Some CTS-XHP tools steel observations. [Archive] - Sawmill Creek Woodworking Community

Kees Heiden

12-28-2016, 3:15 PM

About one and a half year ago I did some testing on common handtool woodworking tool steels. I compared CTS-XHP (the steel formerly known as PMV-11) to O1 as it wears when planing beech and oak. I also compared CTS-XHP, A2 and O1 in how it wears away on a sharpening lap. After a while I found that tool wear is a huge complex subject and I kind of lost interest to spend all my time on this project.

So here is some of the rough data.

CTS-XHP is a powder metal with 1.6% carbon, 16% chromium and about 0.4% each of silicon, nickel, vanadium and manganese and some 0.8% molybdenum.
A2 has about 1% carbon, 5% chromium, 1% molybdenum, 0.3% nickel and some 0.3% vandium.
O1 has about 1% carbon, 0.5% chromium, 1% manganese, 0.5% silicon, 0.4% tungsten and 0.3% vanadium.

So, the big difference between the three steel types is the chromium content. CTS-XHP is a stainless steel. A2 has enough chromium to make it markedly more wear resistant, but also more prone to chipping (less tough) then O1. CTS-XHP avoids this chipping problem because of the powder metallurgy proces, wich helps to reduce the grain size of the chromium carbides, making the material tougher.

I tested the grinding action on the various steels with this setup:
350273

The tested blade is set in a jig, weighted down with a carefully positioned weight, and pulled 10 times over a piece of 3M lapping film of 9 um (micrometer) AlOx grit. For each test a fresh piece of lapping paper. I started with a sharp edge for each test. Then I looked at the length of the grinded area under a microscope. Repeated the test a couple of times of course.

This is the measured length:
O1 89 um.
A2 74 um
CTS 64 um

But this is just one dimension. When trying to remove metal by grinding, you need to remove a volume of steel. When the length of the removed area increases, the volume of the removed material increases incrementally. We all know this when regrinding a bevel to a new angle, at first it seems to happen very quickly but when the length of the new bevel increases the work becomes slower and slower.

So, after calculating the removed volume of tool steel on my test lap, I found that:

CTS-XHP grinds about twice as slow as O1 and about 30% slower then A2.

Kees Heiden

12-28-2016, 3:36 PM

The next test was planing on a narrow strip of wood, either oak or beech with the CTS-XHP steel and O1. Then I looked with a microscope at the length of the wearbevel at the underside of the edge. I did a bunch of tests and got rather confused, but in the end I could spot a certain trend.

The wearbevel on the CTS-XHP steel didn't grow as fast as on the O1 steel. So the claim from LV that this steel is more wear resistant sems to hold true. There are some caveats though. But here is a diagram of one of these tests:

350274

Blue is O1 steel. Red is CTS-XHP. Planing length in meters is horizontally. Length of wearbevel is in micrometers vertically.

I don't think that this test is a very good value for the overal wear of a tool edge in a handplane. It only meassure one dimension in a rather complex shape.
Here is a picture of a wearing edge.
350275
The length Tb is what I was measuring during this test with the microscope. The wearbevel under the edge is the loss of clearance angle we know to be the root cause of handplane wear. When the edge doesn't want to "bite" into the wood anymore, we want to sharpen again. The more pronounced this wear bevel is, the more the upward force on the edge will be and the less the bite of the edge into the wood.

With this test I only meassure the horizontal length of this wearbevel, while the height of the concavity of this wearbevel would be more interesting. The higher, the more you loose clearance angle. But I can't meassure the height. Another thing is the edge retention Te. This determines how obtuse the edge becomes when looking at it from the front.

When I look at the diagram above of my measurement, I see that O1 has a steady increase in wear bevel length. But CTS-XHP seems to reach a plateau. I could imagine how at this point Te and Tb a re playing together. Tb increases, but Te increases at the same arte, so the result is a steady length of Tb.

So, for sure, CTS-XHP wears slower then O1 (no surprise with all those chrome carbides) but I wasn't quite sure how good this diagram represents real edge wear.

Kees Heiden

12-28-2016, 4:00 PM

So, I fired up my plane force measuring jig.

350276

With this setup I can measure the vertical and the horziontal forces on a plane blade and see how advanced wear results in a change in these two forces.

The horizontal force in this case was not really interesting and the change too small to conclude anything. The vertical force though is very interesting. It is directly linked to the loss of clearance angle. When the clearance is lost, the edge is being pushed out of the wood, exactly what we want to know.

So, here is my diagram:

350277

This diagram needs some explanation. You see the measured force vertically and the planing distance in meters horizontally. CTS-XHP is still called PMV-11 in this diagram. There are measurements for oak and beech, so the diagram is a bit crowded.

When you compare the two lines for beech and the two lines for oak seperately, you will see that force increases about the same for both tools steels over a length of 100 meters. That's surprising, because it suggests that for these two rather bening kinds of wood the wear rate is the same for the two tool steels.

I should have meassured for a lot longer but I didn't. I also should have done a similar test with teak or so, a wood with high silica content. But I didn't do that either.

For a smoothing plane, 100 meter planing distance is quite a bit, you'd want to sharpen as soon as the edge looses much of its original sharpness. But for a jack plane it is just getting started! So it depends on the circumstances how valid this data really is. If the wear curve of CTS-XHP really flattens out after a certain distance, while the O1 curve keeps on steepening, then I think that this wondersteel performs best on abrassive kinds of wood and more in roughing operations rather then smoothing.

But these are just ideas and really no conclusions. The whole area of edge wear in handplanes is rather subjective anyway.

Normand Leblanc

12-28-2016, 6:12 PM

Kees,

What kind of microscope do you use to measure the wear bevel?

I'm sure this post will draw a lot of attention.

Normand

Kees Heiden

12-29-2016, 2:19 AM

Well I am not so sure anyone is interested in some independend information about PMV-11 overhere! ��

My usb microscope has 470 x magnification and an adjustable polaroid filter to remove the glare from the metal. It wasn't the cheapest one on the market but it ain't truelly professional either. It is made by Dino-lite.

george wilson

12-29-2016, 9:34 AM

Patrick Chase

12-29-2016, 10:19 AM

I am grateful to have found out about the composition of PM VII,as I have a natural curiosity about any kind of tool steel,and do use several of them. But my main thought is I LOVE MY PM VII BLADE!!!:):):)

I read the link to the patent data in the other,now closed(?) thread. There seems to be a good deal of possible variations in the PM's content.

The patent "stakes out" a range of PM stainless steels, of which CTS-XHP is one example. That's pretty common practice, as it protects against the case where a competitor very slightly tweaks the composition to evade the patent. Here are the composition nominals per Carpenter: https://cartech.ides.com/datasheet.aspx?I=101&E=343.

Agree w.r.t. PM-V11 blades. They work very well for me.

Chuck Nickerson

12-29-2016, 1:13 PM

Perhaps I missed it as the other threads blew up: how did you equate PM-V11 to CTS-XHP?
(This is a sincere question; I'm not trying to destroy the thread.)

Patrick Chase

12-29-2016, 2:02 PM

Perhaps I missed it as the other threads blew up: how did you equate PM-V11 to CTS-XHP?
(This is a sincere question; I'm not trying to destroy the thread.)

XRF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_fluorescence). Strictly speaking what we know is that the non-Carbon constituents of PM-V11 are a very close match to the nominals for CTS-XHP.

As I mentioned in the other thread, CTS-XHP was out of patent as of 2013, so it's possible that PM-V11 is a compositionally similar steel processed by somebody other than Carpenter, i.e. a "generic". If that's the case then it would be legally incorrect (due to trademark) to call it "CTS-XHP", just as it's legally incorrect to call your drug store's house-brand Acetaminophen "Tylenol".

Thinking about this yet more, another possibility is that Carpenter is processing PM-V11, but are selling it to LV under a contractual provision that prohibits LV from using the CTS-XHP/440XH brands. Again there is precedent in the pharma industry - makers routinely sell un-branded, lower-priced "generic" versions of their own off-patent drugs. A recent highly publicized example is Mylan's decision to offer a ~half-priced un-branded version of their Epi-Pen.

Mike Henderson

12-29-2016, 5:16 PM

I sharpen by putting a primary bevel on by machine and doing a secondary bevel on water stones. Since the secondary bevel is quite small, I can put it on quickly and easily for any steel that I've encountered in chisels and plane blades. So "grinding time" is immaterial to me. What I'm interested in is how long the edge lasts in various operations.

My experience is that the PM-V11 edge lasts longer (usable) than other steels. The hard steel of Japanese chisels comes close.

Mike

Mark AJ Allen

12-29-2016, 5:47 PM

Is there any way that these tests can be correlated to the testing that was done by Veritas? Has anyone ever attempted to repeat or reproduce Veritas results? From a scientific POV, that's the hallmark of valid experimental results.

http://www.pm-v11.com/TestingIntroduction.aspx

I would hypothesize that if any steel was compared to a Veritas PMV11 under the same controlled conditions in experiments, and resulted in statistically equivalent results, then you could say the materials behave the same under the factors being investigated. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from the results presented in this thread ... are they in agreement with Veritas claims?

Derek Cohen

12-29-2016, 7:24 PM

Mark, I was one of the testers leading up to the release of PM-V11. I do not have the actual data to hand, but the results were similar to those published by Lee Valley. My method was less sophisticated - using a variety of steels, I planed wood until the blade was dull, and counted strokes. It helps to use wood that has a high silica content!

As I mentioned in a previous thread, the buying public are little interested in the composition of the steel, and more focussed whether the manufacturers claims can be supported. I liked the analogy of asking the chef for the ingredients of the meal before ordering. There are some - my wife is one - who read cook books for fun, and claim they can taste the dish on the page. Most people are content to enjoy the meal in the restaurant.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Larry Frank

12-29-2016, 7:56 PM

Jim Koepke

12-29-2016, 9:48 PM

I may have missed it in one of the posts. But where did someone find the composition of the PM-V11? Is it published somewhere or did someone have it analyzed. Could someone provide a link to it. Just saying that it is the same as the CTS-XHP, really needs a bit of backing.

My understanding of the claim to them being the same is that they have similar chrome contents.

My understanding is also that there is no source that definitively claims they are the same material, it is speculation based on comparisons of published material on the two metals.

Maybe my ability to be pleased is too simple. It doesn't matter to me if there is some special secret ingredient. How the metal performs or in the example Derek offers, it is how a meal tastes that maters to me.

jtk

Kees Heiden

12-30-2016, 3:50 AM

Several people have PMV-11 samples diagnosed. Patrick from this place, I have a friend who works on a technical university and he knows the right people. I know from another American guy who had a sample analysed and agreed with our results. This analysis is being done with an XRF machine like Patrick linked to above. This is a non destructive test. It's very simple and easy once you have acces to such a machine. It gives you the percentage rates of all the alloys in the sample except carbon. There is something with the size of the carbon atom that makes it hard to escape the steel matrix.

From my university friend I understand that it is really trivial thing to do, not any harder then putting the sample on your kitchen scales to determine the weight. You could also search for a company that does this as a service, these machines are everywhere where they are interested in the composition of things. It'll cost you a few bucks of course.

I was interested in this because of a weird contradiction in LV's claims. They claim that it is very easy to sharpen but manages to wear a lot slower then O1 and A2. Because those are essentially the same mechanisms, that's not very plausible. So. I looked at the composition of the steel and saw that there is a lot of chromium, but the rest of the makeup of the steel isn't that different from A2. Is the powder metallurgy really that magical that it can make the chromium carbides somehow softer on the grinding stone but plenty hard when planing abrassive wood? Or is there another wear mechanism going on, like corrosive wear? The chromium makes the steel stainless, so I suspect that it would help against corrosive wear, if that is an issue in handplaning.

Here is what LV claims about the sharpenability of their steel:

The blades were evaluated for ease of sharpening based on the effort required to obtain a specified level of smoothness (measured as roughness). For presentation purposes, the top-scoring material was assigned a score of 10 and the lowest-scoring material was assigned a score of 1. Intermediate-performing materials were assigned scores on a relative linear basis. (Note that this does not mean that the top metal scored 10 times better than the lowest metal.)

While all blade configurations were assigned code letters for testing, we have revealed the scores of O1, A2, M4 and PM-V11 alloys. Based on the results of the previous tests, certain blades were excluded as we determined they were not compatible with our chosen sharpening medium.

Material
Ease of Sharpening Test Score

O1
10

PM-V11
6.5

A2
6

Y-1
6

Y-2
6

Z-1
5.5

Z-2
5.5

X
5

R-1
3

R-2
3

W
3

S
2

P
2

M4
1

N1
1

N-2
1

Kees Heiden

12-30-2016, 4:12 AM

I continue in a new message because the formating of the text is abit strange after this quote.

Anyway, They claim a 10: 6.5 ration between sharpening O1 and PMV-11. Their test is rather complex, they first make a base scratch pattern on a 220 grit plate and then hone on a 1000 grit waterstone until those coarse scratches are gone. A disadvantage of a test like that is that it becomes subjective. When is the honing really completed? Another point to consider is that their scale is made up, it doesn't comform to a real fysical property. They especially mention that their scale doesn't say that PMV-11 sharpens ten times better then M4, so I don't really know what to make of it.

I simply looked at the speed of material removal. I think this is more practical, because when you want to grind out damage or when you want to change a bevel angle for some specific reason you are more intersted in bulk material removal as quick as possible. Fine honing to a really sharp edge is usually done on a very small area so speed is less important.

So I took 3M lapping film with 9 um AlOx grit. This is comparable to a 1500 grit waterstone. And simply meassured how quick a volume of steel is removed.

My results is a ratio like this: PMV-11 : A2 : O1 = 5 : 7 : 10
They claim a ration like: PMV-11 : A2 : O1 = 6 : 6.5 : 10

So I think they are in the ballpark when comparing PMV to O1, but they are too optimistic when they claim that it sharpens almost as easy as A2. In fact I don't see anything strange in my results, it agrees nicley with the makeup of the steel, taking into account that the powder metallurgy helps PMV-11 to get smaller chromium carbides, making it a little easier to sharpen then if it was made in the conventional way. Nothing magic here.

Kees Heiden

12-30-2016, 4:24 AM

Regarding the wear rate of the various steels, I am afraid that I can't give any conclusive answers. The subject is really very complex.

The LV planing test was weird, and didn't compare very well with the handplaning we do from day to day. They planed MDF (!) and looked at the scratch patterns that the very abrassive glues in the MDF leaves on the steel. That is not how I use my planes. I never plane MDF and I am not interested in scratches on the bevel of my blade. I am interested in how the edge wears and how that influences how often I need to sharpen.

