Features of Veritas Custom planes I find helpful

[Mike Holbrook]

I have been following a suggestion Warren Mickley made in a post regarding reducing the number of planes I use, in order to become more capable/intimate with each tool. I bought LV Custom #4 and Custom #5 1/2 planes in the last year and I have been using them to: make raised panels, make tapered, octagonal chair legs from 2x2 oak, level rough cherry lumber with all sorts of issues. I find that I have come to rely on certain features of the Veritas Custom planes. Discussing each feature individually made for a very long post so I thought I would break the post up into pieces so that each feature has a better chance of getting discussed.

1) First I find that I use the adjustable mouths a great deal. I miss this feature the most when I pick up a vintage plane. I should add that my wood planes also have adjustable mouths which has helped solidify my interest. I often start with a wide mouth to make sure I can pass shavings and then narrow it down to an optimal size for the wood and camber (or relative lack of camber) in the blade I am using. I find adjustable mouths particularly helpful when using cambered blades as the curved blades and the shavings they produce often benefit from precise mouth opening adjustment. I also find it helpful to be able to open the mouth up when I am inserting a blade I just sharpened. I am not sure how much damage touching the sharp blade to the planes mouth might actually cause, but I cringe if it happens. The set screw in these plane mouths allow me to return the mouth to the same opening it was at before opening it up to install the sharp blade. This feature translates into my sharpening more often and regularly making mouth adjustments that are hard/impossible to do with fixed mouth planes

[george wilson]

On the subject of adjustable mouth planes: One of my favorite of the coffin smoothers(English),is the one which has a 1/4" thick steel or cast iron plate in front of the mouth. These planes have a screw on their top surface which can be loosened,and the iron sole can be tapped backwards to make the mouth as tight as wanted. By tapping on the front of the plane,the mouth can be made wider.

The front edge of the steel plate on all the planes of this type which I have seen,is rounded off into a perfect hemisphere. I did this on the brass "Nessie" shoulder plane which I have posted before. It also has an adjustable front sole,much after this fashion.

Old My Simms prized his highly,and I never could find one for myself. Finally when in England,my wife and I went to that famous street,Portobello Road,in London, where they cut off traffic on Saturday (Sunday?) and have a large flea market. I managed to find a really beat up example which was cracked and too messed up to suit me at all. They wanted the ridiculous price of either 150 or 250 pounds!! Forget that.

I had already made such a plane for myself from an ordinary coffin smoother. I raised my table saw blade to just shy of 1/4",and ran the front of the plane over it till I had a nice,accurate place to place an iron front sole. It is of the greatest importance for the steel sole to be perfectly parallel,and at the same height as the wooden sole behind it. After cleaning the surface up with a chisel,I made a plate from 1/4" mild steel. I traced the shape of the plane on it,sawed it out and filed it to the scribe line to fit the plane. I drilled a hole vertically through the center of the flat area at the front of the plane. A 1/4 /20 brass screw was tapped into the steel plate,most of the way through. It was set into an inlaid thick brass plate to keep the head of the brass screw from gradually sinking into the wood from being turned for adjustment.

Be sure to not slam the front of this type plane into something when you are pushing it. The steel toe will go back and hit the blade. Could do significant damage.So far I have not done this!

The plane I made it from was not in as perfect shape as I could wish,but it was and is in perfectly usable condition. There is a small crack at the top of the escapement,where the wedge emerges. A common thing in planes of this type.

I used it for many years in the Musical Instrument Maker's Shop,and still have it. I never did find a nice English example that I could buy. Suffer,suffer,suffer!

If you like adjustable mouth planes,you might consider doing this to a regular coffin smoother. It isn't hard to make the parts. In fact,these steel mouths were sold separately in old tool catalogs I have seen. I am sure that some of the planes which have turned up may have been converted to the steel toed style by their owners. Sorry,I see the pictures are not sharp as I was using the blasted self focusing Canon mini camera at the time. No telling what it decided to focus on!:) You get the idea,though.

[Patrick Chase]

I have been following a suggestion Warren Mickley made in a post regarding reducing the number of planes I use, in order to become more capable/intimate with each tool. I bought LV Custom #4 and Custom #5 1/2 planes in the last year and I have been using them to: make raised panels, make tapered, octagonal chair legs from 2x2 oak, level rough cherry lumber with all sorts of issues. I find that I have come to rely on certain features of the Veritas Custom planes. Discussing each feature individually made for a very long post so I thought I would break the post up into pieces so that each feature has a better chance of getting discussed.

1) First I find that I use the adjustable mouths a great deal. I miss this feature the most when I pick up a vintage plane. I should add that my wood planes also have adjustable mouths which has helped solidify my interest. I often start with a wide mouth to make sure I can pass shavings and then narrow it down to an optimal size for the wood and camber (or relative lack of camber) in the blade I am using. I find adjustable mouths particularly helpful when using cambered blades as the curved blades and the shavings they produce often benefit from precise mouth opening adjustment. I also find it helpful to be able to open the mouth up when I am inserting a blade I just sharpened. I am not sure how much damage touching the sharp blade to the planes mouth might actually cause, but I cringe if it happens. The set screw in these plane mouths allow me to return the mouth to the same opening it was at before opening it up to install the sharp blade. This feature translates into my sharpening more often and regularly making mouth adjustments that are hard/impossible to do with fixed mouth planes


Cambering and therefore longer extension doesn't cause the edge of a blade to hit the mouth as you describe. If it doesn't hit at zero extension then it won't hit at any other extension either. Where you typically get into trouble is that you take thicker shavings with a cambered blade, and those will jam between the iron and the mouth if the mouth is too tight.

Playing devil's advocate a bit: Why not just leave the mouth open far enough to accommodate the thickest shaving you will ever take? What benefit are you getting by closing it down? Why do you consider a tight mouth "optimal"?

Also, most vintage planes have adjustable frogs, which provide a means of adjusting the mouth (unless you insist on having the frog lined up with the sole for some bizarre and incomprehensible reason :-)

[george wilson]

Tight mouths help against tearing because they force the chip to turn up an a steep angle somewhat like a closely set chip breaker does. Not as effective,but better than a sharp stick in the eye!!

[Patrick Chase]

Tight mouths help against tearing because they force the chip to turn up an a steep angle somewhat like a closely set chip breaker does. Not as effective,but better than a sharp stick in the eye!!

Agreed, but with two caveats:

1. They have to be *really* tight to work that way, on the order of mils. I often set the mouths of my BU planes to about 10 mils (using plastic shim stock) and while that prevents truly disastrous tearout it doesn't do much for the small-scale stuff.

2. Mike's plane is a BD plane with a cap iron, and combining a close-set cap iron with a tight mouths can be problematic due to jamming. A close-set cap iron works better to prevent tearout than does closing down the mouth (at least for me), so in his situation my first instinct would be to leave the mouth open and adjust the cap iron instead.

Like I said, I was being a devil's advocate there. I can see the arguments both ways, I mostly want to see Mike's rationale.

[allen long]

I don't have any caveats to George's comment. Tight mouth, wide mouth are all better than a stick in the eye every time!

[Mike Holbrook]

George thanks for sharing the pictures and description of the adjustable mouth on your coffin smother above. The mouths on my wood planes are just simple sliding blocks of wood held in place with a screw. I do remember how long I spent trying to grind the wood Steve Knight sent me for mouths even with the plane bottoms, IPE I think.

Patrick there are two different scenarios I was referring to above. When I mentioned the blade touching the mouth I was referring to placing a newly sharpened blade back in the plane after sharpening it. My hands are not as steady as they once were and I hate trying to get a sharp blade back in a tight mouth without banging it against the frog or mouth in the process.

I ordered my #4 with a 42 degree frog. I ordered the #5 1/2 with a 40, a standard size, because I liked the 42. I was sort of testing the limits for tear out with a BD plane with a chip breaker. I have been getting more tear out than I would like even with a sharp blade and closely set chip breaker. There is, of course, a problem with setting the chip breaker close on a cambered blade. Then there is the fact that the chip made by a cambered blade is thinner on the edges which can cause them to curl weirdly at times. I realize that a tight mouth, as discussed on these pages many times, is not the ultimate solution but it can help. I have found that slowly tightening the mouth, using the set screw on custom Veritas planes can "dial in" a mouth opening that does not jam but keeps the chips exiting more smoothly. The tighter mouth also, as George mentions, helps with tear out with the lower angled frogs I have been using.

I will probably order second frogs for both 2" & 2 3/8" blades, probably 50 degrees or more. The ability to attain custom made frogs for these planes is another reason I am interested in them. Ordering other frogs has been part of my plan for these planes. I just decided to test the limits at the low angle first. I am interested in hearing suggestions for two frog angles for these planes.

[Derek Cohen]

I have been following a suggestion Warren Mickley made in a post regarding reducing the number of planes I use, in order to become more capable/intimate with each tool. I bought LV Custom #4 and Custom #5 1/2 planes in the last year and I have been using them to: make raised panels, make tapered, octagonal chair legs from 2x2 oak, level rough cherry lumber with all sorts of issues. I find that I have come to rely on certain features of the Veritas Custom planes. Discussing each feature individually made for a very long post so I thought I would break the post up into pieces so that each feature has a better chance of getting discussed.

