longevity that good, superbly heat treated white steel can offer. I find that those chisels get sharper, faster, and last a significant amount of time on pretty much anything that I do on solid wood--however, I will never use it on plywood or carbon fiber.

Please tell me you're not using *any* woodworking chisel (even Aldi etc) on carbon fiber? That stuff is brutally abrasive.

[Stewie Simpson]

Matt; a lot of the better vintage steels need to be sourced from the U.K. (imo)

I have no experience working with Japanese steels.

Stewie;

[ken hatch]

Thats interesting, just to appease my curiosity I would like to see these tests done with an ideal honing method for each steel. An 8k water stone is not ideal for high carbon steels which should be honed with either very fine Arks or Jnats or similar natural stones.

The best edge I get with A2 is likely done with a 13k sigma. It's fine to do that it just becomes annoying to retain all of these various methods for each steel. Eventually I'll phase out A2 from my shop.

Really I use for 2 tools, the LN 7 jointer and the LN 4 plane.....so if anyone has an o1 blade and wants to upgrade give me a holler. I've yet to find a consensus on another blade that works in the LN planes....Ken may have arrived at one but I was unsure if it worked out completely.

Brian,

Veritas Stanley replacement iron (O-1 or PM) and Hock O-1 will work in LN planes with a light grinding of the cap iron adjustment opening. Ron Hock posted about that mod on his web site a couple of weeks ago. I wish he had done it earlier, it would have saved me a lot of butt scratching and trouble working through a fix to LN planes. I still do not understand LN discontinuing O-1 irons.

Because I use natural stones for honing, for reasons of "feel" and edge quality, there is no A-2 iron in my shop.

As an aside, without the 'fix" all my LN planes except one would be gathering dust.

ken

[Brian Holcombe]

Thanks Ken! I ordered one so I can finally stop my whining on this issue.

[Stewie Simpson]

I agree with Ken; I don't fully understand LNs logic in offering A2 only.

Stewie;

[george wilson]

A bit about VINTAGE English steels: I just spent $200.00 on a mint condition vintage English knife of GOOD brand. The blade is still as bright as the day it was made. Nice stag handles. When I try to get a razor sharp edge on it,little bits crumble from the edge.

England used to get their best iron from Sweden. It came in 4 grades of "hoop iron",that were priced by the ton. Swedish iron was smelted with charcoal,not COAL. They had plenty of trees. They also had better ore. English made steel always had problems because they used coal. They did not understand chemistry at the time. Sulfur got into their iron and caused problems that the Swedish iron didn't have. The English didn't know why this was at the time. It made their steel what blacksmiths called "Hot short". Cracked and split easily when very hot.




I think this is what is wrong with this knife,very disappointing. I will not buy another, tempting looking as they are. No way of telling if English or Swedish steel was used. I love the severity and all business appearance of old English and German knives. Your good old English plane irons MIGHT have been made from Swedish steel. I think the vintage English irons I used and liked may have had Swedish iron in them,too.