In my shop I mostly use normal European woods. PMV-11 isn't giving me much extra. I am happy with how good vintage steel wears without chipping and allowing me reasonable planing time before I have to sharpen again. An advantage of having to sharpen more often is that I am working more time with a truelly sharp edge, instead of a half worn one.

But that is just me. I would think differently perhaps if Jarrah or Teak was my daily staple and I had to sharpen after every 10th planing stroke or so.

Regarding the corrosive wear idea, that was why I was testing oak and beech. Oak has lots of strong tanins, while beech doesn't. Otherwise these woods are comparable in abrassiveness and hardness. From my last test with the force meassuring machine I think I can debunk that theory. PMV-11 wears similar to O1 on both wood types, there is no difference between oak and beech when comparing the stainless PMV-11 to the non stainless O1.

Nicholas Lawrence

12-30-2016, 5:34 AM

Regarding the wear rate of the various steels, I am afraid that I can't give any conclusive answers. The subject is really very complex.

The LV planing test was weird, and didn't compare very well with the handplaning we do from day to day. They planed MDF (!) and looked at the scratch patterns that the very abrassive glues in the MDF leaves on the steel. That is not how I use my planes. I never plane MDF and I am not interested in scratches on the bevel of my blade. I am interested in how the edge wears and how that influences how often I need to sharpen.

In my shop I mostly use normal European woods. PMV-11 isn't giving me much extra. I am happy with how good vintage steel wears without chipping and allowing me reasonable planing time before I have to sharpen again. An advantage of having to sharpen more often is that I am working more time with a truelly sharp edge, instead of a half worn one.

The use of MDF may have been to speed the wear rates up so that the testing could be done quicker. There is a video from one of the knife makers that shows them eventually giving up a wear test with CTS-XHP because their hands were too sore to keep cutting rather than because the knife was dull (I don't know those people, so maybe that was more a marketing gimmick than a legitimate result, I don't know). It was one of the first things to come up when I was googling to learn more about the steel.

It is interesting that you are having good results with vintage steels. I have been using my antique wooden planes, and have been pleased with how the irons hold an edge. Maybe there is something other than the composition of the steel that affects how they wear (they are shaped differently for example) but I like the combination of sharpening speed and edge holding that they have.

Stewie Simpson

12-30-2016, 7:15 AM

Regardless of the many claims made by members of this forum on the so called benefits of switching to exotic alloys, I have never seen the need to move away from traditional 01 tool steel.

Derek Cohen

12-30-2016, 8:28 AM

Kees, I think you did well with your experimentation. It is repeatable and testable - that is the essence of science and research design.

I have stated for many years that most planes and, by extension, tool steel, are overkill for most woodworkers. That is, the equipment is better than most need. This is not to detract from advances in longevity of a sharp edge, but I believe rather that most woodworkers on the forums do not test their equipment remotely to the level the equipment can go. How many handtool users work with interlocked timbers, or abrasive timbers? If it is anything like the (imported from the USA) Hard Maple I am using at present, my case rests. This Maple is about as dense as Tasmanian Oak, which is one of the softer woods I use. Please understand that I am not knocking anyone. It is a statement of relativity. Everything is relative. It comes down to what is the baseline. For most woodworkers using straight grained- and medium soft timbers, vintage steel sounds ideal. For many that is all they need.

Not all woodworkers build with benign timber. The USA has its share of interlocked woods, and there are handtoolers there that appreciate the finer qualities of handtool use and high level equipment.

In Oz we are used to hard, interlocked timbers that are contain a high level of silica. You could work them quite successfully with a Stanley #4 or Irwin chisels. No doubt that many do. However, ask them whether they would prefer a steel that enabled one to hone half as frequently, and for the same effort, and guess what they would answer?

Before PM-V11, I preferred A2 to O1. The A2 did a decent job, and it lasted twice as long as O1. Now I use PM-V11 (in my Stanleys and in my LNs as well), because I like the edge for both its fineness and durability when working local timbers. I notice the difference. It sounds as though you do not need to do so.

PM-V11 is like a durable O1 yet hones similar to A2 - which does require a little more effort than O1 .... on the Pro Shapton, Sigma and Spyderco media I favour. I would not recommend either A2 or PM-V11 to those using oilstones - then someone would make statements that it is like honing M4 or CPM-3V. One could take it all up one notch and hone microbevels, and the differences in most steels (even M2 and M4) begin to disappear.

The point is, I believe that Lee Valley have provided accurate information. I am biased here, as you understand, since I am on record for backing up their data. However, I would not make such claims when I know that there is a reckoning - eventually there are many, many reviews and conclusion. So far, with very few exceptions, they have all been in agreement. The bottom line is whether the boat floats.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Phil Mueller

12-30-2016, 9:04 AM

Stewie and Derek, your points are well taken, and I appreciate the comments. For the wood I work, the old irons in my vintage Stanley's work quite well to my satisfaction. I have PM-V11 in a couple of planes, and my sense is it does last a bit longer. But really, the old iron will typically outlast a planning session and touch up takes less time...maybe not much, but enough to keep me from being lazy about it.

Mark AJ Allen

12-30-2016, 10:51 AM

I think my next question is:

Is what Veritas refers to as 'sharpenability' a direct correlation to what you call 'grinding'? What I mean is

You find that CTS grinds slower than A2 ... Veritas says PMV11 is 6.5 vs A2 being 6 on their 'sharpenability' scale. Are those really contradictions? I'm still not convinced that anyone can conclude that this CTS stuff is the same material as PVM11. % composition isn't enough to make that conclusion. You need to look at the microscopic grain structure for that ... this is no different than tempered vs. non-tempered steel ... same compositions but different macroscopic properties because the grain structure changes. This would be easy enough if you know some capable metallographers.

Mike Henderson

12-30-2016, 12:16 PM

Regardless of the many claims made by members of this forum on the so called benefits of switching to exotic alloys, I have never seen the need to move away from traditional 01 tool steel.
There is no doubt that traditional carbon steel will work fine for woodworking applications. Our ancestors produced beautiful furniture with those types of tools. However, we've made a lot of progress in steel since the days of our ancestors and steel formulations are available to suit many different applications.

I appreciate a chisel that will hold an edge longer than traditional carbon steel, but that may not be something that's important to someone else.

Because of my preference for edge holding ability, I've migrated to PM-V11 tools.

Mike

Brian Holcombe

12-30-2016, 12:28 PM

I have no stake in this, I use simple HC steels. However I think very highly of the Lee's and LV who make themselves accessible to everyday woodworkers and tool makers.

If you are going to work with the assumption that what you're using is the same as PMV11 then you may well either cut the association and let assumptions be made, as you do not know with certainly. Or contact LV and ask their input or permission. If you are in fact incorrect you may well be damaging the reputation of a product unfairly.

On a personal note, I feel if LV wants to keep their secret then they should be given the ability to do so.

steven c newman

12-30-2016, 12:58 PM

I also have no dog in this fight. All I ever ask of a tool, is that it will do it's job. An edge tool would need to stay sharp long enough for me to finish the project at hand. Since I usually have a week or so between projects, I can go back and do any touch ups the tools need. I don't care if the blade is made from a tin can or the latest steel, as long as it does the job I ask of it, I'm fine.

heck, I don't even question what the Vikings used to forge their finest swords with. Their owners used them, and cared for them. Can I do anything less with mine?

Patrick Chase

12-30-2016, 1:14 PM

It gives you the percentage rates of all the alloys in the sample except carbon. There is something with the size of the carbon atom that makes it hard to escape the steel matrix.

Total nitpick, but my understanding is that XRF has fundamental limitations that prevent it from accurately and reliably measuring concentrations of atoms smaller than Sodium (atomic number 11). The only such atom that is present in steel alloys is Carbon (atomic number 6), so as a practical matter what you said is true: Carbon is the only constituent that it can't detect.

Patrick Chase

12-30-2016, 1:18 PM

On a personal note, I feel if LV wants to keep their secret then they should be given the ability to do so.

That's like saying that I should be given the ability to drive around town and yet keep it a secret that my truck is painted red (my wife's doing btw).

If you sell something on the open market then its observable traits will become public knowledge, period. Composition is almost as easily observed as the color of my aforementioned truck. I've worked all my career as a product designer/architect of one sort or another, and that has always been an underlying fact of doing business. I've seen stuff I've designed torn down, stress-tested, reverse-engineered, subjected to XRF and GCMS, etc etc. I've also done the same to other peoples' products. I'm quite sure that my counterparts at LV are under no illusions in that regard, and I'm equally sure that they've participated in their share of teardowns and "competitive analyses".

If they want to correct us they're free to do so, of course.

Kees Heiden

12-30-2016, 1:56 PM

Maybe it wasn't clear: I did all my testing with plane blades made by LV and purchased in a shop overhere with my own money. I didn't get a sample of CTS-XHP, heattreated it myself and then claim it was the same as PMV-11. No I bought and tested the real deal.

Jim Koepke

12-30-2016, 1:57 PM

[edited]
If they want to correct us they're free to do so, of course.

Wouldn't that then be giving away their "secret" to the world? Most likely if anyone at LV is watching they are chuckling at these convolutions.

Besides, if they did divulge their "secret" there wouldn't be all of this free publicity generated by sulking over not being told what is behind door number three.

jtk

Pat Barry

12-30-2016, 4:17 PM

OK, where do you get CTS-XHP plane blades or chisels?

Patrick Chase

12-30-2016, 4:40 PM

OK, where do you get CTS-XHP plane blades or chisels?

Like Kees, all of the testing I've done has been on PM-V11 from LV. As both of us said earlier, we measured it and determined the composition matched the published nominals for CTS-XHP. Kees bought a bar of CTS-XHP and played with it, I haven't.

As I said in #9 and in the other thread, the fact that the composition matches doesn't mean it's "trademarked" CTS-XHP. The patent expired the same year PM-V11 came out, so it's possible in theory that we're looking at a generic variant from somebody other than Carpenter. I personally doubt that because PM processing requires a bunch of IP on the process side, so merely having the composition in the public domain as is the case here wouldn't be sufficient. I have no evidence either way, and it would take a thorough forensic analysis by a skilled metallurgist to sort that question out (though I think it *could* be answered. Even if the microstructures don't differ much you could probably resort to things like isotopic ratio tests to fingerprint the feed stock and process).

If I had to bet I'd guess that it's made by Carpenter, but that LV negotiated a deal where they get a price break in exchange for not using the CTS-XHP/440XH trademarks. This is a common maneuver when a vendor has enough market power to establish their own brand, such that they don't need to rely on the supplier's brand. If that's the case then they would be contractually prohibited from commenting one way or the other.

Pat Barry

12-30-2016, 4:51 PM

Like Kees, all of the testing I've done has been on PM-V11 from LV. As both of us said earlier, we measured it and determined the composition matched the published nominals for CTS-XHP. Kees bought a bar of CTS-XHP and played with it, I haven't.

As I said in #9 and in the other thread, the fact that the composition matches doesn't mean it's "trademarked" CTS-XHP. The patent expired the same year PM-V11 came out, so it's possible in theory that we're looking at a generic variant from somebody other than Carpenter. I personally doubt that because PM processing requires a bunch of IP on the process side, so merely having the composition is in the public domain as is the case here wouldn't be sufficient. I have no evidence either way, and it would take a thorough forensic analysis by a skilled metallurgist to sort that question out (though I think it *could* be answered. Even if the microstructures don't differ much you could probably resort to things like isotopic ratio tests to fingerprint the feed stock and process).

If I had to bet I'd guess that it's made by Carpenter, but that LV negotiated a deal where they get a price break in exchange for not using the CTS-XHP/440XH trademarks. This is a common maneuver when a vendor has enough market power to establish their own brand, such that they don't need to rely on the supplier's brand. If that's the case then they would be contractually prohibited from commenting one way or the other.
So, we can't actually buy chisels or plane blades made with that material? We can get PM-V11, which we think is close enough?? In that case I agree with George!

Patrick Chase

12-30-2016, 7:37 PM

So I think they are in the ballpark when comparing PMV to O1, but they are too optimistic when they claim that it sharpens almost as easy as A2. In fact I don't see anything strange in my results, it agrees nicley with the makeup of the steel, taking into account that the powder metallurgy helps PMV-11 to get smaller chromium carbides, making it a little easier to sharpen then if it was made in the conventional way. Nothing magic here.

A few remarks:

1. I think that D2 is a reasonable point of comparison to see how much ease-of-sharpening benefit you get from the smaller grains. It has lower Cr (12 vs 16 pct) but otherwise broadly similar composition. In fact Carpenter describes CTS-XHP as a "stainless D2" in their literature. In my experience there is no comparison between the two: PM-V11 is vastly easier to sharpen on common media. As George said in one of these threads D2 is fairly intractable with everything but SiC, ceramics, CBN and diamonds (ok, I added SiC and CBN to his list, but his broader point is dead on - D2 radically limits your choice of abrasives). In contrast PM-V11 does pretty well with AlOx and even SiOx. IMO the fact that we're even comparing ease-of-honing between a steel with 16 pct Cr (PM-V11) and one with 5 pct (A2) is a strong testimonial to the benefits of PM.

2. The benefit of the smaller carbides will be grit-dependent. The finer the carbides, the finer the abrasive that can "work" by dislodging them. I'd expect PM-V11 to behave similarly to a non-PM steel like D2 with very coarse abrasives (and indeed I see that in my own use) but to do much better with fine ones. Your 9 um abrasive is somewhere around #1200, so it would be interesting to see if PM-V11 does relatively better with a polishing grit like 0.5 or 1 um. I expect that it would.

3. In addition to speed of abrasion you have to consider edge quality. AlOx and even SiOx will "hone" D2, but they do so by knocking carbides out and the resulting edge is quite rough. Diamonds do much better but even so there is always "chippiness". In my experience PM-V11 is in a completely different league, vastly better than D2 and clearly better than A2 in that respect. I know your tests didn't bear that out w.r.t. A2, but there are enough uncontrolled variables here that I think everybody's claims/results can be reconciled (more on that below).

4. Speaking of edge profiles, in my experience higher-carbide steels like A2 fail (become unacceptable) due to localized carbide drop-out and chipping, and resulting loss of surface quality. Edge profile and therefore planing forces remain acceptable long after the blade has started leaving striations all over the place. In my experience PM-V11 does *very* well in this respect - it comes off the stone with a smooth edge (second only to HCS, and not by much), and holds it nicely. D2 is so prone to chipping that I would never consider it for "show" surfaces (as opposed to, say, mortises :-), and A2 is in between.