1) First I find that I use the adjustable mouths a great deal. I miss this feature the most when I pick up a vintage plane. I should add that my wood planes also have adjustable mouths which has helped solidify my interest. I often start with a wide mouth to make sure I can pass shavings and then narrow it down to an optimal size for the wood and camber (or relative lack of camber) in the blade I am using. I find adjustable mouths particularly helpful when using cambered blades as the curved blades and the shavings they produce often benefit from precise mouth opening adjustment. I also find it helpful to be able to open the mouth up when I am inserting a blade I just sharpened. I am not sure how much damage touching the sharp blade to the planes mouth might actually cause, but I cringe if it happens. The set screw in these plane mouths allow me to return the mouth to the same opening it was at before opening it up to install the sharp blade. This feature translates into my sharpening more often and regularly making mouth adjustments that are hard/impossible to do with fixed mouth planes

The two most obvious features of the Custom (and the BU planes from Veritas) are the adjustable mouth, to expel stuck shavings, as Mike mentions, and ditto on the set screws for replacing a blade after sharpening.

However, there is another, and one I find equally desirable. This is in setting the chipbreaker.

The cap iron screw for Veritas Custom planes has the opposite placement to that for Bailey planes.

Here you see the Bailey (top) and the Custom (middle) ... (the lower blade is a BU iron) ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20Custom%20Plane/Changing-blades8_zpsfledgltp.jpg

The Custom chipbreaker is adjusted from the back of the blade - where you can see what you are doing ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes2_html_5b982e8d.jpg

Below is a Bailey blade being adjusted. It is straight forward when practiced - so I emphasise that this is not a criticism of Bailey (I use enough of them myself) ...


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LV%20Chipbreaker_html_30b79b20.jpg

... but it just emphasises that the Custom planes are more direct in this regard, and for this reason are easier to adjust ... with one caveat and one comment ...

The caveat is that the chipbreaker is held with two tiny screws, and these look very fiddly at first. There is a way around this (Note that it does not matter which way around the blade carrier is positioned. What is important is that the small, embedded screw locks the blade carrier to the blade, and the button-head screw locks the chipbreaker to the blade carrier/blade. The embedded screw also prevents the chipbreaker swiveling).


Firstly, do not remove the screws – just loosen them. Then slide the blade off with the carrier still attached to the blade. See:

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes2.html

Secondly, I use a hex-headed driver that is so much easier to control than a hex key (bent metal thingy). This really makes it a simple matter to tighten/loosen, and suddenly the hex bolt is easier to adjust than the Bailey bolt.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20Custom%20Plane/Custom-plane-tools1a-1_zps0dqmnrit.jpg

The other tool in the photo is a small jeweller's hammer. This is used to adjust the blade in the lateral. I do this for Bailey blades as well - the in-built adjuster is fine for coarse adjustments, but fine adjustments are better served with a small hammer. With the Veritas planes I have always stuck the blade. Recently, when Vic Tesolin visited, he showed that he struck the adjuster's knurled knob. I asked him whether this might damage the mechanisim, and he reassured me that it would not. Important note here - the lever cap is never cranked down. They should be just loose enough to adjust with fingers. This goes for all planes, both Veritas and Bailey.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

It would have been easier for those who have a strong preference to freehand hone, if Veritas had maintained a full length iron as featured within a Stanley/Bailey bench plane. Just an opinion.

regards Stewie;

[Derek Cohen]

Derek; it would have been easier for those who have a strong preference to freehand hone, if Veritas had maintained a full length iron as featured within a Stanley/Bailey bench plane. Just an opinion.

regards Stewie;

No, that would make no difference. If you look at the photo of the three blades, above, you will note that the blade length from the end of the blade slot is the same for all. That is the area one grips when freehanding a blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

For a comparison of the method I was taught view from 45 min. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYyV6IUpsYk

Of interest to all, have a look at what Mr Sellers does to the back of the blade at 47 min.

regards Stewie;

[Derek Cohen]

Derek; for a comparison of the method I was taught view from 45 min. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYyV6IUpsYk

Of interest to all, have a look at what Mr Sellers does to the back of the blade at 47 min.

regards Stewie;

I hardly think that Paul Seller's method is comparable with the freehanding method used by 90% of the world.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Stewie, I hardly think that Paul Seller's method is comparable with the freehanding method used by 90% of the world.

http://tooltrip.com/tooltrip9/stanley/stan-bpl/benchplanes.pdf

Stewie;

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick there are two different scenarios I was referring to above. When I mentioned the blade touching the mouth I was referring to placing a newly sharpened blade back in the plane after sharpening it. My hands are not as steady as they once were and I hate trying to get a sharp blade back in a tight mouth without banging it against the frog or mouth in the process.

You probably know this, but in case not: I also have an unsteady hand due to nerve damage (don't get clobbered by a pickup while riding your bike, m'kay?) and what works for me to avoid that is to:

1. Rest the bevel of the blade on the frog, well above the mouth and tilted to clear the lever cap screw.

2. Slide the blade forward until the opening in the lever cap reaches the lever cap screw, then pivot the blade down so that it rests on the adjuster yolk.

3. Continue to slide the blade forward until the slot in the lever cap reaches the adjuster yolk and the blade drops in.

[Patrick Chase]

No, that would make no difference. If you look at the photo of the three blades, above, you will note that the blade length from the end of the blade slot is the same for all. That is the area one grips when freehanding a blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I think that Stewie's criticism is fair, but has to be viewed with the understanding that sharpening/honing technique is highly individual. What is valid for one person probably won't be valid for others. Let's just leave it at that.

[george wilson]

I have always honed freehand,even from my days as a beginning teenager. For want of money, if not for any other reason,in the early days. Besides,I can't recall if anyone even offered a honing aid back in the early 50's. If they did, I was not aware of it, nor could I have afforded it. My parents were such tight wads we didn't even subscribe to ANY magazines such as Popular Science,Popular Mechanics, etc.. Woodworking magazines did not yet exist. With 13 feet of rain a year in Ketchikan, Alaska, I read constantly,beating a path to the small library which was miles away.

I was SO EAGER to get a chance to read the mentioned magazines, I tried reading one which was on the twin engined sea plane (WWII OLD Grumman Gray Goose), flying in VERY bumpy weather from Ketchikan to Sitka. Grabbed it like it was a bar of GOLD! The storm got so bad they turned around. I was in the 4th. grade,and got so sick, I must have used every air sick bag on the whole plane!! No one had told me to not read on a bumpy airplane, but to keep looking at the far horizon! On the 2nd. flight I managed to make it without getting sick! Besides,the plane was not suddenly dropping 30 feet at a time,hitting "Air bubbles" as they were called! Besides,those large radial prop engines would shake your eye teeth loose even in calm weather!! I don't see how those planes flew for as many years as they did, without every rivet coming loose! Their frames took terrible punishment just from vibration.

And,wouldn't it have looked cute, if in the 18th. C. shop in Williamsburg, I had whipped out a modern honing guide!! True, most of the audience would not have known better. But, those who DID know were the ones we were trying to reach! The others were just regular tourists on vacation, with kids in tow and wanting to get to Busch Gardens.:) My apprentices did just fine honing freehand,as I taught them. The subject of using any kind of honing guide never once came up. I could not have permitted them in the shop anyway.

You know,for some reason, back in the mid 60's when I first discovered Woodcraft's catalog, I DID buy a honing jig. I think I used once and decided it was too fussy. It still languishes in the bottom drawer of one of my cabinets. Perhaps collectible by now!!!!!:) That catalog was my first exposure to European imported tools, and I was excited by everything in the book! I bought my first set of 12 small size Swiss carving tool set there for $24.00. I still have it! What do they cost now? A LOT MORE! I carved all of the lute roses,Viola da Gamba's and the Lion's head violin necks with that little set. I like their size though I have large hands. I tended to do small work anyway, being decorations on instruments.

[Mike Holbrook]

Derek, I am still adapting to the new blade setting system on the Veritas Custom planes. Thanks for the additional information above on using the two setting screws. I was at http://www.inthewoodshop.com yesterday refreshing my memory on what you were using to set the screws as I find the small allen wrench inconvenient to use/keep up with as well. Planing to order a torx or hex screwdriver. I believe you showed a torx in your article but a hex above, care to comment concerning which one you prefer? I may try a jewelers hammer as well, though I seem to be doing well without it. I set mine under a magnifying light.

Good point concerning the easier to see orientation of the blade and chip breaker. I find the Veritas blades easier to free hand than the Bailey/Stanley blades. The shorter blade with a rounded top seems easier to hold to me. I believe I use the same sharpening system as George and find I can resharpen both my blades (I have two PM-V11 blades for both planes) quite fast and get back to the work. The adjustable mouth just makes it easier to: clear chips, adjust the opening to specific blades, remove and mount blades, all of which I do more now that it is so easy to do, without buggering up my settings.

