Plane most improved with a premium blade

[Skip Helms]

Hi All,

There is a lot of information on the web about the very high quality plane irons being made today by several forges. I have a few and like them.

I'm not in any huge hurry to swap-out irons in my planes but I was wondering if there is a type of plane you feel is most improved by upgrading to a modern blade and/or blade and chip-breaker combination. By type I mean, smoother, jack, jointer, shoulder etc. My own guess is a No. 4 size with a hint of camber which is the next one I'm considering.

A bonus question, do you use different steels for different planes? Again, I'm wondering if O1 might be better for a smoother for light cuts and an air-hardened steel for jacks taking more stock per pass.

Love to hear your thoughts, thanks, sh

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Skip

The answer is "it depends".

All steels I have used get as sharp as one another. I regularly use vintage high carbon, modern O1, A2, PM-V11, 3V, D2, M2 and M4. They all are capable of shaving hair ... and sharpen easily as long as you use the appropriate media for each. Where they differ is in edge holding. And what influences this is the wood you use. Some woods are harder and more abrasive (e.g. contain higher levels of silica) than others.

Some steels differ in the way they fail, that is, how they perform when they wear. For example, O1 gets progressively dull, while A2 can chip. The flip side is that A2 will hold the finer edge a lot longer than the O1. Again, this is more important on some woods than others.

It is also relevant how the plane is set up. For example, if smoothing interlocked wood, I find a high cutting angle (on both BU and BD planes) is more reliant on the sharpness of the edge than a BD plane using a double iron to control tearout. So blade choice may be more significant if you prefer do not use a chipbreaker and prefer a high cutting angle.

Some may say otherwise, but to me sharp is sharp, and I cannot tell the difference between two identical planes that have equally sharp blades made of different steels. The difference only shows as they dull.

Similarly, the thickness of a plane blade can make a difference. This is especially the case when a plane has failings (is not set up well) and a tendency to chatter. A thicker blade can help damp the vibrations. However a well set up (chipbreakered) Stanley will plane as well with the original thin blade as an aftermarket thick blade in the right hands.

I love the relative ease of sharpening the older Clifton blades, and they have a silky feel when finish planing. However, the edge lasts a few strokes on my hardwoods. A2 lasts longer but the edge feels a little gummy and it is possible to get the feel of O1 along with the best endurance from PM-V11. I have these in my LN#3 and #4 1/2. This does not feel like much of an upgrade when planing as when one goes from a Stanley blade in a Stanley plane to a PM-V11 blade in the same plane. All planes start off planing equally well, however the better PM-V11 hold the edge longer and keeps the quality going longer.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Skip Helms]

Thanks Derek,

That confirms a lot of my overall impressions. Most of my planes are Stanley's but there are some well-liked Sargents and others on the shelf too. Almost all of them have their original irons. I'm not obsessive about them but they are well-fettled and each is set up a little differently than similar units depending on the kind of cuts I want to take. I'll rotate just to keep things interesting.

Then there are maybe 20 planes I've built (or hacked) with thick, single-iron setups. Those are largely 3/16" or 1/8" O1 steel that I got as bar stock and heat-treated myself. O1 is pretty simple to harden and temper compared to other steels. I might not do it as well as professionals with my rudimentary gear but it works and I enjoy it.

Right now I have one PM-V11 blade and matching iron cap on one of the #5's. I left it dead straight across with a slight secondary bevel. Another PM blade is on order to replace a damaged original in my Junior Jack with the stock cap iron. I was thinking of getting two more -- one for one of the #4 smoothers with a very slight camber and the second in a 2-3/8" plane (#4-1/2 or 6).

My woodworking is divided into two camps: furniture and lutherie. For guitars I often use exotics which can be tough on steel -- lots of silica and often very hard with interlocking grain. But those are never large pieces. You have to be careful of tear-out so sometimes it's safer to ruin some sandpaper on the drum sander which also gets you uniform thicknesses. In the homemade planes I have 50, 55 and even 60 degree smoothers that do a really good job on figured stock. Spruce and cedar take a much different touch.

Furniture I make from US hardwoods -- which can be harder or softer but nothing like what I understand you have in Oz.

Thanks again for your thoughtful response and good luck with your projects. sh

[Bob Glenn]

I have a vintage Stanley no. 8 jointer. I ordered a Hock blade and chip breaker which greatly improved the performance. I keep that edge ground straight with no camber for jointing and use the other blade with a slight camber at the corners for flattening.

[Skip Helms]

Good point about being able to swap blade/breakers. All of my big planes (6,7,8) have the stock blade but I don't use them much.