5. In order to compare the ultimate performance of different steels you need to optimize edge angle for each separately. PM-V11 does much better than D2 or A2 at low edge angles in my experience, and that can bring benefits of its own (higher clearance and therefore potentially more resistance to profile loss in BD planes; Lower cutting force in chisels and BU planes). If you compare PM-V11 using geometry that you optimized for A2 or even O1 then you're arguably limiting its potential.

Altogether I find PM-V11 more beneficial for the way I sharpen and use it than you seem to indicate. That doesn't make your results wrong or invalid by any stretch of the imagination though. There are more than enough variables here to reconcile your results, LV's claims, and my observations.

Chuck Hart

12-30-2016, 7:40 PM

Ron Bontz

12-30-2016, 8:29 PM

Well, I don't know what is behind door #3 or 2 or 1 but let's "make a deal". I don't like to spend my time sharpening. So just give me the one that holds an edge the longest. Looks like I will have to purchase some PMV-11 chisels when I get a few dollars. For now, however, I am stuck with my lowly A2 plane blades and chisels. Interesting info..Thanks for posting.
Best wishes.

Kees Heiden

12-31-2016, 4:24 AM

I think that is a great summary Patrick and explains nicely why researching this kind of stuff is so complex.

BTW, I did NOT buy a piece of CTS-XHP. I bought some PMV-11 plane blades and decided to call it CTS-XHP here to stir up the more orthodox part of our fraternity.

Stewie Simpson

01-01-2017, 1:42 AM

You guys can analyze this until the cows come home. This is what I KNOW PMV-11 blades sharpen easily and stay sharp longer FOR ME. If I had the opportunity I would replace every steel blade I own with PMV-11. I appreciate the confirmation of my opinion though.

Chuck; the beauty of an open forum is that we can all differ in opinion. While others will see a distinct advantage within time measure by switching over to a more wear resistant tool steel, others will recognise the distinct advantages in persevering with much more traditional tool steels.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/winding%20sticks/_DSC0353_zpshmvesqyp.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/winding%20sticks/_DSC0353_zpshmvesqyp.jpg.html)

Mike Henderson

01-01-2017, 2:00 AM

Chuck; the beauty of an open forum is that we can all differ in opinion. While others will see a distinct advantage within time measure by switching over a more wear resistant tool steel, others will recognise the distinct advantages in persevering with much more traditional tool steels.

What are "the distinct advantages of persevering with much more traditional tool steels"?

If you're satisfied with the edge you get with a modern steel, the time it takes to sharpen your tool, and your edge last longer than traditional steel, why would you want to switch?

Mike

[There's been a tremendous amount of progress made in the production of speciality steels in the last 200 years. Are you saying that none of those steels are better than the plain carbon steel our ancestors used in the 1700's and 1800's? If so, why?]

steven c newman

01-01-2017, 2:20 AM

Biggest problem I see....the expense of changing out all the "old" steels I have, and then also having to buy the needed sharpening toys for the new steels.

All of mine are vintage planes, with their OEM irons. Soooo, to go all out for the "latest and Greatest" would mean about......35 NEW irons. Not happening. I use the vintage irons, and sharpen them the same way as the original owners would do. I fail to see any upside on an iron that MIGHT give me one or two more projects between sharpenings, while forcing me to also buy the sharpening items the new steels need.

Warren Mickley

01-01-2017, 7:30 AM

What are "the distinct advantages of persevering with much more traditional tool steels"?

If you're satisfied with the edge you get with a modern steel, the time it takes to sharpen your tool, and your edge last longer than traditional steel, why would you want to switch?

Mike

[There's been a tremendous amount of progress made in the production of speciality steels in the last 200 years. Are you saying that none of those steels are better than the plain carbon steel our ancestors used in the 1700's and 1800's? If so, why?]

Why were the chisels better 200 years ago? Because they were made by craftsmen with more skill and they were made for craftsmen who were more discriminating. The chisels weren't tested by guys who like to diddle around in their spare time. If today's tool makers were really interested in high quality, they could first learn to duplicate that early 19th century quality and go from there.

If you are satisfied with 21st century quality, just maybe you are not all that discriminating.

The advantages of 200 year old chisels are fineness of the edge, ease of sharpening, and longevity.

Pat Barry

01-01-2017, 8:44 AM

george wilson

01-01-2017, 8:47 AM

Larry Frank

01-01-2017, 9:18 AM

I have no doubt that the tool makers and steelmakers from 200 years ago were quite skilled and clever. These people were making steel with only gross analysis of the steel they were making. They found a way to make very good tools by trial and error for a certain source of raw materials.

The steel made today has tight control of the composition and purity. This leads to much more consistent properties. It is amazing that the early tool makers did so well and shows amazing skill.

However, I would chose to use good tool steel made today over that made 200 years ago. One can appreciate the old ways and still opt for modern steels. LN and LV make high quality tools and I believe I would chose their blade materials over what was produced 200 years ago in America.

(Please, this thread is heading on a downward trend. It contains some interesting discussion and we need to be careful that it is not closed due to a few comments.)

Brian Holcombe

01-01-2017, 10:20 AM

A modern example of traditionally made crucible steel exists today on the making of tamahagane and its subsequent use in tools, knives and razors.

My understanding is that it is an inconsistent material and so makers are careful in how they select sections of the steel and how they work with them. Those capable of working with it are producing top products.

I can't say with personal experience how it compares to the purest of high carbon steels made today but judging by how it is regarded by users I would expect it is not far behind if it is behind at all.

It's important to understand that alloys have impact on the users, but more importantly many alloys are easier to work with and therefore produce less waste in their production and thereby appealing to makers.

Dave Anderson NH

01-01-2017, 11:07 AM

I would second Larry's comment about keeping this thread on a polite and civil level. There has been quite a bit of rude behavior here recently and with the new year folks will begin to see a tougher and less tolerant attitude from the moderators. Miscreants (the usual suspects) will begin to see suspension of their posting privileges for varying periods of time if there are further offenses. We have already seen some valuable members leave because they choose not to deal with the abuse and this is not good for the community.

Please consider this fair warning.

Happy New Year from your soon to be less friendly moderator.

Patrick Chase

01-01-2017, 11:08 AM

However, I would chose to use good tool steel made today over that made 200 years ago.

Unless you're making something like a Geiger counter that requires an absolute minimum of background radiation. Then you'll be scavenging your steel from stuff that was built pre-1945, for example the remains of the German WWI fleet at Scapa Flow :-).

Mike Henderson

01-01-2017, 11:42 AM

Why were the chisels better 200 years ago? Because they were made by craftsmen with more skill and they were made for craftsmen who were more discriminating. The chisels weren't tested by guys who like to diddle around in their spare time. If today's tool makers were really interested in high quality, they could first learn to duplicate that early 19th century quality and go from there.

If you are satisfied with 21st century quality, just maybe you are not all that discriminating.

The advantages of 200 year old chisels are fineness of the edge, ease of sharpening, and longevity.
You've got to be kidding me. Why on earth would you think that the workers of 200 years ago were better workers and more "quality" conscious than a worker of today. Workers back then were paid pittances and were often on piece work. They couldn't be "craftsmen" if they wanted to. Even if someone had the time and expertise to produce a superior product with their processes, they were limited by the input to their process. It wasn't even possible to test iron/steel for the component elements until the late 1800's so the material produced was of varying composition and quality.

To be a "craftsman" the worker would have had to be working in his own small shop and producing a limited volume of product which would be sold at a premium price (like the things George Wilson did). The evidence we have of that time is exactly the opposite. Large works, filled with low paid, low education, sweat labor, making products which sold for low prices.

Mike

[And I might add, works that were poorly lit, filled with safety dangers, and fetid air.]

[But I am still interested, from a technical point of view, in why some people see advantages in using traditional steel. What things about traditional steel cause you to choose it over modern steels?]

Jim Koepke

01-01-2017, 1:56 PM

[edit]
[But I am still interested, from a technical point of view, in why some people see advantages in using traditional steel. What things about traditional steel cause you to choose it over modern steels?]

In one word, PRICE. My old chisels have mostly been bought at a price anywhere from less than 1/10 the cost of a new chisel to no more than 1/2 the cost of newly minted quality chisels. Well, that is a technical point of view from my wallet.

The trade off is they may need to be sharpened a little more often. Today's "best buy" may be the chisels from Narex. They are not as great as those from Blue Spruce, Veritas or Lie-Nielsen, but they can do the same work.

jtk

Pat Barry

01-01-2017, 2:05 PM

In one word, PRICE. My old chisels have mostly been bought at a price anywhere from less than 1/10 the cost of a new chisel to no more than 1/2 the cost of newly minted quality chisels. Well, that is a technical point of view from my wallet.

The trade off is they may need to be sharpened a little more often. Today's "best buy" may be the chisels from Narex. They are not as great as those from Blue Spruce, Veritas or Lie-Nielsen, but they can do the same work.

jtk
That, in itself might be the great argument for why the new materials are better. Let's say, in fact, that the old chisels are better. Why are they so inexpensive? If they were better, everyone would want them and the prices would skyrocket.

steven c newman

01-01-2017, 2:20 PM

Shhhhh, not so loud...I not done buying them, yet.....

Jim Koepke

01-01-2017, 2:26 PM

That, in itself might be the great argument for why the new materials are better. Let's say, in fact, that the old chisels are better. Why are they so inexpensive? If they were better, everyone would want them and the prices would skyrocket.

There is really no argument in my post making claim to the old steel compositions being better. In my opinion, they are not better when the price difference is figured in.

BTW, a new old stock set of Buck Brothers, Swan, Witherby or any other quality maker's chisels from the past will set one back close to what modern chisels will.

If one is willing to supply a little elbow grease, good quality can be obtained at a bargain price if one is willing to take the time to seek it out. That may be another advantage to the modern steels. They can be in hand in less than a week and do not have a requirement of being rehabilitated.

As stated in my post the edge may not be as durable as modern steels.

The other consideration is A2 is a bit chippy, especially when one likes to use a 15-20º bevel on a paring chisel.

Believe you & me, if a winning lottery ticket happened to find me, a set of PM-V11 chisels might be among my first splurges.

jtk

Graham Haydon

01-01-2017, 2:47 PM

To be a "craftsman" the worker would have had to be working in his own small shop and producing a limited volume of product which would be sold at a premium price (like the things George Wilson did). The evidence we have of that time is exactly the opposite. Large works, filled with low paid, low education, sweat labor, making products which sold for low prices.

[But I am still interested, from a technical point of view, in why some people see advantages in using traditional steel. What things about traditional steel cause you to choose it over modern steels?]

Hi Mike

It's a touch pompus but worth looking at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bhu7HjIGAk . It's a good example of a high point of the Craftsmen. In addition many "vernacular" pieces were made by craftsman similar to this. Then there is the "country" craftsman who might adapt his art of carpentry to things like basic furniture.

Derek makes a good point about timber types. If you work wood normally reserved for railway sleepers then modern steel might prove useful. In addition most people now just use hand tools as a final flourish and would struggle to see the value of tools truly suited to hand tool woodworking. I personally prefer simple, traditional steel. I like to hone as I go and it's a quick process as all I need to do is apply a dab of oil to a stone a go. I've tried modern steels but they seem more similar to the carbide and hss found in machine tools.

Mike Henderson

01-01-2017, 3:47 PM

Hi Mike

It's a touch pompus but worth looking at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bhu7HjIGAk . It's a good example of a high point of the Craftsmen. In addition many "vernacular" pieces were made by craftsman similar to this. Then there is the "country" craftsman who might adapt his art of carpentry to things like basic furniture.

Derek makes a good point about timber types. If you work wood normally reserved for railway sleepers then modern steel might prove useful. In addition most people now just use hand tools as a final flourish and would struggle to see the value of tools truly suited to hand tool woodworking. I personally prefer simple, traditional steel. I like to hone as I go and it's a quick process as all I need to do is apply a dab of oil to a stone a go. I've tried modern steels but they seem more similar to the carbide and hss found in machine tools.
I said earlier that our ancestors produced some excellent work with the tools that were available to them. I assume that a person with the proper skills and time could produce outstanding furniture with flaked stone tools.

But what we're talking about here is the manufacture of steel for woodworking tools, and the manufacture of those tools that contained metal cutting components. Could our ancestors produce factory made chisels and plane irons from the material available to them that are superior to the chisels and plane irons made today from modern materials?

My contention is they couldn't for a number of reasons:

1. People are the same today as they were 200 years ago. Our ancestors had no special genes that caused them to be superior craftsmen.
2. Quality is defined as producing what the customer wants. Or putting it another way, meeting the needs of the customer. That includes price as well as mechanical and chemical characteristics.
3. Workers produce products that meet the needs of the customer when they are trained, motivated, and given the tools, time and working conditions to accomplish what they need to do to produce a product meeting the requirements.
4. Price competition was essentially the same as it is today. Customers shopped around and attempted to find the best solution to their needs for the lowest possible price. New producers entered the market and attempted to better meet the needs of the customers. There was always pressure on the manufacturers to increase productivity.
5. Our ancestors were limited in what they could produce by the material that was the input to their process. Until the late 1800's it was not possible to analyze the composition of the metal that was input to the chisel factory (for example) and different batches were of different composition. So a process that worked with one batch to produce good product might produce inferior product in the next batch. And even if the chisel maker (for example) did everything perfectly, the output was dependent upon the input.
6. Process control was difficult for our ancestors. Tempering, for example, depended upon the eye of the worker and the time and rate of cooling could vary from piece to piece. This caused variation from worker to worker and depended (to some extent) on the motivation and precision of the individual worker (Monday morning hangover).

Today, we can precisely control the input and the process to produce whatever output we want. Certainly, for plain carbon steel, we should be able to produce a better chisel than our ancestors simply because we can better control the input and the process.

And we have better steel formulations available today. Our ancestors essentially only had carbon steel. I'll bet that if our ancestors had access to tools made with some of the modern steel formulations, they'd have jumped that them.

Mike

Brian Holcombe

01-01-2017, 4:00 PM

And we have better steel formulations available today. Our ancestors essentially only had carbon steel. I'll bet that if our ancestors had access to tools made with some of the modern steel formulations, they'd have jumped that them.

Mike

Mike, better is subjective and/or situationally dependent, I think you can agree that high carbon steel is infact better in certain circumstance and alloy steel better in others.

Mike Henderson

01-01-2017, 4:26 PM

Mike, better is subjective and/or situationally dependent, I think you can agree that high carbon steel is in fact better in certain circumstance and alloy steel better in others.
That's specifically what I'm asking. Where do the people who prefer plain carbon steel find that it is superior, and in what way is it superior?

Stewie commented that "others will recognise the distinct advantages in persevering with much more traditional tool steels" and I'm trying to understand what that means. It sounded like he meant for all applications but perhaps not.