I believe Derek ordered a 42 and 50 degree frog for his #4. I am wondering if he would still choose those two frog sizes? I got a "standard" 40 with my 5 1/2, but I like the 42 better. The lower angle frogs are easy/fun to use but I am getting more tear out than I would like working SYP boards glued up for raised panels.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Mike

I started out with a torx driver because it is the same pattern as the hex, and I could not find a hex the correct size. I wanted others to know that a torx bit would also work. Eventually, however, I came across a company making hex drivers, and bought one for the Custom planes. I think it is quite spiffy :) The point being that either is better than the hex key that comes with a Custom plane.

I only use the 42 degree frog on the #4 and the 40 degree frog on the #7. The 50 degree frogs sit on a shelf. I still say that they are the best all rounder angle for someone who does not use a closed chipbreaker all the time.

The 40 degree frog on the #7 is amazing. It turns the #7 into a genuine one-setting-does-everything plane. Low angle cutting for end- and cross grain, closed up chipbreaker for squirrely edge and face grain, and the ability to shoot on its side.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[george wilson]

Stewie,who made that round top iron in the last picture? Is it an 18th. C. iron made for a chip breaker? They did start in the 18th. C..

[Stewie Simpson]

George; the rounded top on the iron is my work. The iron is a dedicated 2 piece. Not sure on the circa. Possibly late 19th, heading into early 20th.

Stewie;

[Mike Holbrook]

Derek, thanks for the reply regarding both the hex vs torx drivers and the frog angles.

I have been very pleased with my 42 & 40 degree frogs as well. I have been experimenting using the 40 & 42 degree frogs on my Custom 5 1/2 and Custom 4, to make the end grain angled cuts for raised panels. The relatively soft SYP has had some tear out, which I usually use as my determination for when to sharpen. I think my BU/LA LV Jack does a little better job on the end grain but the Custom planes come closer to the same result than I would have thought. Maybe I will just keep working with the frogs I have for a while now that I know Derek is not using his 50 degree frogs.

Patrick I will reread your suggestions regarding adding and removing blades the next time I sharpen. One of the issues I am dealing with is I can not simply lay my blades on the frogs as my LV Custom and BU planes have set screws that require more precise fitting of the blades on the frog. Yes, one could call this a double edged sword. The set screws require a little more care in inserting blades. I find the care they require well worth the effort though, especially since the plane mouths are so easy to open up. I currently have the blade screws on my Custom planes set quite tight and the ones on my BU planes set slightly looser. I am trying to decide which I like better.

[Ray Selinger]

A Brownells Screwdriver kit will have hex tips. But any good tool store will have a rack of 1/4" hex drive bits. In fact I supplemented my screwdriver kit that way. You never have enough slotted"blanks".

[Mark AJ Allen]

Derek; it would have been easier for those who have a strong preference to freehand hone, if Veritas had maintained a full length iron as featured within a Stanley/Bailey bench plane. Just an opinion.

regards Stewie;

I imagine there is a trade off there; cost to benefit to the market. Most likely, it would be a hard pill for jig-sharpeners to fork out for the added cost of the unnecessary (in their eyes) blade length and as a freehander, would learn to adapt to the shortened blade or making a holder to add length they need. Small price to pay for the improvements the steel offers.

[Patrick Chase]

Nah, Patrick. Stewie introduced a spurious sharpening method (Sellers') as his reference. We all know that Stewie uses a honing guide for all his sharpening - recently an LN honing guide ... well, if you believe he has a point to make, kindly explain it to me. I think he just wants to take a shot at LV.

I suspect you're right, but I also think that judging peoples' posts on presumed intent rather than content leads to a very slippery slope, so I chose to "suspend my disbelief" in this instance.

Also, I suspect that Rob Lee would be the first to admit that LV's non-traditional approach is inherently polarizing. I personally like LV's approach and designs, because I think that they strike a good balance between preserving the parts of old designs that made them successful while also exploiting the opportunities provided by modern materials and processes, and that's basically my own design philosophy as an engineer. With that said there are also a lot of woodworkers out there who prefer more traditional tools for one reason or another, and other makers cater to that market. It's natural that some of those people would have viscerally negative reactions to LV. We don't all have to agree on this sort of thing.

I'm also not a fan of the LN guide for economic reasons, but that's a separate (and already fully "litigated") discussion.

[Mike Holbrook]

Patrick I am not so sure that Rob Lee would consider non-traditional features of LV tools to be "inherently polarizing". I think LV tries to improve designs. I do not find anything within that goal to consider divisive. I do understand that many appreciate time honored designs. I just suspect that the "time honored design features", in their day, were just as far removed from "tradition".

My goal in this post is to discuss certain features that some may consider non traditional. The point isn't to start an argument over their relative necessity but to explore their relative value. My goal isn't to be divisive but to learn better ways to benefit from these features. I am here to learn things like Derek's comment:

I only use the 42 degree frog on the #4 and the 40 degree frog on the #7. The 50 degree frogs sit on a shelf. I still say that they are the best all rounder angle for someone who does not use a closed chipbreaker all the time.


and George's:

The front edge of the steel plate on all the planes of this type which I have seen,is rounded off into a perfect hemisphere. I did this on the brass "Nessie" shoulder plane which I have posted before. It also has an adjustable front sole,much after this fashion.

Lately I have been experimenting with getting the most out of cambered plane blades. I am particularly interested in planes that have features which allow me to better utilize these blades.

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick I am not so sure that Rob Lee would consider non-traditional features of LV tools to be "inherently polarizing". I think LV tries to improve designs. I do not find anything within that goal to consider divisive. I do understand that many appreciate time honored designs. I just suspect that the "time honored design features", in their day, were just as far removed from "tradition".

Indeed. There have been people yelling "you young whippersnappers get off of my lawn and take your newfangled tools with you!" for as long as there have been humans.

[Normand Leblanc]

For sharpening, my technique is fairly close to Paul Sellers, I wrap my hands around the blade and it's not possible (at least for me) to use the same technique for Veritas blades. For those shorter blade I use the holder that come with the Veritas tool rest. It's working for me.

346867346868

[Glen Canaday]

I haven't tried to sharpen one of those LV irons. I can definitely think of a grip that would make it simple to do, however - much like how I do my old spokeshave iron, with two fingers near the edge and my thumb underneath it from the back like I was sneaking a look at a face-down playing card. Once I've actually tried it I will know better, but honestly from this side of my imagination I don't see anything to be a hindrance.

I don't much care about mouth openings. I don't even own a bench plane with a single iron, so the cap iron breaks the chip on everything I actually use. I find that feature goes unutilized on everything I own that has it.

What I am curious about is the depth adjuster and the weight. I prefer a lighter plane most of the time.

[Mike Holbrook]

Glen,
I use cambered blades frequently, as they allow me to remove more wood and a few other things that help with the work I do. Placing the chip breaker close to the edge of a relatively curved blade presents a new set of challenges.

Glen asks a few new questions that were part of my discussion of other features I have decided I like on the Veritas Custom planes:

2) The set screws, both for positioning the mouth and the blade make taking blades out and replacing them less stressful and at least in my case faster.


3) The Norris style adjustments are fast and precise. I have grown accustom to the single adjustment that controls both depth and tilt. LV even offers a new adjuster with screw threads that are smaller, making fine adjustment easier. I appreciate the fact that these adjustments are consistent between my BU and BD planes. Each of my Stanley planes seems to have its own peculiarities in both the depth and tilt adjustments.


4) The totes and knobs available for the Custom planes work well for my hands and methods. The traditional tote allows me to either place my pinky down on the plane’s body or up on the handle, for a high or low grip. It is often helpful to be able to adjust the pressure I am placing on the front or rear end of the plane, particularly at the start and finish of a stroke. The wide flat knob is also helpful, particularly in adjusting the pressure I am placing on the front end of the plane.


5)Weight is an issue that I was concerned about with the Custom planes. I know there are different opinions about whether lighter or heavier planes work better for specific work. Certainly it can be challenging to push a cambered or flat blade through hard wood. I actually find the additional weight helpful, particularly when working with deeper cuts in hard wood with “interesting” grain/knots. In my case I have wood planes if I decide I want to go light.

[Derek Cohen]

The short answer is that a woodworker who is used to freehanding will automatically adapt their grip, if so needed. Other than Paul Sellers and the followers of his sharpening method, who constitute a tiny percentage of the sharpeners in this world I would imagine, those who hone freehand hold the blade low down.

Examples ...

http://s3.amazonaws.com/finewoodworking.s3.tauntoncloud.com/app/uploads/2016/09/05153429/99930993-freehand-sharpening-main.jpg (http://www.finewoodworking.com/2008/06/16/speedy-freehand-sharpening)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFOz9n8dHqU

Look at the 2:24 mark for Rob Cosman's grip. Like the one above, it is low down on the blade.

If I was to use the Seller's method in freehanding, which I sometimes do with mortice chisels, I would simply use an underhand grip on the blade. What is affected is the ability to more easily determine the bevel angle as the blade is shorter. One could get used to this as well. Everything is adapted to in time. That is the beauty of using your hands rather than a honing guide.

A related question is, "does the shorter back made a difference to the performance of the plane?". The answer is that is is unlikely to do so negatively, and may in fact add a positive element in lowering mass and the centre of gravity.


Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

The following post by Peter McBride may be of interest to other forum members.

http://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/skew-plane-bedding-angles-explained-209631

Peter McBride's website;

http://www.petermcbride.com/oldtools/

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

Mike; my apologies for venturing off topic. All the best with your new bench planes.

regards Stewie;

[Warren Mickley]

A beginner will often hold a chisel right at the bevel for "control". However holding by the handle and using the whole length gives much greater angular control. Likewise the handles on axes and spades are long for greater leverage and control. We put a long handle on a slick because delicate angular control is essential to its use.

A longer plane iron is much easier to sharpen because one can have one hand controlling the bevel end and the other controlling the back end for a steady angle, which is desirable. I stopped using block planes forty years ago, but I occasionally sharpen a block plane iron for a neighbor or a friend; they are much more clumsy to sharpen than a full length iron.

I have not tried the "custom angle plane", but I don't think someone with a lot of experience sharpening would design such a short iron.

[Stewie Simpson]

Warren ; appreciate your post.

regards Stewie;

[george wilson]

I am not registered to go to those fora you keep linking to,Stewie.

However,regardless of how he wishes to grasp his irons ( What silly,nit picking argument is that? I assure you, being largely self taught,I do MANY things WRONG! But,I got the work done.:)) ,or WHOSE planes he uses (Wooden or LV),Derek obviously does great work,and in very difficult hard woods to boot.

There is no need to keep attacking LV. They are a fine company who does impeccably high quality work on products which they make. If every company had their integrity,life would indeed be sweeter for all of us.They are to be commended for NOT being copy cats,I think. Certainly the NX 60 block plane that I have is the finest quality and most imaginatively designed block plane EVER MADE,PERIOD. The metal in it's body and parts is of amazing quality!! If only ALL cast iron had its rust resistance! The LV powdered metal blade that I have in it is absolutely TOP NOTCH technology. As a machinist myself,I find their products' machining impeccable!!! Every time ANY problem with their products comes up,they are right there to fix it for the customer. I salute them!!!!! Indeed,I wish I worked for them in designing.(but am pushing 76:)) But,it would be fun,and demanding.

[Derek Cohen]

Prompted by Warren's post (interesting Warren - thanks), here are a couple of well known hands holding blades.

The first is Garrett Hack sharpening a LN bevel up blade. These are the same length as the Custom blades.

What I note is that he uses the same grip at the rearas I do and gets his fingers close to the edge. This is from a video on FWW ..


http://www.finewoodworking.com/2013/09/27/sharpen-your-plane-irons-freehand

346896

The second video was Frank Klausz sharpening a chisel (also a blade about the same length as the Custom blade) ..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAR9fyXV8go

346897

Looks similar to above.

Warren, it may help it you can find a picture that typifies the grip you use.

To all, feel free to add in yours.

At the end of the day, sharpening is just the start of the journey. It is what you build that is more important.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[george wilson]

I used to use a smallish Frictionite razor hone. About 3" x 4". I held it in my palm,rotated the plane iron rapidly in circles while rapidly rotating the stone in circles in the opposite direction. Honing speed across the cutting edge was thus doubled. It was very effective. No,I never cut myself doing it. But it is not recommended for everyone by any means! You do have to be able to chew gum and walk at the same time.:)

I grip my blades in a manner like the picture in post #33,though I do it left handed. I fail to see what the point of this gripping issue is. As Derek said above,it is WHAT YOU MAKE that is important. So,sharpen your iron however and get to work !

[Pat Barry]

I'd agree with the consensus that the LV tools are well made. I only have a few but I really think they did a great job with the design and fabrication both. On my BUS plane, the side screws for locating the blade in place are a nice feature. I also like the blade adjustment mechanism. For me it is much more positive than the adjustment on the older style planes whether they be Stanley, Great Neck, Dunlap, etc. Very little backlash in the adjustment mechanism so it makes it easy to adjust cutting depth. What I really love though, is the PMV11 blade. It keeps an edge very well for me which is something that I find to be an important thing.

[Mike Holbrook]

I hate to see posts wander off into discussion of personal matters. It seems to me that we got pulled off course talking about the shape of the new Veritas Custom blades. I get the idea Warren mentions above in regard to longer objects being easier to control at one end, as in the case of longer handled paring chisels etc. Still I have no trouble sharpening these newer blades. It seems to me that paring\slick.. chisels are designed for much more precise movement than is necessary when sharpening a plane blade. Certainly there is a tremendous variety of handle lengths & shapes for: axes, adzes, chisels, spades...for a reason.

I listen closely to Warren's posts because he speaks from a position of long experience, which I respect. At the same time I have found that I often have the most to learn, in areas that I am much more technically adept at than woodworking, from the newbies. It is hard to step back from a position of long standing experience and take a fresh look. I understand that frame of reference. I am sure if I had spent as much time using Stanley planes as Warren I would still be using them, but I have done more work with LV planes over 30 + years. I bought and tried a number of Stanley/Bailey/Sargent planes and became at least competent with them over a year or two. I still like the Veritas planes better, but I realize my greater trove of experience plays into my preferences.

Part of the reason I am making this post is to try and understand how and why the fans of more traditional tools use these tools. A case in point is the fixed mouths in Stanley/Bailey planes, which is where I started off. I like the newer PM-V11 plane blades, but I have difficulty cambering them and using them in these old planes. The PM-V11 blades do come in long versions. The only way I have found to get my cambered blades to work is to widen each planes mouth, which presents a whole new set of issues as they can not be adjusted back. I started into the Stanley planes expecting to use them with cambered blades but thus far I am having difficulties for all the reasons Patrick mentioned above.

I try to keep two blades for each plane I am using for a project. One blade typically has a "larger" camber and the other a slightly lesser camber. This way I can work quite a while without having to stop to sharpen, and I have a blade for removing more and less wood.

Can we please talk about specific tool features and how we use them without getting personal.

[Mike Holbrook]

Although I am always open to considering different methods. I currently grip the blades I am sharpening, more like Klausz and the video Derek posted. I think I picked the "grip" up from a side sharpening video (Stanley Harrelson?) sent me early in his "side sharpening" days. I find this grip allows one to place more or less pressure on either side of the blade for making cambers or removing them. I am also curious about how Warren or Stewie grip the blades they are sharpening. I did not find any info. on Stewie's links.

[Jim Koepke]

Part of the reason I am making this post is to try and understand how and why the fans of more traditional tools use these tools. A case in point is the fixed mouths in Stanley/Bailey planes, which is where I started off.

As for me the old Stanley/Bailey planes are used because they can be made to do a good job. They are an economical choice. Many times my planes work fine with the original blades. Sure they have backlash in the blade adjustment and are not as nice or even as well made as the modern top of the line planes.

It is kind of like my philosophy on automobiles. My transportation used to be old beat up VW bugs or busses. They were not fancy and didn't have the features of contemporary automobiles, but they were good at getting me where I wanted to go and in some cased were more adept at doing so than the new vehicles others were driving. They were also much easier to maintain than the vehicles I now own.

jtk

[Mike Holbrook]

I get you Jim. Following your automobile analogy I drive a Mini Cooper. It has some modern features, gets me where I need to go, parks easily and does it all on a minimal amount of fuel. Plus it is the most funestest to drive! My wife was hit head on at 60mph by a drunk driver with my daughter and 2 dogs aboard in our first Mini. Not even a scratch worth mentioning on any of the passengers. You should have seen the other car.

You sent me a few personal text on adapting a Stanley 5 1/4 that I noticed earlier. I will review them, as I believe you addressed the issue I was having with the mouth on mine. I think you suggested using regular Stanley blades, which I may resort to. Maybe I can adapt the long PM-V11 blades I bought to my wood planes.

Great to have you back.

[george wilson]

But,as you mentioned,the mouths of old Stanley planes really are not fixed f you can adjust the frog closer. What is the problem with doing that? It's not as easily done as a sliding piece in front of the mouth,but just as effective,isn't it?

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

I'm just a newbie with a good paid job to buy expensive tools... but regarding mouth adjustment I was somewhat disappointed when I got #4 1/2 and #5 1/2 and saw that the sliding part of the sole is not like on Low Angle Jack.

Surely, it wouldn't go all way from mouth to the front of #7 (the same like on Bevel Up Jointer). But the shorter custom planes I though it would be like on BU family.

Is it a feature or not? Shavings tend to stick into that gap in my inexperienced hands:

346907

I usually keep mouth wide open and try to use chip breaker appropriately. Because it makes it easier to remove stuck shavings. But I can be doing it all wrong :)

Would be nice to see some videos of others using these planes, if that could be helpful. Like watching a pro disassembling and assembling AK-47 or anything else in production timing.

[John Schtrumpf]

...
Is it a feature or not? Shavings tend to stick into that gap in my inexperienced hands:

346907

The enclosed movable toe is a feature. If you accidentally bang the toe against something, while you are planing (yes I have done that). The toe doesn't get knocked back.

As for getting shavings stuck in that gap. I learned early on, that leaving shavings on the board I am planing, doesn't work well, they leave drag marks or gum up my planing. So I keep the board clean of shavings, and I don't have a problem with shavings getting stuck in that gap (in my SBUS and other Veritas BU planes with an enclosed toe).