Mike

Jim Koepke

01-01-2017, 4:40 PM

Brian Holcombe

01-01-2017, 5:21 PM

That's specifically what I'm asking. Where do the people who prefer plain carbon steel find that it is superior, and in what way is it superior?

Stewie commented that "others will recognise the distinct advantages in persevering with much more traditional tool steels" and I'm trying to understand what that means. It sounded like he meant for all applications but perhaps not.

Mike

I'm sort of running out the door, so I can't write an involved post, but HC steel is a finer steel (literally) and so it can create a smoother finish that alloyed steels when finish planing. It degrades very evenly and so it retains that ability to cut a smoother (cleaner appearing) surface as it wears for a long time.

The epitome of this is the Japanese planning competition (Kezurou-Kai) where very clean HC steels are the leading choice, my tools dealer supplied a world record holder who won using simple HC steel, IIRC it was White 1 VAR.

I enjoy HC steels for everyday tools as well, they're easily sharpened on natural stones which leave a very fine edge and I find they improve my work flow because of that.

Phil Mueller

01-01-2017, 5:36 PM

Graham, thank you for that link. Interesting history of Chippendale and the stellar craftsmanship and design he brought to the furniture industry. I enjoyed the brief segment on Williamsburg...was expecting to see George...a bit of a disappointment he wasn't featured :confused:

Stewie Simpson

01-01-2017, 6:14 PM

Mike; I am going to heed the warnings of the moderators and do my bit to insure this thread doesn't get locked out.

Attached is a post by Kees, imo it goes a long way to explain what's been happening in recent times.

regards Stewie;

The truely obsessive plane owner of course has a complete set of Stanley type 11 bench planes, all of them from the nr. 2 till the nr. 8 including the half numbers. Not the nr. 1 of course because that would mark him as a collector. He also has a complete set of Veritas bevelups because they are so versatile. And a set of woodies probably, because they are so cute.

He replaced all the original Stanley irons with Hock O1, because that is part of the fettling proces of course. When the word spread that A2 is a superior toolsteel, he replaced all those Hocks with A2's. Then of course PMV-11 came on the market, which lasts a lot longer and is much easier to sharpen so he replaced all the irons for those. But now he is scouring ebay again for original Stanley irons, because they say these are laminated and laminated is far superior to anything.

And those are just the bench planes.

Joel Moskowitz

01-01-2017, 7:05 PM

There is plenty of historical documentation about how chisels were made and sold. Also plenty of information about steel making.
One is correct that until the late 19th century steel composition wasn't scientific. Both the toolmakers and steel makers had no precise formula for what steel to use.

Steel varied from firm to firm, from furnace to furnace. What they did know is that steel from furnace X (which happened to use a specific combination of ore from a particular place and coke from a particular maker and was managed by a specfic master) seemed to be more suited for woodworking tools than the steel from furnace Y.

So if you look at steel catalogs from the mid 19th century there are dozens of versions of "cast steel" all marked suited for different applications. Mills produced far more varieties of steel than today and mills were much smaller capacity than today.

So if you were an edge tool maker you had available specific steela that seemed to work better for your purpose than other steels available, and a large discriminating customer base that didn't buy your tools unless you did it right.
What happened to the tools of the lesser makers - over the past century they got melted down. for scrap.

What survives today are tools that were good enough to not get scraped, expensive enough so nobody wanted to toss them, but not used up in daily shop life.

I am sure the in a century most of the hardware store chisels around will have long been discarded and what will survive will be the better chisels only. Or at least the more expensive brands.
And then what will people of the 22nd century say - Those guys in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries really know how to make chisels and the steel was better.

Mike Henderson

01-01-2017, 7:14 PM

Mike; I am going to heed the warnings of the moderators and do my bit to insure this thread doesn't get locked out.

Attached is a post by Kees, imo it goes a long way to explain what's been happening in recent times.

regards Stewie;
I'm sorry, I don't understand your post. You stated that "others will recognise the distinct advantages in persevering with much more traditional tool steels". Were you saying that tongue-in-cheek and mean that traditional tool steels would become fashionable, rather than that they would have some technical advantage?

Mike

Graham Haydon

01-01-2017, 7:19 PM

I'll echo Stewie, I don't want to upset the mods, or anyone else. I just happen to enjoy discussions :)

Phil, no worries! I really enjoyed the videos in that series. They gave a brief but exciting overview.

Mike, the craftsmen of the 18th century could not use shards of flint to make furniture of the standard I showed, even if they had a huge amount of time. They did however rely on well made tools with good steel.

The benefit of earlier times was perhaps people were more practical from an earlier age, started work in their mid teens, worked only with their hands. These days we do things differently.

True, things were more of an art in earlier times than an engineering science. Today we can make pretty consistent tools at a good price point using modern engineering skills. Stewie's quote from Kees underlines part of my concerns. For 99% of work the touted advantages mean close to nothing, It's only in recent times I've read about the issues of edge longevity of quality vintage tools as a barrier to good work.

I know nothing about carving but I'd assume that the fine sharp edge of plain carbon steel would be useful when creating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaUCOXBI4m8 . If I were in a position to learn that craft edge retention and modern wonder steels would be the least of my concerns.

However I will concede that there were situations were edge retention would be helpful. I might of dreamed this but did George make the coopers at Williamsburg A2 iron for their plane? Makes sense in that setting, but for fine surfaces, intricate work I find no advantage in modern wonder steels unless they are found in machine tooling.

Mike Henderson

01-01-2017, 7:21 PM

I'm sort of running out the door, so I can't write an involved post, but HC steel is a finer steel (literally) and so it can create a smoother finish that alloyed steels when finish planing. It degrades very evenly and so it retains that ability to cut a smoother (cleaner appearing) surface as it wears for a long time.

I've looked at the arris of a plain carbon steel blade and the arris of a PM-V11 blade under a magnifying glass and when freshly sharpened, the edge appears smooth and continuous on both. I can't see how one could create a finer finish than the other - at least not one that could be visible to the eye or to the feel of the hand. I've certainly never noticed any defects or roughness in the finish produced by PM-V11 blades.

I haven't tried to do a direct comparison, however. But the more modern blade meets all my requirements.

Mike

Mike Henderson

01-01-2017, 7:27 PM

Graham Haydon

01-01-2017, 7:31 PM

In a nutshell it's for the same reason Brian said.

Mike Henderson

01-01-2017, 7:59 PM

In a nutshell it's for the same reason Brian said.
I have not observed that result and see no technical reason why it should be true.

Mike

[I know that going from the original Stanley iron to a modern iron on an older Stanley plane improved the performance of the plane significantly (on multiple planes that I own). The advice I always give is that the replacement of the iron on an old Stanley plane with a modern iron is the biggest improvement you can make to the plane.]

Derek Cohen

01-01-2017, 9:27 PM

Everyone has an opinion. Here is mine. It goes without saying that I am not a metalurgist, and inspire others to correct me.

The blades of the 18th century began with inferior steel than that available today. As Joel pointed out, it was not until the 19th century that the basics improved enough to create greater consistency. Importantly, also, the blades surviving into the 21st century are unlikely to be representative of all blades from earlier times.

On that note Mike, Stewie's reference to vintage steel being better makes little sense since his favoured Marples chisels are mid-20th century, and the blades for his planes are early 20th century. This is not the same as the era mentioned by Warren.

One important characteristic in a cutting edge is the fineness of the grain. Simplically, there are two ways to achieve this: method of manufacture of the blade, and method of manufacture of the steel.

I assume that blades in the 18th century were manufactured in the same manner as the better Japanese blades are manufactured today - that is, by hammering. This process aligns and reduces the size of the grain, which creates the foundation for a finer edge. O1 steel has a fine grain and is more consistently so today than manufacturers in the 18th century could have dreamed of, and casting it (as opposed to hammering it) produces a very decent edge - unlike steels, such as A2, which have large grains, and grain which are not reduced by hammering. The PM steels come closer to the high carbon steels in that the grain structure is dialled in, like baking a cake. Hence, one can use a higher degree of abrasive-resisting content in the mix because the grains are reduced to the size of those in high carbon steels.

The second element of a good edge is how long it can hold the edge. O1 steel does not hold a good edge particularly long. On one hand this is relative, so if one is used to such steel, then the edge-holding is accepted. But it is not held long at all - relative to even A2. Something needs to be done to high carbon edges to increase longevity. There are two ways: The first is to harden the steel. This has been the way we associate Japanese blades - that is, laminating a hard cutting edge to a softer backing. It was not only the Japanese that did this, of course. It was also done in the 18th century in the West. However, I don't believe that the West hardened their steel as did the Japanese - not in my understanding. So perhaps this was done for economy in the West. If so, it supports the view that finer edges can last longer, and that a hammered high carbon edge endured beyond a non-hammered O1.

The second way to gain edge-holding longevity is by the introduction of abrasion-resistance into the steel, per se. This is the second string to the PM steels. Not only does one get fine grain, but also abrasion-resistant steel.

The question is whether these blades are equal, better or worse than the 18th century blades? I have no idea. Has anyone actually made a direct comparison? I have compared PM-V11 against laminated White Steel chopping in chisels. The White Steel shaded the PM steel, with both so far ahead of O1 and A2 that the latter were not even in the race. That test measured impact resistance. Tests of abrasion resistance are needed. I did do some but they did not include PM-V11. Is there another test that can measure the differences in tool blades? Do we address factors such as feedback and ease of sharpening? Comparisons are not straight forward as design features now have to be excluded. Or is Warren referring to design, per se?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Brian Holcombe

01-01-2017, 10:30 PM

Mike, the technical reason is the fine grain of high quality high carbon steels. As mentioned the finest edges will wear evenly producing a glossy finish for a long period of time.

I find this critical for softwoods such as yellow cedar, port orford cedar, OG Doug Fir and OG Western Red Cedar. The preference of fine white steel becomes very obvious when working tightly grained softwoods to obtain the glossy finish thst is so important for the performance of those woods.

These blades are best finished with natural stones, without that component I would expect you will find the blades lacking.

A blade that retains its edge for a very long time has its purpose, I use alloys for certain purpose in fact two of my favorite planes are alloyed steels, so it is not a matter of best, period, but best for a given use. I wouldn't expect anyone to put high carbon steel into a super surfacer the same way I would not expect an alloy steel to apply a mirror finish to fine softwoods on end without fastidious care.

Derek Cohen

01-01-2017, 11:04 PM

A blade that retains its edge for a very long time has its purpose, I use alloys for certain purpose in fact two of my favorite planes are alloyed steels, so it is not a matter of best, period, but best for a given use. I wouldn't expect anyone to put high carbon steel into a super surfacer the same way I would not expect an alloy steel to apply a mirror finish to fine softwoods on end without fastidious care.

This is essentially what I wrote earlier on, so we are on the same page Brian. I mentioned preferring A2 over O1, which emphasises the important of edge-holding on the hard, abrasive timbers of Western Australia. I now prefer PM-V11 for the same reason, but with the added highly desirable feature of having a fine grain (similar to O1).

No doubt the reason for so much variability of preferences and opinion among woodworkers must come down to two factors: the types of woods used, and the methods of sharpening that are involved with maintaining edges. One cannot expect that someone who works with softer, and docile woods to have the same needs as one who works with firewood, or only occasionally does so. Plus, anyone who attempts to hone full faces of PM steel on an oil stone will come to view these blades as impossibly difficult to maintain, and that the edges do not get particularly sharp. One cannot always marry the old ways with the new world.

None of this should have any bearing on craftsmanship. Putting it another way, a craftsman does not blame his/her tools. As long as the tool is working the way it is needed to work, I do not complain. On the other hand, I do prefer to use better tools, for all the reasons mentioned before.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Joe Williams

01-01-2017, 11:24 PM

XRF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_fluorescence). Strictly speaking what we know is that the non-Carbon constituents of PM-V11 are a very close match to the nominals for CTS-XHP.

As I mentioned in the other thread, CTS-XHP was out of patent as of 2013, so it's possible that PM-V11 is a compositionally similar steel processed by somebody other than Carpenter, i.e. a "generic". If that's the case then it would be legally incorrect (due to trademark) to call it "CTS-XHP", just as it's legally incorrect to call your drug store's house-brand Acetaminophen "Tylenol".

Thinking about this yet more, another possibility is that Carpenter is processing PM-V11, but are selling it to LV under a contractual provision that prohibits LV from using the CTS-XHP/440XH brands. Again there is precedent in the pharma industry - makers routinely sell un-branded, lower-priced "generic" versions of their own off-patent drugs. A recent highly publicized example is Mylan's decision to offer a ~half-priced un-branded version of their Epi-Pen.

Wow it amazes me the lengths you have gone through and all the information you have come up with. So nice to live in an age where someone does all this work and shares the results for free. Thank you. I always wondered what PM-V11 is and when you say formerly known as, did Lee Valley change the name they are using or are users generally just using the other name?

Thanks again!

Derek Cohen

01-01-2017, 11:55 PM

Has anyone actually purchased the Carpenter steel in small qualities for personal use? I suspect that this is not possible.

The second feature, again based on steel composition, that would be a help from identifying a steel, is what happens when it is ground at a wheel - can the steel be burned (like O1) or is it relatively impervious (like M2)? If the former, how does one heat treat it? Consider, for example, A2 steel - this is not something that one can deal with in the home shop.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Patrick Chase

01-02-2017, 12:51 AM

Has anyone actually purchased the Carpenter steel in small qualities for personal use? I suspect that this is not possible.

I have not, Kees has.

You can get CTS-XHP bar stock from retailers that sell to knife makers. http://sb-specialty-metals.com/product/cts-xhp-sd/, http://usaknifemaker.com/cts-xhp-188-thickness-see-length-note.html.

The second feature, again based on steel composition, that would be a help from identifying a steel, is what happens when it is ground at a wheel - can the steel be burned (like O1) or is it relatively impervious (like M2)? If the former, how does one heat treat it? Consider, for example, A2 steel - this is not something that one can deal with in the home shop.

Regards from Perth

Derek

LV advertises that PM-V11 is tempered to Rc 62.5, so your heating question boils down to: "How hot can you get it before you make it softer than that?"

Here's the tempering table (https://cartech.ides.com/ImageDisplay.aspx?E=343&IMGURL=%5cCarpenterImages%5cB-StainlessSteel%5c106-SS106-CTS-XHP%5c07_SS106_EffectofRefrigTemperedHard.GIF&IMGTITLE=Effect+of+Refrigeration+on+Tempered+Hardn ess) for CTS-XHP. It's a bit complicated because of the number of variables (hardening temperature, air-cooling vs oil-quench, post-HT refrigeration) but the short answer is that you don't want to get it very hot at all. If they refrigerate after treatment (and hopefully they do, for the sake of all of their customers with bench grinders) then Rc 62.5 corresponds to tempering at ~400F, which would correspond to a light yellow or straw color.

It's similar to O1 when tempered to the same hardness, though most people use O1 softer than Rc 62.5, so a PM-V11 blade will start to lose hardness at slightly lower temperature than a typical O1 blade. For example LV tempers their O1 blades to ~Rc59, which corresponds to ~500F IIRC. It's nowhere near as heat-tolerant as an HSS like M2.

As you say, this is a great example of a reason why it's good to know what steel you're dealing with.

Derek Cohen

01-02-2017, 1:01 AM

Thanks Patrick.

Incidentally, Kees stated that he purchased PM-V11 blades, not Carpenter.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Patrick Chase

01-02-2017, 1:41 AM

Thanks Patrick.

Incidentally, Kees stated that he purchased PM-V11 blades, not Carpenter.

Ah, you're absolutely right. I went back and looked at his post in the closed thread. He posted where to get it (one of the same 2 links I gave, probably because it's the first result for "CTS-XHP bar stock" from my employer's search engine) but didn't say he'd actually purchased it.

Kees Heiden

01-02-2017, 6:19 AM

Indeed Patrick, I repeated that about 3 times in this thread ;)

Price really is in favor of O1 steel. PMV-11 is about 2 -3 times as expensive. Also it takes more time and abrassive material to shape it, and the heat treating schedul is more involved, all adding to the costs.

Sometimes a less wear resistant steel is in favor of a fine finish. When roughing you'd like to go as long as possible between sharpening. The finish after jack plane work isn't very important. But when smoothing something as well as you can, it is better to stay in a mental mode of touching up your edge as often as possible. Every steel type looses it's initial edge after sharpening rather quickly, PMV-11 isn't immune to that. It is able to keep a medium quality edge for a long time. O1 is very easy to sharpen and because the sharpeness doesn't last as long, you are more in the mood to accept that. Carvers know this very well and they keep a strop near their work all the time to quickly touch up the edge repeatedly.

And then, with all modern engineering, it is easy to forget that the old cast steel makes a very capable tool for hand tool woodworking. It lasts reasonably long, it is very easy to sharpen especially in the laminated tools of yesteryear and delivers very sharp edges that wear in a nice an mellow manner without chipping even when it has been hardened to a high degree. For powertools, metal working and stuff like that, there are certainly better choices. It is also easy to forget how the tool making masters were able to deliver constant high quality without modern engineering knowledge. There were some damned good artists aound in the 18th, early 19th century. Ward for chisels and plane blades, Kenyon for handsaws, Addis for carving tools to name a few.

Stewie Simpson

01-02-2017, 7:50 AM

Kees; all valid points imo, but likely of low tolerance to an audience that might see little value in focusing on past practices.

Stewie;

Kees Heiden

01-02-2017, 8:23 AM

Some of us do, others not so much.

Graham Haydon

01-02-2017, 9:20 AM

Agreed Kees, in addition I think many of the old brands used small "sub contractors" to supply them, a cottage industry of sorts. Although as time moved on this became less and less.

george wilson

01-02-2017, 11:09 AM

I have tried to dredge trough all 6 pages,and may be in error,and if so,please correct me: 1; It has been remarked that some tool steels are,or were cast. This refers only to the ingot,which in the old days was octagonal in shape,if I recall correctly. The ingot was certainly hammered,though,in the process of making a tool from it. No cast tools I can think of do well if cast into their final shape. There are some axes and hatchets made to old patterns that have been advertised as "hand forged". However,I met one of the major suppliers of these axes,and he told me they are supplied made from castings. They are not as good as they could be if they were forged from the ingot as the retailer would have you believe. Perhaps the retailer did not know better themselves.

2. Yes,I did make a few plane irons from A2 for the coopers because I felt bad for them. They were unable for the most part to get hand split stave blanks. White oak is not as plentiful as red oak,and they have to use what they can get. But,sawn oak staves do not plane as nicely as split stave material. The staves are often rather dirty from being stacked on sandy soil,or just from sitting for quite some time in a rather dusty warehouse. White oak in itself is not the easiest wood to plane to begin with.

The difference between a blade made from 1080(ish) carbon steel,even with a laminated bit on it,and an A2 blade left black,with forged surface on it would be for all purposes undetectable to even the tool collectors coming by. Especially if the blade in question was inserted in the plane at the time. The 1080 steel used to make bits for the plane irons is not the very best carbon steel. It was used because it welds more easily than higher carbon steels without burning up at welding temperatures. I could say more here,but will not.

I also made 6" wide A2 blades for the large crown molding planes I made for the Housewrights. They reported that they were able to plane 130 feet of tough YELLOW pine without having to resharpen the blades. I did this to ensure the longevity of those special planes.

Some will react that "This was not authentic". True,but I reply that the museum is pretty far from being truly authentic anyway: The streets are not 2 feet deep in horse,pig,cow and chicken droppings as described by a visitor in the 18th. C. There are no operating out houses or wells(for kids to fall into!),no scores of flies,mosquitos and other disease spreading insects present. They are sprayed regularly. The employees bathe regularly,instead of once or twice a year.I could go on quite at length,but will just say that there
are many dozens of cleaned up details for the sake of sanitation. Very few modern visitors would want to visit a truly 100% authentic 18th. C. town !

The quality of the woodwork on the buildings is a great deal better than the original work. Inside a large brick house,obviously inhabited by wealthy middle class people in the 18th. C.,the chair rail moldings,stair cases,and other surviving wooden trim is exceedingly rough,torn from planing in the wrong direction,and basically looking like the carpenter was quite drunk (as he possibly was!) An English visitor in the 18th. C. left a letter in which he says "The architecture is but indifferent". I can see what he meant! The town,after all,was more or less an outpost on the edge of a new,uncivilized continent. But,it happens to be the best preserved town we have,as far as I know. It was abandoned to Richmond because the British could bombard the town from the river. Towards Richmond,the river is too shallow for warships to reach to bombard the new capital. The town was left to molder for nearly 200 years when restoration began in 1927.

So,I say that a few A2 plane irons made to ease the hard conditions that our outdoor craftsmen must work in Year round is not the end of the World! And I pleads mercy and throws myself on the GUILT of the court!!:)

Mike Henderson

01-02-2017, 11:25 AM

Kees; all valid points imo, but likely of low tolerance to an audience that might see little value in focusing on past practices.

Stewie;
I suppose this is one of the questions I have. Why do some people focus on past practices - except for historical knowledge. The world moves on, better practices are developed, better materials, etc. Why is there this fixation on the past? Why isn't the focus on "best practices" rather than "past practices"?

As an engineer, I spent my life attempting to design better things and to move technology forward. I believe the best is ahead of us and not behind us. And that includes the tools used in woodworking. I think SawStop is a tremendous step forward, as well as the new formulations in metals, and I look forward (impatiently) to the developments that will come in the years ahead.

Mike

george wilson

01-02-2017, 11:44 AM

My last post got entirely away from a few things I meant to say. First of all,exceedingly little was known about chemistry until about 1830. And that included the making of steel.
Ore came from many sources,and hardly anything was known as to why some of it had different properties from other ores. For example,the Germans had a natural tungsten bearing ore called Wolfram. The French in the 17th. C.,and possibly into the 18th. C.(my memory is hazy by now),did not know how to make carbon steel. Fortunately for them,they had natural deposits of ore that good tools could be made from. THERE WERE EVEN DEPOSITS OF STAINLESS STEEL ! Some Scottish all metal pistols were made of stainless steel,and were highly prized in combat. Washington had a pair. We have an 18th. C. fireplace set in Williamsburg! Years ago,when I was concerned about such things,I read "Reamour's Memoirs"(sp?) He was a sort of industrial spy and nobleman whom the French king sent to England to attempt to find out how they made steel. He never did actually find out,but was a very intelligent man,and developed theories which were quite accurate. He also invented malleable iron.

Steel making in England,and elsewhere,was practically a blend of experience and black magic. They mixed the urine of a red headed boy,the urine of a wine drinking friar,and all kinds of bizarre stuff to pack sandstone chests with. Into these chests were included rods of wrought iron. Fortunately,the chests always also contained material that would yield carbon,which,of course,was what was needed. This was from wood,leather scraps,etc..

The chests were inside tall furnaces that looked like inverted funnels made of brick. These were loaded with fuel and allowed to cook for a few weeks. The chests were unloaded by men who had to crawl into the cooled furnaces,and remove their heavy lids. Then,the rods,now heavily case hardened,were bundled together and welded into a mass called "shear steel". To get a better steel,the mass could be folded onto itself and re welded into what was called "double shear steel".

This was what they had till Benjamin Huntsman invented crucible steel in the 18th. C.. It has a homogeneous ingot of carbon steel,greatly superior for blades and springs to the older shear steel as it did not have hard and soft layers. This was called "cast steel",and the same process was used for many years afterward,even into the 20th. C..

Still,they had no way of actually knowing the true carbon content. A very experienced man would be in charge of breaking samples open and looking at the grain structure. My memory is not good,but IIRC,there were "spindle steel"-the lowest carbon content,"Knife steel",and "razor steel". I may need correcting here.

The wrought iron itself came in several grades. The best iron came from Sweden,where it was smelted with charcoal. It was called "hoop iron". Why,I don't know. The price varied in the 3 or 4 different grades it came in,priced by the ton.

The English did not know why Swedish steel was better. The English used coal as fuel in their furnaces,which got sulphur into their iron,causing it to be of inferior quality. Blacksmiths called it "hot short" because it could be somewhat brittle. Especially in cold weather.

Recently I bought an antique English pocket knife,which gets tiny chips broken off the edge when it approaches razor sharp. I won't be buying any more old English knives,tempting as they look. I have no way of knowing what a very old blade is actually made from.

My point here is,I have used antique plane blades and chisels for many years,especially when I was in costume. Some were better than others. Just saying that old tool steel was the best is too broad a statement to really be making. I paid $200.00 for my antique Sheffield knife that chips when sharpened. And,it is a GOOD brand!!!Even after the advent of cast steel,too little was known back then to really assure consistent quality as we know it today(from RELIABLE BRANDS!!!!) if a blade is good,enjoy it and use it. That is really all we CAN do,in the final analysis. Today,though we long for the past in many ways(and NOT in some other ways !) we really have it so much better than people used to. Aesthetics aside,unfortunately. And,that's the real truth.

Brian Holcombe

01-02-2017, 11:57 AM

I suppose this is one of the questions I have. Why do some people focus on past practices - except for historical knowledge. The world moves on, better practices are developed, better materials, etc. Why is there this fixation on the past? Why isn't the focus on "best practices" rather than "past practices"?

As an engineer, I spent my life attempting to design better things and to move technology forward. I believe the best is ahead of us and not behind us. And that includes the tools used in woodworking. I think SawStop is a tremendous step forward, as well as the new formulations in metals, and I look forward (impatiently) to the developments that will come in the years ahead.

Mike

Mike,

Some things are not better on the whole but simply made more practical, that is the reason why so many 'move-on' as you put it. Wood split out and riven to shape makes a better chair leg, but I sincerely doubt even one manufacturer uses splits for chair legs, instead they saw with the grain and find a happy medium if they care at all about the quality of their product. Still, it is not better....simply more practical.

It is not practical for many users to purchase extremely expensive tools, hence someone comes along and makes a full steel chisel out of an alloy that heat treats without trouble and there is your medium level chisel.

Patrick Chase

01-02-2017, 12:05 PM

The wrought iron itself came in several grades. The best iron came from Sweden,where it was smelted with charcoal. It was called "hoop iron". Why,I don't know. The price varied in the 3 or 4 different grades it came in,priced by the ton.

The English did not know why Swedish steel was better. The English used coal as fuel in their furnaces,which got sulphur into their iron,causing it to be of inferior quality. Blacksmiths called it "hot short" because it could be somewhat brittle. Especially in cold weather.

It's probably worth noting that this state of affairs persisted until the Bessemer process became available in the 1850s.

Altogether steelmaking wasn't a reasonably well understood or controlled process until the mid-to-late 19th century.

Stanley Covington

01-02-2017, 12:05 PM

Thank you for the fascinating insight, George.

Stan

george wilson

01-02-2017, 12:11 PM

Thank you,Patrick and Stanley. My memory is getting old,and the neurontin certainly does not help. I'm sure that some of my details could be corrected. I haven't been as concerned about technical history since I retired in 2009.

Assorted ramblings:

Are you guys familiar with those ultra expensive guns that you just point at a metal and get the chemistry there of ? I'm sure engineers here know. Over $100,000.00 I think. I'd really love to have one,but that isn't happening!! None of our local scrap yards have one.

Speaking of Bessemer: A big reason that mild steel replaced wrought iron is that mild steel can be electric welded.

The Titanic disaster really makes me wonder if the hull cracking open so badly was from poor chemistry understanding or someone trying to get by on the cheap.

Mike Henderson

01-02-2017, 12:11 PM

The wrought iron itself came in several grades. The best iron came from Sweden,where it was smelted with charcoal. It was called "hoop iron". Why,I don't know. The price varied in the 3 or 4 different grades it came in,priced by the ton.
I can answer one of your questions/comments, George. The best Swedish iron came from the Dannemora mine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dannemora_mine) and was also called Oregrounds iron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregrounds_iron). The mark on the iron was two circles and it was also known as "double bullet" iron - as well as "hoop iron". Remember that bullets in those days were round balls.

Mike

Derek Cohen

01-02-2017, 12:12 PM

Thanks George. It makes one wonder at what point in time did the British steel become consistent enough to make reliable tool blades? Mid-, late 19th century? Later still?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Mike Henderson

01-02-2017, 12:15 PM

It's probably worth noting that this state of affairs persisted until the Bessemer process became available in the 1850s.

Altogether steelmaking wasn't a reasonably well understood or controlled process until the mid-to-late 19th century.

The best history of steel making - before Bessemer - that I've found is the two volumes of "Steelmaking Before Bessemer (https://www.amazon.com/Steelmaking-Before-Bessemer-Volumes-2/dp/B000JETMH4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1483377635&sr=8-2&keywords=steelmaking+before+bessemer)". The first volume addresses the making of blister steel and the second addresses the making of crucible steel. I also have a book on Bessemer which addresses his development of the Bessemer process but I don't remember the name.

The "Steelmaking Before Bessemer" books are pretty expensive if you go to buy them - if you can find them.

Mike

Mike Henderson

01-02-2017, 12:19 PM

Thanks George. It makes one wonder at what point in time did the British steel become consistent enough to make reliable tool blades? Mid-, late 19th century? Later still?