[Mike Holbrook]

George I am glad you brought the movable frog on Stanley planes back up, as I meant to comment on it when Patrick brought it up. I understand that the frog can move but that does not make the mouth adjustable does it? The mouth does not change, just the position of the blade in the mouth. I understand that this adjustment is suppose to help do something similar, but does it?

Maybe I need to spend more time working with the screw that moves the frog back & forth but so far I have found that adjustment awkward and slow, sometimes it does not seem to help. The screw certainly is in a very hard to access position. It almost seems like the tote needs to be removed to get to it. I made a post about that adjustment once and it seemed like most people move the frog up even with the back edge of the planes mouth and leave it there. I have had several planes where that screw was frozen in place. I finally heated one up with a hair dryer and found that released the screw. I suspect that means quite a few people put Locktite on the threads to keep the frog from moving. The adjustment seems designed more to be adjusted while the plane is apart and then left alone, rather than used on a regular basis.

I suspect the Stanley frog adjustment works better on planes with level blades than ones with cambered blades. If the camber in the blade ends up touching the rear or front edge of the planes mouth there is the potential for a number of issues. Maybe I just have not spent enough time getting the locktite and rust off my old planes frog adjustment hardware and getting that screw working better. Maybe there is some bent screw driver or ratchet that would make it easier to reach the adjusting screw?

I have not had trouble with shavings getting lodged in my LV planes adjustable mouths but I can see how it looks like it could happen. Were something to get lodged in the opening I am pretty sure the adjustable mouth would make clearing it, without loosing the setting, fairly simple.

[Warren Mickley]

Derek, here is a picture of Ernie Conover sharpening a plane iron with the style I was talking about. There are small variations in this grip, one hand may shroud the other, but the main thing is right hand at the back of the iron and pressure from the left hand nearer the bevel. The Hack picture you present might not be too different.

346921

My main thrust was to suggest that a longer iron was more desirable for control. For using a jig it doesn't matter. The Klaus picture you posted shows almost the entire handle flopping around unsupported: not ideal. Try paring with a long handled slick with both hands near the cutting edge.



Mike, I haven't moved a frog since the last time I bought a plane, 33 years ago. I can't remember having shavings stuck anywhere, but maybe I just don't remember. In any case I don't think many are adjusting the mouth on a daily basis. I can sympathize with your worries about hitting your fine edge in the mouth, but without actually watching you work in person, it would be hard to comment.

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks Warren. That makes sense. It also occurs to me, from this and your earlier comment, that freehanding plane blades may be divided into several categories. They each behave differently:

1. Flat (e.g. typically Japanese laminated blades and perhaps Western laminated blades as well), hollow ground, and rounded (Paul Sellers) bevels.

2. Honed directly on the flat or honed directly on the hollow.

3. Secondary bevel (estimated) honed on either a hollow or flat primary bevel.

4. Those that hone directly on the primary bevel may do so front-and-back or sideways.

5. When honing a secondary bevel or honing a round bevel, a longer blade back could aid in judging the honing angle. For example, grind at 25 degrees and hone at 30.

6. Honing directly on the hollow or honing sideways (which is my preference), it makes little difference whether the blade is long or short. One will hold the blade low for stability. Is there anything to gain holding it high?

Difficult to reach a hard and fast rule?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[george wilson]

This is as bad as some of those sharpening threads!!:) Now,if we ever get a thread where BOTYH the stone used,and the position of the hand is debated,this whole site is DOOMED!!:) Doomed to a never ending debate!!

[Derek Cohen]

Compare Ernie Conover's hand position to that shown within the Stanley Bench Planes user guide. Identical. That hand position has been the traditional standard used by craftsmen for centuries. And for good reason as highlighted by Warren in post #47. As Warren also highlighted in a previous post, by introducing a shorter length bench plane blade, a lack of clear understanding within the ideals of free hand technique are sadly lacking by both the manufacturer and those individuals assigned to test these tools prior to general release into the market. http://tooltrip.com/tooltrip9/stanley/stan-bpl/benchplanes.pdf

Stewie;

Stewie, you really need to learn to separate a discussion and critique from a personal attack.

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Derek; refer back to the advise you were giving in post 10 & 12.

Stewie;

[Brian Holcombe]

Japanese irons are a little different, they are thick and therefore have a much larger bevel to ride on the stone. Being laminated they require the user to use the length of the iron to apply additional pressure to the hard steel edge. My hand grip on them is similar to what Warren displays with a bit more shrouding becuase of the shorter overall length. One small change is that I keep the fingers of my left hand very near to the cutting edge.

My paring slicks have exceptionally long handles that are tapered along their length and made from zitan rosewood making them very heavy at their ends. This makes them wonderful for use but adds difficulty in sharpening so I remove them and use the aforementioned grip.

[Stewie Simpson]

Brian; based on a 40 degree Japanese plane bed, what primary bevel do you target with your irons.

Stewie;

[Mike Holbrook]

I happen to sharpen similarly to Derek, hollow grind my plane blades and move the blade along the edge over the stone. I believe there is a valid point about the hollow ground edge providing a steady platform that probably benefits from the fingers being closer as they tend to keep both edges of the blade in contact with the stone. The closer finger position also helps if/when one wants to change pressure from one side of the blade to the other to form a camber. It may be that the method used to "grind" ones bevel ultimately affects the best way to grip the blade when sharpening the bevel. The very small hollow created by a rotating wheel may be a more recent innovation that has affected how a significant number of people grip their blades.

If we are talking tradition in plane blades it seems to me that Asian history with these tools pre dates western history with these tools. Unless I have missed something, all the Asian blades I have seen are shorter, more the shape of the "newer" Veritas blades. I do not recall ever seeing a "long" Asian blade, that blade shape seems unique to the Stanley planes.

It also may be relevant that Derek and I are using frogs at 40 & 42 degrees, on slightly thicker blades. As Brian mentions above the Japanese plane irons are typically thicker with wider bevels, more like the Veritas blades. The bevels on my Veritas 30 degree blades are certainly wider than those on my Stanley blades. Of course I believe Derek originally got the idea for a 42 degree frog bevel from Warren.

I am not trying to argue that Derek's methods, my lesser experienced efforts , or Veritas/LV's designs are "better". I am quite confident that there are good reasons for Warren and Stewie to sharpen the way they do.

Dang George is right we are back to sharpening AGAIN! It is a/the major maintenance requirement for just about any edged hand tool though.

[Mike Holbrook]

Warren thanks for explaining that you only use the Stanley frog setting devise when you set your planes up. I think the reason I have more difficulty getting my Veritas blades set on their frogs without hitting the edges on the mouth or frog has to do with the set screws, which hold the blade in place on the frog and the fact that I have been moving the mouths on my planes quite close in an attempt to reduce tear out on the soft pine I have been making raised panels with. I think this is one of those double edged swords. The screws require a little more delicate placing of the blade but they keep the blade very close to where it was before I took it off. So in my case the set screws may make the mouth adjustment a more significant factor.

I am also wondering if Warren or Stewie use blades with "significant" camber, as there are some differences when we start talking heavier camber.

[Derek Cohen]

Mike, as Warren notes, there is no need to alter the mouth of a Stanley plane if you are in the habit of using the chipbreaker. As with a plane with a half pitch cutting angle, the mouth size is irrelevant. One simply sets it wide enough to take shavings without interrupting their flow.

However, the adjustable mouth on the Veritas planes is different. It is not simply there to re-size the mouth. You can do that it you choose. I never do. With a Custom plane, using the chipbreaker, the mouth size is the same as a Stanley using a chipbreaker. However, one can slide the mouth open to release any jammed shavings. It is a simple matter to slide it back since there is also a depth stop to return the mouth to the previous setting. I do find this a useful feature.

With regard to the set screws, I adjust them so that they do not interfere with the blade being removed or replaced. They barely kiss the sides of the blade. The purpose of the set screws is to aid in re-positioning the blade after sharpening. That is really all they do, and this is also a useful feature. I do not understand the reference to camber in connection with the set screws. I do not see how they interact.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Brian Holcombe]

Brian; based on a 40 degree Japanese plane bed, what primary bevel do you target with your irons.

Stewie;

Around 28 I think, I just raise them until they behave in hardwoods.

[Derek Cohen]

Brian mentioning sharpening his kanna blade reminds me that there are a world of "short" blades that would require a different grip to those with a long blade.

Japanese plane blades have been around longer than Western blades, I presume.

HNT Gordon woodie blades are shorter than either the BU blades of LN and Veritas, or the BD blade of the Veritas Custom planes.

Jim Krenov, before he took to using the short Hock blades, would cut down Stanley blades to fit his plane bodies. He liked to keep the centre of gravity low.

What I am trying to point out is that there is no one correct size, and nor is there likely to be one correct hand hold when freehanding. I recognise the benefits of different methods, and all have their place.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[george wilson]

How guys prefer to hold their plane irons is a silly issue. I have large,strong hands,and was and am able to get quite sufficient down bearing with 2 fingers close to the cutting edge. It has never been necessary for me to use two hands to hold a plane iron down on a stone. No doubt the whole issue depends upon the strength of the hands or upon habit,good or poor. As long as the iron gets sharp,what's the issue?

[lowell holmes]

I hardly think that Paul Seller's method is comparable with the freehanding method used by 90% of the world.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I'm sorry to hear that. Paul is the one who taught me how to sharpen chisel and plane irons. In a workshop conducted by Paul, he kept a set of diamond hones out on a bench. When your edge was suffering, you went to the hones and touched up the edge, then stropped on leather charged with honing compound.

When honing, finish up with presses on the corners relieving the bevel on the corners. This prevented corner tracks when paring surfaces.

Follow up with a bit of back bevel and being razor sharp, it was back to work. I've used this method for 15 years.

I guess I will have to learn a new method.:)

[Patrick Chase]

I'm sorry to hear that. Paul is the one who taught me how to sharpen chisel and plane irons. In a workshop conducted by Paul, he kept a set of diamond hones out on a bench. When your edge was suffering, you went to the hones and touched up the edge, then stropped on leather charged with honing compound.

When honing, finish up with presses on the corners relieving the bevel on the corners. This prevented corner tracks when paring surfaces.

Follow up with a bit of back bevel and being razor sharp, it was back to work. I've used this method for 15 years.

I guess I will have to learn a new method.:)

Wow, this thread is really spinning out of control. Can we all please just accept that sharpening methods and product preferences are both hugely subjective and leave it at that?

FWIW I don't like Sellars' method at all for a few reasons that I won't go into, but I don't question that it's workable and I can see how some people might prefer it. At least some of those people might not like the custom planes with their short blades so much. I don't like *long* blades so much because they force me to pay for and then take up spaces with metal that doesn't give me any benefit for the way I work.

There's no problem with either opinion IMO, because variation in preference is *exactly* what makes market space for such a diverse range of tool manufacturers and their respective design approaches. It's also an important driver for discovering new approaches (and sometimes rediscovering old ones). We would have a pretty boring and likely stagnant market if everybody's preferences were tightly circumscribed and there was little resulting incentive for differentiation. Come to think of it, it's been tried (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy) and didn't work out so well.

[Patrick Chase]

Stewie, you really need to learn to separate a discussion and critique from a personal attack.

Derek

Indeed. For the record, I think that:

1. Stewie has a valid point about short blades creating problems with certain reasonable sharpening systems. Unfortunately he's managed to hide that point within personal attacks, obvious bias against a certain maker, and unsupportably broad/underqualified statements.

2. Because of (1), several people in this thread are throwing Stewie's baby (his valid point) out with the bathwater. That's an extremely normal human reaction to being insulted, but we need to be careful lest we drag other people like Lowell into a pointless debate that would never have started otherwise.

Don't feed the troll!

[Mike Holbrook]

I "hear" you Patrick. It is often difficult to describe some of the things we discuss. I tend to write long posts trying to be very clear, which typically results in half of it not getting read and the other half raising questions I was trying to explain in the half that did not get read. On the other hand, some people write short, one or two sentence posts that "raise questions" due to all the things left unsaid in what they did not write. I'm sure there is a "perfect" medium post size that explains perfectly but briefly, unfortunately this writing style eludes me and I think many others.

Maybe if we read more carefully and take more time to think about what we are reading and posting it will help. Still not easy in our fast paced world.

[lowell holmes]

I "hear" you Patrick. It is often difficult to describe some of the things we discuss. I tend to write long posts trying to be very clear, which typically results in half of it not getting read and the other half raising questions I was trying to explain in the half that did not get read. On the other hand, some people write short, one or two sentence posts that "raise questions" due to all the things left unsaid in what they did not write. I'm sure there is a "perfect" medium post size that explains perfectly but briefly, unfortunately this writing style eludes me and I think many others.

Maybe if we read more carefully and take more time to think about what we are reading and posting it will help. Still not easy in our fast paced world.
:)
I was responding to a post that I viewed to be swipe at Paul. I did not intend to start a flame war and this will be my last comment on it.
Maybe my post was read wrong as well.

Just for the record, the quality wood workers that I've met all were at Homestead Heritage.

They are Paul Sellers, Stan Beckwork, Mark Borman, and Frank Strazza. These guys produce remarkable work and they do it so effortlessly.
So there is a part of the world that is on board with Paul and his teaching.

[Stewie Simpson]

Lowell; makes a perfectly valid point. Paul Sellers was traditionally taught with close to 40yrs in the trade. I also posted the Stanley users guide as further proof that it was traditional practice (western) to hold the blade in a certain way so as to avoid dropping the height of the honed bevel and rolling the edge as you worked it freehand across the surface of the stone. There is much to be learnt from traditional practices, as there mainstay has centuries of proven logic, passed through many generations of craftsmen. As the trend of users has swung more in favour of those that were not traditionally trained, there has been a stronger need to rely on public forums and youtube video's to fill that void of knowledge. All well and good if that information being forwarded has a modicum of reliability.

What I do need to continually remind myself of before I post any future comments, is that its not my problem, so why get involved.

regards Stewie;

[Derek Cohen]

I guess I will have to learn a new method.:)

Hi Lowell

My relegation of Paul Seller's method (obviously it was not invented by him, but he is identified by it) was not to diss the method - as I mentioned early on, I use it for mortice chisels. I simply pointed out that this method was spurious to the discussion at the time since the intent was not about sharpening, per se. However, the topic developed into sharpening, and now the comment needs to be clarified.

The rounded bevel method benefits a great deal from a long blade since the "scooping" action when pushing makes it vulnerable to misjudging the chosen bevel angle. A short blade is not going to be the preferred choice for this method. But short blades are not a new invention, not limited to Lee Valley and Veritas. They have been around far longer than Stanley, and longer than Western blades. Japanese kanna have used a short blade for as long as they have been around in the form that we know them. I pointed out some modern examples of short blades that precede the Custom blades earlier on as well.

In the grand scheme of things, I would argue that Seller's method is used by few. That does not make it a poor method and therefore one you should change (yes, I got that you were joking, but some want to take this literally). There is no one sharpening method, and anyway they are simply a means to an end. Choose the method that is best for you. Learn to adapt to blades that do not fit in as easily. There is no one blade shape that fits in with all sharpening methods. Everything is a compromise eventually.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[george wilson]

My best advice to all of you is simply to develop skill. Learn how to move a blade back and forth without changing the angle. Learn how to move a saw similarly without changing the angle,as you saw me do when sawing with the back saw in my film. Learn how to move a plane along the edge of a board without tilting it sideways at all.

These basic skills are all related. Once you have mastered them reasonably well,you can do a great deal of work accurately and without jigs and other sometimes cumbersome aids.

[Mike Holbrook]

I think a few people got lost in the extensive later debate and may have missed the fact that I am comparing my experience with Custom Veritas planes to my experience trying to use cambered Veritas PM-V11 blades and Veritas chip breakers in Stanley planes. I realize Stanley planes may work fine with Stanley blades. I am also sure that there are many people who are very comfortable using the Stanley blades and finding used replacements when they wear out.

I bought several PM-V11 LV blades for various Stanley planes I had which needed blades. I like the steel and did not realize there might be significant challenges after I increased the bevels and added camber.

The adjustable mouth on Veritas Custom planes allows me to open the mouth way up while I am removing and replacing blades. The two screws that hold the blade in place on the Custom planes do add a little more challenge to getting the blade back locked down on the frog but they also allow me to return the blade to close to the exact position it was in when I removed it, which at least for me is a sizable net gain.

I have been getting a little tear out in the SYP I have been working. I can't or don't move the chip breaker right up to the edge of my blades because I would be covering up the camber in them if I did. So in this specific instance I have been closing the mouths down to whatever position seems to get the least tear out and best flow of the tapered, due to the cambered blade, shavings exiting the plane.

It is helpful to have a little more camber in a plane blade being used to make raised panels or make tapered chair legs from 2" square stock.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Mike

What type of plane are you referring to? If a smoother, then you must have a lot more camber than I would use since the chipbreaker placement is never a concern. Can you say more about the plane and the camber?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mike Holbrook]

Right Derek,

My smoothers do have less camber. For hogging off wood for the raised panels and tapered chair legs I am using the Custom 5 1/2 for the sides followed by the Custom 4 with a less cambered blade. I work the end grain with the 5 1/2 and a LA Jack or BUS. I have a Stanley 5 1/4 and a 5 with the LV PM-V11 blades and chip breakers (CB) set up for the heavy work too. The 5 1/4 has the most problems, it regularly jams shavings, even after I did a little light file work on the mouth. With my chip breaker set at the edge of the camber there is around 1/16" of curved blade protruding past the CB. My Custom 5 1/2 with it's 2 3/8" wide blade has a little less camber because of the wider blade.

I probably should say that if I back the blade up, only using part of the width of the blade, on the 5 1/4, it works fine. I am trying to set these planes up to take full width shavings. Taking a narrower thick shaving may be as slow as taking a wider slightly less thick shaving. I am admittedly experimenting with methods that allow me to remove wood more quickly.