Regards from Perth

Derek
You might say that the development of crucible steel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucible_steel) was the beginning of "good" steel and that was in the 1700's when Benjamin Huntsman developed the process.

But very decent steel was made before that by the blister process, especially if it was processed to "double shear steel".

Bessemer steel was not considered "good" steel and saw most of it used as railroad rails. Crucible steel (also called "cast steel") continued to be used for the best tools until the development of the electric arc furnace in the early 1900 (generally called "tool steel"). Crucible steel gradually declined and the last factory making it was closed in the 1960's.

Mike

Patrick Chase

01-02-2017, 12:22 PM

Are you guys familiar with those ultra expensive guns that you just point at a metal and get the chemistry there of? Over $100,000.00 I think. I'd really love to have one,but that isn't happening!! None of our local scrap yards have one.

That's XRF. They hit the metal with X-ray radiation to bump electrons to higher orbitals, and then look for the light emissions from electrons returning to ground state.

Patrick Chase

01-02-2017, 12:26 PM

The Titanic disaster really makes me wonder if the hull cracking open so badly was from poor chemistry understanding or someone trying to get by on the cheap.

There was a widely reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html) paper a few years ago that argued that brittle rivets were at fault. Apparently the hull didn't "crack open" so much as "split at the seams".

george wilson

01-02-2017, 12:29 PM

Thanks,Mike and Patrick. Mike,your post did jog my memory some. I have a wonderful book on the history of steel making. But,I haven't read it for over 20 years at the LEAST. It's been over 30 since I read "Reamour's Memoirs". I don't own that book,though. It's in the museum's fantastic library.

Re: ships breaking apart; even in WWII Liberty ships had the habit of their WELDED steel hulls breaking right in the middle of the hull. They had to hurry up and reinforce them!!!!!

Long ships such as tankers have to be careful of the weather they sail in. If a real long ship gets caught between 2 tall waves,one at each end,the hull can sag and break.

Mel Fulks

01-02-2017, 12:38 PM

I think the answer is different circumstances and different uses. I've bought fine cast steel chisels for one dollar. Would be sad ,yes SAD about losing one on a job site but it wouldn't be a $90 loss!

Warren Mickley

01-02-2017, 12:44 PM

Thanks George. It makes one wonder at what point in time did the British steel become consistent enough to make reliable tool blades? Mid-, late 19th century? Later still?

Derek

The best chisels I have were made in the first half of the 19th century. I get ease of sharpening, very fine edge and good longevity. .This was not O-1; old cast steel is easier to sharpen than O-1. Oil hardening had not yet been done and was probably not used for edge tools until the 20th century. O1 and W1 are specific alloys dating from the 20th century.

The problem today is not lack of engineering expertise. Today's manufacturers are not trying to recreate the golden era edge tools of the past; they are aiming in another direction. The problem is their concept of a good chisel. They are concentrating in making a chisel that holds a crappy edge forever.

Stanley Covington

01-02-2017, 12:45 PM

Why were the chisels better 200 years ago? Because they were made by craftsmen with more skill and they were made for craftsmen who were more discriminating. The chisels weren't tested by guys who like to diddle around in their spare time. If today's tool makers were really interested in high quality, they could first learn to duplicate that early 19th century quality and go from there.

If you are satisfied with 21st century quality, just maybe you are not all that discriminating.

The advantages of 200 year old chisels are fineness of the edge, ease of sharpening, and longevity.

I have to agree with Warren somewhat. I have little experience with the old chisels, but plenty with old plane blades. Some of the old "Cast Steel" blades I used were of absolutely excellent quality. I have a fetish about sharpness, and these would get very sharp, were easily sharpened, and developed a long-lasting edge. I have no experience with powder-metal blades, but those old blades beat the heck out of A2.

But I suspect those old blades were more the exception than the rule. Modern chemistry (metalurgy) modern testing techniques, and modern QC techniques have really improved the consistency of tool steel compared to older steel. This makes it easier for factories filled with relatively unskilled labor to reliably make fair to middling tools at low prices. But I doubt workers in modern factories (most of which are in China, sorry to say) have anywhere near the ability to produce a quality blade as a top blacksmith in Sheffield England 200 years ago.

I can't speak to LV's powdered metal blade product, but I am confident that A2 is not used because it makes the best cutting blade possible, or because it has better wear performance, but rather because it consistently makes a decent blade in a production situation, at a low price, and with very few rejects or warranty problems.

My point is that, in my opinion, modern mass-production techniques and materials are superior to older ones, and produce decent-quality tools very inexpensively, but that modern metalworking skills fall short of what they once were, and lack the ability to make truly excellent blades. I am happy to be proven wrong.

Stan

Mike Henderson

01-02-2017, 12:54 PM

Mike,

Some things are not better on the whole but simply made more practical, that is the reason why so many 'move-on' as you put it. Wood split out and riven to shape makes a better chair leg, but I sincerely doubt even one manufacturer uses splits for chair legs, instead they saw with the grain and find a happy medium if they care at all about the quality of their product. Still, it is not better....simply more practical.

It is not practical for many users to purchase extremely expensive tools, hence someone comes along and makes a full steel chisel out of an alloy that heat treats without trouble and there is your medium level chisel.
I don't disagree with you at all. When I started woodworking, I couldn't afford higher priced tools so I bought used Stanleys and old chisels.

For years, I didn't have the space or money to buy a powered jointer - I would joint by hand or glue up off the table saw. But I finally found an 8" powered jointer at a good price and it changed my life. When jointing by hand, there were always "errors" - it was impossible for me to produce a perfectly square edge along the length and across the edge. And the table saw always left saw marks on the wood.

The powered jointer produces a PERFECT edge for panel glue-up. Straight in length and across. Why would I want to use "past practices" when I get much better results from my jointer? And much faster.

In both your example, and in mine, the choice is the "best practice" not the "past practice". My question is why people choose to use "past practices" when better alternatives are available?

I look at what I'm doing and what I'm using and what alternatives are available to me. After using plain carbon steel plane blades and chisels, I purchased plane irons and chisels made from modern formulations. For planes, the results were dramatic. The modern iron performed so much better that there was just no comparison. For chisels, I found that modern steel formulations allowed me to go longer before I had to hone or resharpen. I definitely did not experience any loss of "quality" in my work from using those modern tools, and I felt I was more productive (more time spent doing woodwork and less doing maintenance).

Mike

Frederick Skelly

01-02-2017, 1:26 PM

Thanks George. I found your posts in this thread to be very interesting.
I appreciate your insights.
Fred

Patrick Chase

01-02-2017, 1:34 PM

The best chisels I have were made in the first half of the 19th century. I get ease of sharpening, very fine edge and good longevity. .This was not O-1; old cast steel is easier to sharpen than O-1. Oil hardening had not yet been done and was probably not used for edge tools until the 20th century. O1 and W1 are specific alloys dating from the 20th century.

That's a very misleading statement, because O1 are W1 are AISI-SAE standards, and neither AISI nor SAE existed as such until the early 20th century. In such cases you have to look at the history prior to standardization to draw a valid or useful conclusion.

Water-, oil-, and air-hardening steels for edge tools were all known and in use by the mid-to-late 19th century. O1/W1/etc were basically retroactive formalizations and refinements of what people were already doing.

Graham Haydon

01-02-2017, 1:35 PM

George, thank you for sharing your experiences. Glad I had correctly recalled the A2 irons you made. In addition, Brian, Stanley I completely support your thoughts on this and don't feel I can expand any better than you have.

Patrick Chase

01-02-2017, 1:51 PM

I can't speak to LV's powdered metal blade product, but I am confident that A2 is not used because it makes the best cutting blade possible, or because it has better wear performance, but rather because it consistently makes a decent blade in a production situation, at a low price, and with very few rejects or warranty problems.

No, if you want the properties you list you go with O1 (and most do). W1/T10 and other water-cooled steels are somewhat problematic due to warping/cracking/etc, though if Quangsheng can use W1/T10 in their plane irons it clearly isn't that difficult.

A2 is used specifically because it DOES have better wear performance, due to its much higher fraction of hard carbides. Relative to O1/HCS A2 basically trades off initial edge acuity/smoothness for longer wear.

The degree of acuity/smoothness loss depends on the size of the carbides, and that depends on a host of processing variables as Larry Frank pointed out a couple times. IMO that's one reason why there's such a range of opinion about "A2". Powdered metallurgy can be viewed as a "big hammer" processing variable (actually a large family of variables) to achieve smaller carbide size in steels with a high carbide fraction.

george wilson

01-02-2017, 2:12 PM

I agree,Patrick.There is nothing in terms of traditional tool steels,that will take a keener edge than plain old water hardening steel. Adding any alloy always causes some loss in possible maximum keen ness,but adds wear resistance. As I and others have said,"There is no free lunch".

I cannot apply this to the new powdered steels because I just haven't used them enough to evaluate. Indeed,my only PM blade is my LV PM VII block plane blade,which does take a very keen edge. I just haven't played around with it enough to make an evaluation.

I think the ultimate test I might could make with the LV blade,is to get it as sharp as I can,and try planing the SOOOOO soft,thick fuzz on the flesh side of my chrome tanned sea ray skin. The only block plane blade I could previously get that would skive that soft fuzz was the original blade in my 60 1/2 LN block plane blade. The original blade was either W1 or possibly O1. A2 would not get sharp enough. I am re covering a French 18th. C. folding rule case. The original ray skin was so thin you could just about see through it!! Amazing skill the makers had in getting it that thin. But,the original ray skin was vegetable tanned,which is a harder skin than this chrome tanned stuff. It could be skived very thin indeed.

Brian Holcombe

01-02-2017, 2:51 PM

I don't disagree with you at all. When I started woodworking, I couldn't afford higher priced tools so I bought used Stanleys and old chisels.

For years, I didn't have the space or money to buy a powered jointer - I would joint by hand or glue up off the table saw. But I finally found an 8" powered jointer at a good price and it changed my life. When jointing by hand, there were always "errors" - it was impossible for me to produce a perfectly square edge along the length and across the edge. And the table saw always left saw marks on the wood.

The powered jointer produces a PERFECT edge for panel glue-up. Straight in length and across. Why would I want to use "past practices" when I get much better results from my jointer? And much faster.

In both your example, and in mine, the choice is the "best practice" not the "past practice". My question is why people choose to use "past practices" when better alternatives are available?

I look at what I'm doing and what I'm using and what alternatives are available to me. After using plain carbon steel plane blades and chisels, I purchased plane irons and chisels made from modern formulations. For planes, the results were dramatic. The modern iron performed so much better that there was just no comparison. For chisels, I found that modern steel formulations allowed me to go longer before I had to hone or resharpen. I definitely did not experience any loss of "quality" in my work from using those modern tools, and I felt I was more productive (more time spent doing woodwork and less doing maintenance).

Mike

The easy answer is a simple one....there may come a day when you want to joint a 9" wide board....without buying a 10" wide jointer. :p

I know what you're saying Mike, but if you could be a little more inclusive of people who have a different set of requirements/experiences than your own.

Patrick Chase

01-02-2017, 3:12 PM

Re: ships breaking apart; even in WWII Liberty ships had the habit of their WELDED steel hulls breaking right in the middle of the hull. They had to hurry up and reinforce them!!!!!

Intrestingly the ultimate fix for that problem in the successor Victory ships (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_ship) (which used the same construction methods in a derived design) was to make the hull less stiff by increasing the spacing between frames.

As in tool steels, hardness/stiffness had to be traded off against toughness. That's where laminates and carbides come in. They're akin to non-structural armor plating in ships in the sense that they're all ways to achieve a hard "business end" within a tough overall structure :-).

Mike Henderson

01-02-2017, 3:24 PM

The easy answer is a simple one....there may come a day when you want to joint a 9" wide board....without buying a 10" wide jointer. :p

I know what you're saying Mike, but if you could be a little more inclusive of people who have a different set of requirements/experiences than your own.
I ask my question(s) of those who advocate using "past techniques", rather than "best techniques". Why do people, in essence, want to remain in the past?

I can understand people who have a different set of requirements/experiences, and each should use the "best techniques" for them. But that's not the way it's often presented. It's presented simply that the old ways are the best ways and those of us who use more modern techniques just need to be educated and we'll come around. And anyone who questions is an apostate.

Mike

Patrick Chase

01-02-2017, 3:31 PM

I ask my question(s) of those who advocate using "past techniques", rather than "best techniques". Why do people, in essence, want to remain in the past?

I think that question belongs in a sociology, anthropology, or psychology forum. A certain amount of fondness or nostalgia for tradition is a fundamental human trait, and as such I believe that it exists for evolutionarily valid reasons (like not getting yourself culled from the herd while trying untested stuff).

IMO it isn't an age-related thing as or to the degree that a lot of people (and stereotypes) assume - just look at all the DIYer millennial hipsters. Similarly, if you follow people like Warren closely you'll notice that they've had a historically-oriented approach for a very long time.

I also think that people who like historical approaches tend to gravitate to "tradition-oriented" pursuits, of which neander woodworking is unquestionably an example.

Mike Henderson

01-02-2017, 3:57 PM

I think that question belongs in a sociology, anthropology, or psychology forum. A certain amount of fondness or nostalgia for tradition is a fundamental human trait, and as such I believe that it exists for evolutionarily valid reasons (like not getting yourself culled from the herd while trying untested stuff).

IMO it isn't an age-related thing as or to the degree that a lot of people (and stereotypes) assume - just look at all the DIYer millennial hipsters. Similarly, if you follow people like Warren closely you'll notice that they've had a historically-oriented approach for a very long time.

I also think that people who like historical approaches tend to gravitate to "tradition-oriented" pursuits, of which neander woodworking is unquestionably an example.
I have no problem if people want to use historical techniques. George Wilson used historical techniques and produced some wonderful things. But he doesn't try to tell everyone that they should only use past techniques.

You didn't quote the second part of my posting.

Mike

[I note that when I ask someone who advocates that everyone should use only past techniques "Why?" I never get an answer.]

Patrick Chase

01-02-2017, 4:08 PM

[I note that when I ask someone who advocates that everyone should use only past techniques "Why?" I never get an answer.]

I didn't address it because it's an inherently contentious topic.

If you must know, my blunt opinion is that some people have trouble recognizing that their opinions about what's good for them and their requirements aren't necessarily valid or appropriate for everybody. It's often a symptom of narcissism, with the occasional legitimate spectrum-inhabitant in the mix (and it's important to recognize and distinguish between the two IMO).

Also, the Internet is not conducive to "best behavior" as it's hard to be thoughtful when you're in a many-way debate wherein people aren't really listening to each other. I've seen people who I know are perfectly reasonable in real life turn into complete a**holes, and I've done it myself (just ask George). Once you've been assaulted for opinions that you KNOW are valid enough times you tend to build up some scarring. Warren gets a pass in my book because of the cap-iron thing alone - he got beaten up pretty badly for something that we now know to have been 100% right.

Mike Henderson

01-02-2017, 4:20 PM

I didn't address it because it's an inherently contentious topic.

If you must know, my blunt opinion is that some people have trouble recognizing that their opinions about what's good for them and their requirements aren't necessarily valid or appropriate for everybody. It's often a symptom of narcissism, with the occasional legitimate spectrum-inhabitant in the mix (and it's important to recognize and distinguish between the two IMO).

Also, the Internet is not conducive to "best behavior" as it's hard to be thoughtful when you're in an many-way debate wherein people aren't really listening to each other. I've seen people who I know are perfectly reasonable in real life turn into complete a**holes, and I've done it myself (just ask George). Once you've been assaulted for opinions that you KNOW are valid enough times you tend to build up some scarring. Warren gets a pass in my book because of the cap-iron thing alone - he got beat up pretty badly for something that we now know to have been 100% right.
Okay, point taken.

Mike

Dave Anderson NH

01-02-2017, 4:23 PM

A partial answer Mike. I use a made up set of James Swan paring chisels which were undoubtedly equivalent to what we would today call W-1. They take an incredibly keen edge quite easily on ceramic, diamond, and oilstones. They also sharpen very well on SiC paper when I travel with them. I know of no current maker of paring chisels who produces tools anywhere approaching the Swan quality no matter what the composition of the steel. The set was built up from a Donnelley auction box lot if 12 chisels for about $90. There was a lot of rehab involved including a new full set of handles but it was worth the time and effort spent to get wonderfully functional, well balanced, and beautiful tools. At the other end of the spectrum I have my old set of serviceable but unappealing Marples Blue Chip chisels which are mediocre at best, need constant sharpening, and are butt ugly. My general purpose all around users are a set of L-N bench chisels in A2 which use a 30 degree bevel and stand up to almost anything but can't even come close to approaching the Swans for sharpness.

What I am trying to get across is that I find that top quality antique old technology, mid 20th century "OK" quality alloy steel, and modern A2 all have their appropriate place and I appreciate them all. Each has their niche in my arsenal. If I lived in Oz ala Stewie and Derek, my choices would be different and I'd probably gravitate toward the high abrasion resistant materials. Technology is great, but I can't see going out and buying just because something new and wonderful has come onto the market only to be replaced 2 years later by something newer and even more wonderful. As a hobbyist my time and money is better spent on more wood and time to practice my technique. Finally though, we all have different needs and therefore make different choices.

Joel Moskowitz

01-02-2017, 4:26 PM

My question is why people choose to use "past practices" when better alternatives are available?
Mike

I think in many fields woodworking included the newest technology is not automatically better. If your goal is edge retention than when it comes to chisels modern steels and chisels are your best option.
If your goal is decent edge retention and lower cost modern drop forged chisels can be a great option.
If your goal is a great professional set of chisels at low cost - you cannot beat the "Better alternative" of an older set in good condition.
If your goal is great edge retention, money no object - some of the Japanese makers are doing fabulous work today.

There are also people who find the geometry of early 19th century chisels better for the work they do and the modern features are not important to them. And some of the have superb edge retention.

Patrick Chase

01-02-2017, 4:33 PM

Okay, point taken.

Mike

Just to be clear, I am not labelling you a "narcissist" (at least not to a greater degree than most humans with Y chromosomes. You have noticed that opinionated forum-dwellers are overwhelmingly male, right? :-)

Patrick Chase

01-02-2017, 4:42 PM

I think in many fields woodworking included the newest technology is not automatically better. If your goal is edge retention than when it comes to chisels modern steels and chisels are your best option.
If your goal is decent edge retention and lower cost modern drop forged chisels can be a great option.
If your goal is a great professional set of chisels at low cost - you cannot beat the "Better alternative" of an older set in good condition.
If your goal is great edge retention, money no object - some of the Japanese makers are doing fabulous work today.

There are also people who find the geometry of early 19th century chisels better for the work they do and the modern features are not important to them. And some of the have superb edge retention.

I think Mike acknowledged that in the rest of his post, though admittedly the phrase you cited could have been worded to be more consistent with his overall thrust.

His question was about why some people insist that some technique or product X (where "X" is often traditional) is the *only* valid approach. I think he's got a point, though I also think it's unrealistic to expect people to stop doing that on the Interwebs.

BTW, I think that your blog is a great source of information about both traditional and modern tools.

Stewie Simpson

01-02-2017, 7:49 PM

Patrick Chase

01-02-2017, 8:40 PM

Patrick; correct me if I am wrong but there is a common adage when it comes to Mech Engineers, if it aint broke it needs redesigning. As such, I wouldn't expect to see much of a strong connection between Mech Engineers, and the need to preserve past practices.

It depends.

You're absolutely right that many if not most engineers instinctively tend towards "shiny new things".

With that said those of us in industry are generally playing with others' money, and we have a duty to make sure we don't squander it. You also learn very early on that many employers are happy with "good enough but not quite ideal" solutions if choosing those avoids the occasional spectacular failure from trying to do too much. There are notable exceptions, and I work for one right now, but they're just that: Exceptions.

If you talked to my colleagues they'd probably tell you that I'm basically conservative most of the time, and that I set a high bar for concluding that something is broken to the point of requiring overhaul as opposed to incremental improvements. They would also tell you that when I do decide that something needs redesign I tend to be VERY aggressive about making sure we do it so that we don't end up in the same place on the next project. Go big or go home and all that, with the understanding that "go home" is usually the right answer. At least that's what they say on my anonymous peer feedback (also, "he doesn't know when to shut up").

The thing you don't want to do is to spread yourself too thin trying to redesign everything. Pick your battles and make sure you win those, etc.

David Bassett

01-02-2017, 8:54 PM

Pat Barry

01-02-2017, 8:57 PM

Mike Henderson

01-02-2017, 11:08 PM

Patrick; correct me if I am wrong but there is a common adage when it comes to Mech Engineers, if it aint broke it needs redesigning. As such, I wouldn't expect to see much of a strong connection between Mech Engineers, and the need to preserve past practices.

So I ask myself, what was the main incentive of others to move towards more abrasive resistant alloy. The most common excuse put forth on this thread has been the incessant need to save a few minutes of your precious time to stop and re-hone the cutting edge. How much per hour are most of you guys charging for your woodwork. !!!!

regards Stewie;
I'll give you an example: I teach a hand cut dovetails class. It's impossible for me to "touch up" each students chisels during the class and still get the class done. I use chisels with the longest lasting edge possible. If there were chisels that never had to be sharpened, I'd be first in line for them.

But more to the point, using old tools or new tools is a choice that each of us makes. The old tools route is not the "way", just waiting to be discovered by those of us who don't subscribe to that "way". I, for one, tried it and found that I'd prefer to be pragmatic and use the "best techniques" for me.

I found that a plane with a modern iron was light years better than when it had the old carbon steel iron. I found that chisels with modern formulations of steel allowed me to work longer and stay in the groove - and not have to stop and re-sharpen.

Maybe you like to sharpen, and if so, good for you. But don't try to sell me on it. I tried it and moved on to better things.

Mike

[And there's very little in the world that can't be improved. A lot of progress was made in the last 200 years, including in woodworking tools.]

steven c newman

01-02-2017, 11:21 PM

Patrick Chase

01-03-2017, 12:11 AM

Stewie Simpson

01-03-2017, 12:13 AM

Maybe you like to sharpen, and if so, good for you. But don't try to sell me on it. I tried it and moved on to better things.

Mike

Mike; I am not trying to sell you on anything. Stick to what suits you best, but do not deride me for not agreeing with your own approach.

regards Stewie;

Stewie Simpson

01-03-2017, 12:42 AM

I see two sides to this mess going on....neither of whom will conceded a step until the post is indeed shut down.

each person has what works for them. None appear to want to try something "New" nor something "old" . I use what I have on hand. I may go and pop a bowl of popcorn, and watch while this trove of info slowly sinks into the sunset...

Too much of " I am right, so you are wrong" going on. Thread killer......:(

Steven; I agree with Patrick. It needn't end this way. Its not really a big issue for me. I am not the one chopping and changing plane irons and chisels every time a new steel alloy is being offered on the market. My interest are firmly entrenched on working with wood, and that hasn't changed in hardness since Noah met the Dinosaurs 2 x 2. I already have the existing tools and irons within my workshop that suit my needs, and that includes working with hard Australian timbers. We all need to seek our own direction within our woodwork, and not feel as though we have to conform to 1 single ideology or approach.

regards Stewie;

george wilson

01-03-2017, 8:52 AM

I appreciate those of you who are firmly entrenched in the "Old and traditional is best" camp. You guys kept me gainfully employed for about 40 years in the museum!!! But,I always have loved my machines,even though for many years I had no home shop,and the museum was letting me store them in an unused building. After all,I did build them a nice harpsichord with them,and several other things as well. Got so much done in that first year behind the scenes,before I opened the 18th. C. Musical Instrument Maker's Shop. I had wished that I'd never have to go into costume and be open to the public!

But,being in a museum setting did not make me a die hard traditionalist,though some of my past posts might have made that impression.

I am an experimenter. Always have been. I LOVE my new PMVII blade!!! I LOVE my machines. Especially now that I'm getting too creaky to do everything by hand( as was my paid job in the Musical Instrument Shop for 16 years). I liked it just fine when I finally accepted the created -for-me job as Tool and Instrument maker(why did I resist the boss for 3 years? Because I AM resistant to life style changes,I guess.) I'm not resistant to tool changes,though. IF it's GOOD change,and still involves personal skill and aesthetic design work.

It simply cannot be denied that todays technology CAN be better,providing that a company like LV(A company TRULY devoted to better products and tools) uses the new technology honestly for improvements,and not just for advertising buzz. (I hope that made sense!)

I don't care what they call their new PM VII. Obviously they don't manufacture the steel. There is an inherent practice among all kinds of manufacturers to re brand things to suit their own advertising. Like it or not,advertising is one of the things that make the commercial World go round! Bottom line is: Their PM VII is wonderful metal. That is all that is TRULY important,at least,to me as the consumer.

I don't know where this rambling post is going. Just a jumble of somewhat related thoughts.

The design of old tools is a different matter to me, though, due to the aesthetic part I mentioned. New saw handles,made the way they are JUST because they can be whipped out on a CNC router do NOT turn me on. I also MUCH REGRET the now long gone old octagonal bolsters on chisels. Todays chisels mostly look like socket chisels,but their sockets are not sockets at all. They are just made that way to avoid the extra work of making the traditional style of chisel blade design.

I really am convinced that in the past,people in general were much more educated in GOOD design than they are today. They didn't have so many different things like we have today,to clutter their brains. They learned to draw,among other things. HECK!! Today they are about to stop teaching HAND WRITING!!!! WHERE are we going? Farther away from the arts. Arts of MOST types.

We did have an art class when I was schooled. I must say,not MUCH of a class,since the teacher couldn't usually draw either!!:) Oh well,somehow we muddle on.

Malcolm McLeod

01-03-2017, 8:54 AM

It doesn't have to be that way. There is rationally room for a number of approaches, and vendors happy to cater to almost all of them.

I have been following - and many thanks to all who have provided the refresher in Mechanics of Materials (its been a long time since I sat thru this lecture, but I still have the book!).

As others have pointed out in various ways, "all design is a compromise", and this is especially true with steels. You can get hard, or tough, or somewhere in the middle - - but each is always a compromise in some way. And so engineers are forever redesigning, to the amusement of some and the glee of others. Such is progress.

And I'm not a crowd psychologist, but it never ceases to amaze me how people can deny others the 'room for a number of approaches'. The terms I hear often are "accommodation" vs "validation". If someone brings up Glowforge, SawStop, or sharpening - - and now metallurgy - - there is this mad rush to validate one's position (unfortunately, to the exclusion of all others). If we simply accommodate others perhaps we all learn something. Patrick is correct...I'll be glad to explain what works (or doesn't) for me, but it really isn't necessary to call me an idiot. If your way is better, I'll get there. Maybe.

...Still following along.

Warren Mickley

01-03-2017, 10:19 AM

Every few years a retired engineer looks at the chisel situation and decides he ought to do some testing for the good of the craft. It sounds like a nice idea: he has the interest, the time, the funds to buy chisels, and experience in designing and running tests, analyzing data. The problem is that sharpening a chisel is an art and using a chisel is an art. And many of today's woodworking teachers themselves have poor technique in these skills. So the result of a test is limited by the ability of the tester.

The art of violin making has made great strides in my lifetime. Today's great makers, however, did not abandon maple and spruce for more consistent modern materials. They did not scrap the old designs in favor of innovation. They first studied the old work, and attempted to duplicate. And they sought out musicians with extraordinary ability and familiarity with old work to give feedback on their instruments.

Today's chisels are limited by the skills, technique, and understanding of the manufacturers. They have little appreciation of historic chisels and no ability to duplicate them. The chisels of 200 years ago were made by skilled artisans for the use of skilled artisans, not for retired engineers.

We have also made strides in my lifetime in reviving the woodworking craft. It was a lot more obvious in 1970 that that the old makers were much more skilled. And that the key to revival lay in understanding historic ways.

Malcolm McLeod

01-03-2017, 11:02 AM

Some may find this interesting as it relates to progress in metallurgy - a look at the development of superalloys in turbine engines (http://www.asminternational.org/documents/10192/6019788/amp17109p26.pdf/3def4e97-ace9-47e4-8661-2d7bc8f71f84). No matter what you do to abuse your tools, it is a cakewalk compared to the hellish conditions at the turbine inlet of a jet engine. Some of the terms the author throws around can be baffling - even to engineers, if not specifically familiar with the field. The short version is that turbine builders can now basically 'grow' a super alloy, single-crystal, turbine blade in all it refinements - including shape, cooling, channels, air bleed holes, etc. The single-crystal nature is particularly significant as it eliminates the micro-crystalline grain boundaries where failures develop.

"But how does this impact me?", he asked. How about engine thrust going from 3000lbs to >100,000lbs? Time-between-overhaul going from a few hundred hours to several thousand. Fuel efficiency is a quantum leap. For comparison, my father flew an advanced (in its day), front-line, F-86D jet fighter - - that belched an incredible 7500lbs thrust - - with afterburner lit. Still don't see the connection? What did that last plane ticket to Jamaica cost you? A 787 Dreamliner would need about 30 of the old gen 1 engines to fly, it would carry 12 passengers (the rest would be fuel), and tickets would be a couple of decades salary. (And the trip to Jamaica, would require 2 stops for re-fueling and engine swaps.) Progress CAN be a good thing.