[Jim Koepke]

Right Derek,

My smoothers do have less camber. For hogging off wood for the raised panels and tapered chair legs I am using the Custom 5 1/2 for the sides followed by the Custom 4 with a less cambered blade. I work the end grain with the 5 1/2 and a LA Jack or BUS. I have a Stanley 5 1/4 and a 5 with the LV PM-V11 blades and chip breakers (CB) set up for the heavy work too. The 5 1/4 has the most problems, it regularly jams shavings, even after I did a little light file work on the mouth. With my chip breaker set at the edge of the camber there is around 1/16" of curved blade protruding past the CB. My Custom 5 1/2 with it's 2 3/8" wide blade has a little less camber because of the wider blade.

I probably should say that if I back the blade up, only using part of the width of the blade, on the 5 1/4, it works fine. I am trying to set these planes up to take full width shavings. Taking a narrower thick shaving may be as slow as taking a wider slightly less thick shaving. I am admittedly experimenting with methods that allow me to remove wood more quickly.

When considering "methods that allow one to remove wood more quickly" one has to also consider time lost to removing jammed shavings.

Could 1/16" protrusion from the CB be a bit too much camber on your blade?

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

Not being an expert at math, Dr. Google brought me to this site:

http://www.handymath.com/cgi-bin/rad2.cgi?submit=Entry

Using the width of the blade at 1.75" and the arc of the camber being a height of 0.0625" the calculator gave an radius of ~6".

That does seem a bit more camber than is usual.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Not being an expert at math, Dr. Google brought me to this site:

http://www.handymath.com/cgi-bin/rad2.cgi?submit=Entry

Using the width of the blade at 1.75" and the arc of the camber being a height of 0.0625" the calculator gave an radius of ~6".

That does seem a bit more camber than is usual.

jtk

Indeed, that's much camber is way down in the roughing range. For reference, a 1.5" wide scrub with the typical 3" camber radius also has ~1/16" of extension.

For a smoother you generally want the extension to be equal to or even a bit less than the shaving thickness. Assuming a 4-mil extension that would correspond to a ~80" camber radius for a common-pitch plane (note that I'm calculating extension instead of height-of-camber, extension = height*sin(bed_angle)). That's why most people don't use constant-radius cambers on smoothers, but instead just relieve the corners a bit.

[Warren Mickley]

For a smoother you generally want the extension to be equal to or even a bit less than the shaving thickness. Assuming a 4-mil extension that would correspond to a ~80" camber radius for a common-pitch plane (note that I'm calculating extension instead of height-of-camber, extension = height*sin(bed_angle)). That's why most people don't use constant-radius cambers on smoothers, but instead just relieve the corners a bit.

I like the shaving thickness to be less than the amount of camber. That way the corners of the iron don't touch the work.

I don't know about "most people", but I haven't used "relieved corners" on a plane iron for decades. If you just relieve the corners you still get tracks at the corners, albeit more rounded tracks. A smoothly rounded edge gives the nicest feathering at the edge of the cut. In addition the consequences of a slightly crooked iron are not as great with a fully rounded edge than with a flat edge with rounded corners.

[george wilson]

I agree,Warren. A slightly rounded cutting edge gives the best results. Since Patrick has admitted that he is a beginner,I think he should not make such statements re the "rounded edges" one. I don't mean this in a disparaging sense. But,it takes some experience to know what works out the best on surfaces.

I have actually used very thin cuts and a very slightly rounded cutting edge and left them as the final surface on some pieces of furniture I've made. The cuts were very shallow,and gradually feathering out to nothing before the corners of the cutters were reached. I find it enjoyable in a tactile sense to run my hand over the surface thus produced,and subsequently varnished and rubbed.

[Patrick Chase]

I like the shaving thickness to be less than the amount of camber. That way the corners of the iron don't touch the work.

I don't know about "most people", but I haven't used "relieved corners" on a plane iron for decades. If you just relieve the corners you still get tracks at the corners, albeit more rounded tracks. A smoothly rounded edge gives the nicest feathering at the edge of the cut. In addition the consequences of a slightly crooked iron are not as great with a fully rounded edge than with a flat edge with rounded corners.

I think this is a matter of terminology. When I say a "relieved corner" I'm referring to what I get when I press a bit on each side just above the edge during honing, without directly/intentionally tilting the blade (though obviously it does tilt a bit due to the unbalanced pressure). The result is a smoothly and gradually rounded section on each side, which does not leave tracks. The only real difference from how I would camber a blade is that I don't try to obtain a constant radius all the way across as I would with a jack or scrub.

I use "rounded corner" to refer to what you appear to have thought I was describing, i.e. a simple roundover of each corner. I use that on block planes and sometimes jointers, but never on smoothers.

w.r.t. the amount of camber, in my experience it doesn't matter if the corner touches the work so long as the resulting "ridge" is completely removed by the next pass. How much camber one needs therefore depends on how closely one can align successive passes (in both depth and tilt). Having the camber greater than the extension is always "safe" in that the corner can never touch the wood as you say no matter how poorly-aligned your passes are, but IMO one has to be better aligned than that anyway to minimize scalloping. Am I missing something here?

[george wilson]

Rounded corner blades are literally advised in old books about planing. Therefore,it is easy to confuse them with what you mentioned on your former post,Patrick.

I ,even as a teenager,never understood how "rounding the corners" was going to produce perfectly satisfactory surfaces. Frankly,I think that whoever wrote such recommendations was either not a practiced woodworker,or just not good at visualizing the results of using rounded corners. Maybe they expected one to thoroughly sand the surface after planing. That would not be surprising.

Another example of bad technical writing from ages ago is seen in the Nicholson booklet "File Filosophy",where "draw filing" is only,and sloppily described as rubbing a file held crossways across a surface. Words to that effect. The key word is "rubbing". Anyone knowledgeable about filing at all knows that you do not "rub" a file on a surface. It is LIFTED or only grazes the surface on the back stroke. Otherwise the file teeth get their cutting edges broken off microscopically,dulling it.

This measly description also leaves completely ambiguous the DIRECTION in which the file does the cutting. I say "draw filing" clearly implies that you are holding the tang end of the file in the left hand,and the file is cutting when it is being DRAWN towards you. Yet,this pamphlet has caused confusion amongst even those who should be considered advanced craftsmen. A horse drawn wagon is PULLED by the horse,not pushed. When you DRAW water from a well,you are not pushing the bucket back down the well.(You can't push a rope,of course!) Other instances of "drawing" clearly show that the object in question is being PULLED. Therefore,I think it is clearly evident that the file is being DRAWN towards the operator. I don't see what the confusion is about.

What does this "drawing" issue have to do with rounded corners on a plane iron? Both are examples of poor technical writing in old books that many would THINK were written "back when" good craftsmanship was the order of the day. Apparently it was not always the case!!

[Derek Cohen]

Ditto to Warren and George. Clipped blade ends simply narrow the blade, which essentially remains straight. Take the time to add a fine camber, enough that the ends of the shavings feather into nothing.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

I agree,Warren. A slightly rounded cutting edge gives the best results. Since Patrick has admitted that he is a beginner,I think he should not make such statements re the "rounded edges" one. I don't mean this in a disparaging sense. But,it takes some experience to know what works out the best on surfaces.

I have actually used very thin cuts and a very slightly rounded cutting edge and left them as the final surface on some pieces of furniture I've made. The cuts were very shallow,and gradually feathering out to nothing before the corners of the cutters were reached. I find it enjoyable in a tactile sense to run my hand over the surface thus produced,and subsequently varnished and rubbed.

I did not say "rounded". I said "relieved" (post #73, see for yourself). There's a difference. If you're going to quote and then insult somebody based on that quotation, then can you please at least double-check to make sure you've got it right?

[Brian Holcombe]

It's time to break the glass preventing access to the emergency whisky bottle, and distribute liberally.

[Patrick Chase]

It's time to break the glass preventing access to the emergency whisky bottle, and distribute liberally.

Done.

All I've got at the moment is Dalwhinnie (what one friend describes as "the smooth jazz of scotch", which isn't meant as a compliment), but enough of it should do the trick. Time to start editing now.

[Pat Barry]

Done.

All I've got at the moment is Dalwhinnie, but enough of it should do the trick. Time to start editing now.
Take two shots and check back in the morning :)

[Stewie Simpson]

Hi Mike; those grub screw side adjusters are not a new idea. I was experimenting with them 20 yrs ago when I built this 27 inch jointer plane.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/side%20adjusters/_DSC0272_zpskucdhnkg.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/side%20adjusters/_DSC0272_zpskucdhnkg.jpg.html)


Stewie;

[Brian Holcombe]

Done.

All I've got at the moment is Dalwhinnie (what one friend describes as "the smooth jazz of scotch", which isn't meant as a compliment), but enough of it should do the trick. Time to start editing now.

It'll work in a pinch. Dalwhinnie has some special blends that have surprised me (in a good way), but my go-to's are generally Islay distillers.

[Mike Holbrook]

I believe my Stanley 5 1/4, has the most camber of any blade I have. I think I made it from a 7" radius drawn with a pencil compass. I did not measure the gap at exactly 1/16". I was estimating and trying to clarify that I was using a significant amount of camber. I believe my Stanley #5 has more like a 8" and my 5 1/2 a little less.