"But how does this make my chisel better?", he asked. I have no idea! Maybe someone can get a billet of one of these super alloys and report on its edge-holding and sharpening effort? ...Lack of large carbides to tear out of the leading edge might be interesting?

Enjoy!:D

Edit: I suspect that the artistic, supremely skilled, classic craftsmen of the late 19th century, asked to build such a blade, would have merely laughed and said, "Impossible!"

Brian Holcombe

01-03-2017, 11:29 AM

I will second Warren's comment that using a chisel is an art. When I first started I could kill the edge of a chisel in a hurry, and I started with A2 chisels! With time and experience, especially experience relevant to specific tools and how to best approach the work, the chisel edges stay intact far far longer.

I started a little more ham-fisted and over time have developed a knowledge of how to approach striking a chisel or paring, to best cut the wood and to best retain the edge.

I cutout all of the sockets for the Floating Credenza drawers without touching the bevel of my fishtail chisel (carbon steel) just wiping the back on a finish stone after each set of sockets.

Derek Cohen

01-03-2017, 12:19 PM

Brian, I would not call that "an art". I would call that "fundamentals of correct chisel use". I am not sure what Warrren refers to as "an art". Obviously it does not apply to me if I have to ask. :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

Brian Holcombe

01-03-2017, 2:24 PM

When I was working for a machinist, I was very young and yet studied. I had a fragile ego because I 'knew' certain information and I wanted that to be recognized. I was lucky enough to have an incredibly patient teacher willing to ignore my occasional disregard of experienced opinion and still save me when I made a mistake. He was wise and explained to me that the information that I knew was unimportant to the process of learning and that I would do well to listen and accept experienced opinion offered to me, rather than blurt out what I knew and shut down the voice of experience.

I recieved two spoken compliments in my time there, both hard earned, more importantly I recieved incredibly valuable lessons still with me today and a teacher who I can still stop in and see to ask questions or have a coffee.

So my point is, rather than forming a retort to everything that Warren has to say, think about what he writes an accept it as experienced opinion regardless of what you 'know'.

Frederick Skelly

01-03-2017, 3:31 PM

Well said Brian!

We're incredibly lucky to have people like Warren, George, Derek, Mike Henderson, yourself, Stan Covington, Jim Koepke and others - all with a wealth of experience - who are willing to help. AND to teach us alternate approaches.

My thanks to all.
Fred

Patrick Chase

01-03-2017, 5:09 PM

The art of violin making has made great strides in my lifetime. Today's great makers, however, did not abandon maple and spruce for more consistent modern materials. They did not scrap the old designs in favor of innovation. They first studied the old work, and attempted to duplicate. And they sought out musicians with extraordinary ability and familiarity with old work to give feedback on their instruments.

The glaring fallacy in this argument is that maple and spruce are products of nature, that have yet to be equaled by synthetic equivalents. We use them because humans have never been able to create a viable replacement.

In contrast the old steels whose benefits you extoll were man-made to begin with (and fairly simple by current standards). We are therefore improving upon ourselves rather than nature. The science of metallurgy has undeniably advanced in the last few centuries, and that offers new opportunities to tool designers. I would not argue that modern steels are better for everybody, but I think that you commit the opposite error of ignoring newer steels' potential altogether, and treating the old steels as magical talismans rather than the routine products of human endeavor that they were.

It almost seems that the nut of your complaint is that LV and LN didn't consult you, by way of your implication that they didn't consult anybody of "extraordinary ability and familiarity with old work". That's a stunningly strong claim IMO.

EDIT: Softened and streamlined.

steven c newman

01-03-2017, 5:44 PM

Popcorn is ready..buttered or non-buttered?

Pat Barry

01-03-2017, 5:58 PM

Popcorn is ready..buttered or non-buttered?

Buttered please, but is it artisan popcorn or regular?

Brian Holcombe

01-03-2017, 6:05 PM

Popcorn is ready..buttered or non-buttered?

Made withtraditional method!?!

Patrick Chase

01-03-2017, 6:51 PM

Made withtraditional method!?!

Made with genuine butter from the 18th century, of course.

Stewie Simpson

01-03-2017, 7:04 PM

So my point is, rather than forming a retort to everything that Warren has to say, think about what he writes an accept it as experienced opinion regardless of what you 'know'.

Excellent point Brian.

Stewie;

Warren Mickley

01-03-2017, 7:15 PM

I actually spent quite a bit of time talking with several Lee Valley people about their planned chisels including one guy who was supposedly in charge of designing the chisels. They were certainly interested in hearing out my concerns. I did bring up some topics they seemed to not have discussed before. For example, I don't think it had occurred to any of them that some might want to remove and replace the handles or buy chisels unhandled.

Patrick Chase

01-03-2017, 7:32 PM

Derek Cohen

01-04-2017, 1:06 AM

For example, I don't think it had occurred to any of them that some might want to remove and replace the handles or buy chisels unhandled.

Warren, I understand the point you are making, and I am not criticising this. The issue of chisel handles, however, is a mine field. Not only that what fits one hand does not necessarily fit another, but that chisels are held and used differently by so many. Who is to say what is right?

The Veritas handles are build like a Japanese handle, having a combined tang and socket. Japanese handles are not considered the type to modify - even replacing one is a big deal. Their handles are designed either for chopping or paring. Whether a handle design works for one depends on the tasks for which it is used, and how this is done. For example, a longer handle is good for adjusting angle when paring (the Veritas is longer than the average), or chopping (would a hooped end have been better?), or tapered in the 18th century tradition (is this more ergonomic or just more economic?).

One cannot exclude the design of the blade as part of the whole.

At the end of the day, Veritas offer another choice. Clearly they will not necessarily suit a dyed-in-the-wool 18th century woodworker. But then I doubt that many of the modern handtools would seem the same to a woodworker of that era.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Malcolm McLeod

01-04-2017, 9:40 AM

Let me see if I have this right as we pine for the days of yore:

When the apprentice (puppy) executes a task by exact method of the master, and always with the expected outcome, the master is thrilled.

When the apprentice (puppy) executes a task by a method not approved by the master and it turns out poorly, puppy is chastised, reprimanded, or fired, and boss is po'd.

When the apprentice (puppy) executes a task by a method not approved by the master and it turns out better, puppy is an innovator, a prodigy, and promoted (& boss is po'd since he's gotta hire new puppy.)

Ironic, but it seems progress and innovation are non-existent when the boss is happy. And if he's always perfectly happy, we'd all still live in the stone age.

I'd vote the puppies misbehave more often. ...Just me. ...Lots of improvements still to be made. ...Especially in steel.;)

Kees Heiden

01-04-2017, 1:58 PM

Let's extend this thread a little further.

The woodworking craftsman from the 18th, early 19th century was a complete handtool specialist. He did everything with handtools, from the purchase of planks until the finished product. This period is often called the golden age of handtool woodworking. After that the handtools slowly but surely lost their prominent position, in some countries faster then others. After WW2 there weren't too many craftsman depending on chisels, handsaws, handplanes anymore except for some detail work, carving and the like.

So, the tools from the golden age were made for a large group of woodworkers making loads of wooden objects with handtools only. The toolmakers were working in a very competitive market. The clients demanded long lasting tools, that did the job perfectly for not too much money. A situation like that tends to create good tools that really work, innovation where neccessary, and tends to get rid of the duds pretty quickly.

Compare that to todays market of mostly elderly hobbyists who treat their tools like souvenirs and won't ever trash a chisel handle for example and you'll see why some of us think that the best handtools aren't going to be innovated today.

So what does this bring us. Let's have a look at some chisels, and I put this out as a discussion point and I don't claim to be an expert myself. I am just spraying some prejudices.

Chisels for example from the Seaton chest (late 18th century) or from Skokloster in Sweden (17th century). Most of the chisels are tanged chisels with large, wide and well formed bolsters. They are remarkably thin. Handles are beech or ash and have a rather simple shape, octagonal, tapered. The chisels are laminated, making for quick sharpening while at the same time allowing a higher hardness then tools from solid steel. The seaton chest also has socket chisels for heavy work, the sockets are forged and rough on the inside. And mortise chisels like the later oval bolster chisels. These have tapered blades so they don't bind up in the cut. My much later Dutch mortise chisels are like that too.

Now, what do two premium makers LN and LV give us?

LN makes socket chisels. They are not forged but machined. The sockets are very smooth inside. The mortise chisels have parallel sides. They are of course not laminated. These are all later innovations, but I think they are more a compromise to make the production easier then to improve the finished product.

LV makes a tanged chisel with something that looks a bit like a Japanese chisels but isn't quite the same. There is no real bolster. Compared to the Seaton and the skokloster chisels, and even compared to my E.A. Berg chisels they look very thick. These aren't laminated either. Changing the handle when you have split the old one after years of heavy malleting is quite a finicky operation. The PMV-11 steel is promissing but isn't quite as easy to sharpen as old fashioned cast steel, especially not because it isn't laminated. These chisels look to me inspired by the Japanese chisels with a western flavour and avoiding any forging work, they are also machined.

This is just my opinion, so feel free to shoot me down and prove that I am a romantic old fool. But please do so with logical arguments. :)

Graham Haydon

01-04-2017, 2:10 PM

No need to shoot you down, nail struck firmly on the head!

Kees Heiden

01-05-2017, 1:37 AM

But you are a romantic fool too, Graham 😃

Nicholas Lawrence

01-05-2017, 6:54 AM

Think of the "traditional method" or "traditional design" as an early version of "crowd sourcing."

It used to puzzle me in church, listening to the old testament stories, how every few generations people seem to repeat the same mistakes. When you look at more modern history you see the same pattern. The pattern exists not because one generation was smarter than another, but because we are mortal. I will make mistakes and eventually learn from them. If I were not mortal, I could prevent my children from making my mistakes, but unfortunately some day they will be on their own and my accumulated experiences will not be available to them. If we all had unlimited intellectual capacity, perhaps we could transmit lessons perfectly from one generation to the next, but we do not, and so cannot. It is simply a matter of time before my children and grand-children are making mistakes I have made, just as I no doubt have repeated mistakes my ancestors made before me.

"Traditional" methods and designs are a sort of time capsule, that capture the accumulated experience and opinions of a very large number of now dead people. Chisels are not randomly shaped the way that they are. Beech is not randomly the wood of choice for planes. The choices of material, design, and manufacture are instead the result of experience, mistakes, and lessons learned. X-rays and 3D drawing software give us an advantage of sorts over those who came before us, but as Kees has pointed out, their numbers, and the volume of their accumulated experiences is something of tremendous advantage. Now they are dead, and cannot stand at our bench and tell us about the idea they had in 1892 and why it did not work out, but they can speak to us through their designs, the work they have left behind, and to some extent through books.

We have seen an example of this in the chip-breaker. When I started using planes, I was taught that "chipbreaker" was a misnomer used by the uneducated hack, that the proper name was "cap-iron", and that it had nothing to do with breaking chips. Now we all know that was all wrong. The entire time the information was right there in front of us, encapsulated in the designs, and even in the nomenclature. It would all be very simple if we were not mortal, and could perfectly preserve our lessons learned down the generations.

Stewie Simpson

01-05-2017, 7:48 AM

Nicholas; its interesting your raise the topic on cap irons. I am currently refurbishing an early double iron wooden try plane that was manufactured by one of U.Ks better known early tool makers, Edward Preston & Sons, whose history dates back to as early as 1825. I have read recent recommendations on this site that suggest a 50 degree deflection angle is required on the front edge of the cap iron for it to function effectively as a chipbreaker. Bearing in mind that this plane in particular represents a time line of (1889 - 1932), that one would still expect to see a great depth of understanding on how the cap iron should function effectively, its bears little resemblance within original deflection angle to that being espoused today. Most intriguing.

Stewie;

Malcolm McLeod

01-05-2017, 11:57 AM

Some ramblings....

Traditions can be a great thing, but some may wish to be cautious about choosing traditional methods.

How many traditionalist woodworkers still use traditional lighting? Fire up the whale oil lamp or just step outside into the sunshine (maybe). LEDs? Not in Roubo's workshop! Candles only, baby!!

Who still traditionally travels? Just grab that crank and fire the T-model up for a spin across the cobblestones (or rutted mud track). And seatbelts are for sissies! Or even better, "Saddle up boys!!" Traditional healing methods? The line forms here for application of leeches and hot coals. That line over there is for mercury to extend lifespan. Antibiotics? ...Oddly not mentioned in L'Art du Menuisier. And does anybody here still get their water via traditional well/bucket? Or vaccinations?

Yes, I'm being outrageous, trying to say 'careful what you wish for.' Not all new technology is bad. And with no experimentation and inevitable mistakes, there is no progress. Lucky thing - the luxury to pick and choose our traditions.

As for choosing 18th century steel, I would suspect today's tool offerings are driven by pure economics. Quick search found a $0.37 value for a 'paring chisel' in 1827 (all USA stats - sorry Kees), and 1826 median income for 'artisans' of $8.83/mo. That (used) chisel is thus 4.2% of the user's income. If you assume depreciation of 50%, then it's 8.4% of user's income. LN chisel is $70, and 2011 (latest I found) median income is $2224/mo :: chisel is 3.1% of user's income. HD has $5.49 chisel :: 0.02% of income (opens paint cans too:eek:).

So, who will pay $186 (8.4%) for a chisel or plane blade today? I know there are some who will (...we've jealously seen them on your bench!), but for a manufacturer, that 1827-esque forged and laminated product is probably their grave marker in bankruptcy court, since the Japanese smiths seem to have cornered this 'boutique' market segment. (How about these at >$400/ea. (http://www.japanwoodworker.com/Product/159073/Tasai-Damascus-Pattern-Blue-Steel-Multi-Hollow-Back-Chisel-Set-with-Ebony-Handles-in-Signed-Box.aspx)?) Overall, I'm guessing that fewer chisels are made/sold today (vs. 1827), in spite of ~23X the USA population - 13MM vs 308MM (1830 & 2010 census).

My earlier post about super-alloys? Not only do I not know how they'd perform in a cutting tool, I'm betting they'd be $1000??? each. Today's market just isn't big enough. And for the overwhelming majority in this market, who might use them properly, this is a hobby (Kees' elderly hobbyists). It isn't an asset or a tax deduction. Others just look at such tools as 'disposable' - - if its dull, throw it away - - and you can't do that with a $1000 anything.

We live in the age of 'BIG DATA', so I'd also bet Stanley, LN, and LV know exactly how many tools they can sell at any given price point. They all sell what their market will bear. If you want innovation, you pay big for it. If you want traditional, you pay big for it.

If a tool suits our individual needs, does it matter if there is 'better'? We each buy what we can bear.