I tried cambering a blade like Patrick mentions above, easing the sides but trying to leave the center with a little less camber. I found it hard to get the bevel the same on both sides of the blade via that method. Now I just make the entire camber as even as I can, like Derek, Warren and George suggest.

If I am understanding Warren I think I am setting my cambered blades up like he suggests. I try to make a camber that rises just above the bottom of the planes bed right at each corner. This allows me to use most of the width of the blade, which means I do not have to take quite as thick a shaving to remove the same amount of wood. I will certainly check that feature of my blades in the future as I think Warren makes a valuable suggestion.

I bought a 5 1/2 Custom plane in the hope that I would not have to take quite as thick a shaving as I do with my Stanley 5 1/4 or 5 to remove a similar amount of wood per pass. I do not think I will be making any more cambers in the 7-8" radius range. I don't actually mark a radius on the blades I am grinding lately. I set my blades on their chip breakers to judge how accurately I am grinding, using a square if I need further visuals. I can see that my curve is the same on both sides and not too deep this way.

[Derek Cohen]

Mike, a radius of 7" on a 1 3/4" wide blade (as per the #5 1/4) is vastly different from the radius on a smoother with a 2" wide blade. For comparison, the radius on on the Stanley #605 I use as a jack is 12", and the radius on the woodie with a 2" wide blade is 10". These remove a lot of wood and fast. They are very different to the smoothers, where the camber is barely apparent and only evident if you use a straight edge against it.

With the coarse set, jack one does not use the chipbreaker closed down. The focus here is rapid removal and the surface will be rough-ish. This will be improved with a fore plane or a jointer plane, and then onto a smoother.

On the jack, I pull the chipbreaker back roughly in line with the start of the camber. It is not playing any part on the process. It is a different matter with regards the smoother. There, it is the central section of the camber that matters most. Still, this is relative, since the camber is so slight that the centre may be around 0.4mm and the sides may be 0.5mm.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Rounded corner blades are literally advised in old books about planing. Therefore,it is easy to confuse them with what you mentioned on your former post,Patrick.

I ,even as a teenager,never understood how "rounding the corners" was going to produce perfectly satisfactory surfaces. Frankly,I think that whoever wrote such recommendations was either not a practiced woodworker,or just not good at visualizing the results of using rounded corners. Maybe they expected one to thoroughly sand the surface after planing. That would not be surprising.

Another example of bad technical writing from ages ago is seen in the Nicholson booklet "File Filosophy",where "draw filing" is only,and sloppily described as rubbing a file held crossways across a surface. Words to that effect. The key word is "rubbing". Anyone knowledgeable about filing at all knows that you do not "rub" a file on a surface. It is LIFTED or only grazes the surface on the back stroke. Otherwise the file teeth get their cutting edges broken off microscopically,dulling it.

This measly description also leaves completely ambiguous the DIRECTION in which the file does the cutting. I say "draw filing" clearly implies that you are holding the tang end of the file in the left hand,and the file is cutting when it is being DRAWN towards you. Yet,this pamphlet has caused confusion amongst even those who should be considered advanced craftsmen. A horse drawn wagon is PULLED by the horse,not pushed. When you DRAW water from a well,you are not pushing the bucket back down the well.(You can't push a rope,of course!) Other instances of "drawing" clearly show that the object in question is being PULLED. Therefore,I think it is clearly evident that the file is being DRAWN towards the operator. I don't see what the confusion is about.

What does this "drawing" issue have to do with rounded corners on a plane iron? Both are examples of poor technical writing in old books that many would THINK were written "back when" good craftsmanship was the order of the day. Apparently it was not always the case!!

George; there's a good reason the old text recommends rounding the corners and keeping the majority of the cutting edge in a straight line. And I am not discussing scrub planes. Its called taking advantage of lateral adjustment. And the need is not restricted to just metal bodied hand planes. Try and do that within slight incremental adjustments on a fully cambered cutting edge.. I am not sure what the philosophy is with Japanese woodworkers and cambered plane irons. I seem to recall most have clipped corners. I will leave that to Stan and Brian to answer.

Stewie;

[george wilson]

Stewie: I would reserve straight edges irons for joining the edges of planks. But in that use,there is no need to round corners anyway.

Patrick: If you noticed,I stated that my post was not meant to be disparaging. Did you read that part? You have stated that are a beginner,yet you do have learned sounding advice on every topic that comes up. You can be subject to correction if you do that with incorrect information. So can anyone.. But,the more experience a person actually has with the topic,the less corrections will be coming his way. Actually,I stand to be corrected the most because I do not Google my replies as you admit you have,and rely on my old,forgetful head.

I thought your language was perfectly clear: You said that you did not mean a smooth camber across the blade,but rather rounded corners of the blade,in post #73. Then,you tried to back out of it when Warren confronted you.

Heavens,even Stewie tries to correct me,as he just did!:) I'll admit I don't know everything. But I have a lifetime of work behind me. I learned how to use a chip breaker from David. I pick up info all the time. But,I do have a large body of work that shows that I got the job done,and with style. And,I only probably photographed 5% or so of my work. I never bothered to take pictures,especially as it was disruptive in an 18th.C. shop setting. And,the "lounge" upstairs was hardly conducive to decent back grounds. Most of all,I just never had a knack for photography back then. Or the interest. I just never was one of those types,like Hack,who makes a little table,carefully photographing every step, and makes a book out of such compiled things. I'll admit,that IS the way to make money. And get guru status,deserved or not!:) Nor did I care to take the "Folkier than thou" approach! I just didn't have the freckles!!:)

As far as studying old books is concerned,I have MANY TIMES,highly recommended reading them. I do it all the time. But,they are not the end all and be all on certain small,but IMPORTANT details. For example: Stanley's old pamphlets says to leave the chip breaker 1/16" from the cutting edge of the iron. Clearly,the old technology regarding the use of chip breakers, starting in the 18th. C., had been forgotten by the early 20th.

But,the OP's topic WAS regarding adjustable mouths on planes. I think they are a great idea. I used it myself on my wooden coffin smoother back in the early 70's( I've forgotten WHEN I made that plane,which was some good while after I first saw those old planes in old Mr. Simms's shop!)

Adjustable mouths are much easier to cope with than adjusting the frogs of Stanley Bailey type planes.

[Brian Holcombe]

Stewie,

The corners are clipped on Japanese planes, the purpose of this is to move the width of the cutting edge in past the blade grooves in the dai, otherwise the shavings would jam. Once they're move inward enough to take a shaving one can camber the blade for panel work or leave it straight for work that involves making a pass where the blade is wider than the the part being cut.

During NYC Kez my blade was flat across because the competition involved making passes on the edge of a board just shy of the width of a 65mm kanna (smallest plane being used that day by competitors). I retain that same setup on that particular plane because I use it for anything I want to make a flat surface on. My other full size kanna is cambered to the point where the corners are not in the work.

I sometimes see commentary on specific radii and so forth, but I don't measure the camber or anything like that, I just work the blade until it does as intended for the work at hand.

[george wilson]

Brian,your last sentence(after the last comma),says it all!!

[Mike Holbrook]

Derek, I think I am progressing in the manner you mention, moving toward cambers that produce a reasonably thick shaving without as much strain. Maybe you are suggesting that my issue with my 5 1/4 and sometimes with my 5 relate to overly cambered blades. This is what I have been thinking lately too. I will be "relieving" a little of the camber which may relieve the problem as well.

I suspect my smoother cambers are deeper than Derek's but a good deal less than on my "jacks". I also suspect they will get less pronounced as I figure out more exactly what works for me and my projects. I hope to be working on pieces for a new mountain home soon. These pieces will feature more textured surfaces, which may cause me to use a little more camber than Derek does.

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks for the feedback Brian.

[Mike Holbrook]

There does seem to be a certain logic to all of this. In the final analysis most of the comments describe very similar procedures.

Like Geroge notes regarding Brian's post above, experience tends to help us skip steps and still arrive at a better result, or at least that seems to be my experience.

[george wilson]

If you're building a mountain home,a bit of texture seems even more appropriate!

[Mike Holbrook]

Right George,

Actually we are just doing some remodeling of a house built in 1997.

The bottom floor of the house is actual logs and the top is framed in conventional lumber with "log" siding to match the first floor. All the interior walls are wood paneling. Like you mention a little texture is often used to provide a little contrast in all that wood. Some of the furniture used actually retains the bark as another means of creating some contrast in a veritable sea of wood.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

I was late last year for the first of April... but I have a picture to show since then:

357395

It seems as beginner I was using it too fast or the blade was too dull and chipbreaker overheated! :D

[lowell holmes]

How did this string appear on April 1, 2017 Looks suspicious to me.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

How did this string appear on April 1, 2017 Looks suspicious to me.

The picture is real and discoloration on the bevel of chipbreaker is real too. Doesn't affect anything but rather curious what is that... a feature that shows where shavings are coming out?

[John C Cox]

It looks like chip breaker is polished from where the chips are coming out.
or... Perhaps darkened from contact with tannin rich woods such as oak.

Even if it got a bit hot - the chip breaker is not tempered to as high of a hardness as the iron. They are typically "spring tempered" - and you wont draw that temper during normal use.