Another good point about sandpaper. Sometimes I find myself finding little places on a scrap where I haven't applied finger pressure yet. sh

[john zulu]

I made a video on Stanley #4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04ioQSz0Lwk

From what I am reading. A2 steel and the veritas chipbreaker will made an ideal upgrade.

[Stewie Simpson]

John; nice video. Re the sides of the Stanley plane not being at 90 degree to sole, for use with a shooting board. Are you forgetting you can use the blades lateral adjustment to make up for any slight variation within 90 degrees.

regards Stewie;

[john zulu]

@Stewie: You do have a good point there. The side does not rock on the shooting board. Thanks!

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks John; appreciated watching your video.

regards Stewie;

[Rob Luter]

...I was wondering if there is a type of plane you feel is most improved by upgrading to a modern blade and/or blade and chip-breaker combination.

I guess I'd say any plane that displays inferior performance despite proper set up and sharpening. From personal experience, replacement blades and chip breakers made a world of difference on my Sweetheart era Stanley #3, #4, and #5. These are user grade planes that were found in the wild and required refurbishing. The original blades worked OK, but needed a lot of work to get them perfect. Rather than spend all that time, I ordered Hock irons and chip breakers for them. Performance was night and day. The most pronounced difference was blade stability. The thicker blade and chip breaker was much stiffer. Using the same sharpening technique as with the old blades, the new ones will take a much finer and consistent shaving. Edge life seems better too.

[Patrick Chase]

A bonus question, do you use different steels for different planes? Again, I'm wondering if O1 might be better for a smoother for light cuts and an air-hardened steel for jacks taking more stock per pass.

That was certainly true to some degree in the old, pre-powdered metallurgy days, though it depends quite a bit on your sharpening system. I think most would agree that D2 and HSS are only suitable for rough work. Opinions differ quite a bit about A2's suitability.

[Derek Cohen]

That was certainly true to some degree in the old, pre-powdered metallurgy days, though it depends quite a bit on your sharpening system. I think most would agree that D2 and HSS are only suitable for rough work. Opinions differ quite a bit about A2's suitability.

I know some that would disagree with you, Patrick. They are woodworkers as well as planemakers.

Philip Marcou builds planes of the highest order (I have one), and his favourite steel for use is D2. He has said to me that it is all in the heat treatment.

Terry Gordon, of HNT Gordon, offers HSS as his premier blade. He would not do so if it compromised the performance of his planes.

As a matter of interest, Mujingfang also offer HSS with their planes. I have one and it performs at a very high level.

A lot of woodworkers have built a lot of furniture using LN and Veritas A2 blades.

Sharp is sharp, and sharp works.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I have an old #8. It is a "Franken Plane"; the previous owner parted out bits that were broken so bits and parts came from other places. One example is a Lie Nielsen blade and chip breaker.

My #8 is "finicky"so I had Steve Newman took a look. Steve postulated that the blade is sufficiently thick that there is inadequate clearance between the front of the blade and the front of the mouth on the plane. I should either open the mouth a bit or purchase a thinner blade. I do have the original blade, but I would need to grind it back an inch or two to get to usable steel, not sure the blade would then be usable. I intend to to widen the mouth when I have some time, it simply has not yet happened.

[Skip Helms]

Thanks guys,

Over the past couple years I've introduced a PM-V11 iron and two Hock O1 irons (with matching cap irons for the bench planes) to my herd of mostly Stanley and Sargent planes from their glory years. Except for the rehab ward, they are about as dialed-in as they can get using original parts. I really like the way the newer steel pushes through the work. I've got a bunch of homebrewed planes with thick O1 steel that also feel right. These newer air-quenched alloys look very interesting but, as near as I can tell, they need higher heat and better cooling than my low-tech setup can manage. I sharpen on diamond and water-stones and that works fine.

The planes that don't get used much are the candidates for new steel. I have a PM-V11 blade due this week for my junior jack but will try the stock cap iron first. I thought I'd get a new blade every couple months until I decide which are the users and which need new homes.

I have several planes in the small standard sizes but no designer steel in the 3's or 4's. I've only got one 6, 7 and 8C and those have stock irons as well. Assuming they work as well as they can, which of them would you upgrade first? A corollary question would be if there was a particular steel you would use in one application like a fore plane with moderate camber versus a smoother set for read-through shavings.

Cheers, sh

[Jim Koepke]

[edited]
Assuming they work as well as they can, which of them would you upgrade first? A corollary question would be if there was a particular steel you would use in one application like a fore plane with moderate camber versus a smoother set for read-through shavings.

Cheers, sh

If one of my planes is working as well as it can my thoughts wouldn't be toward getting a new blade for it.

The only reason would be if a replacement blade would stay sharper longer than the original blade. Then it wouldbe an easy choice, pick the plane that needs to stay sharp longer.

Don't get me wrong, my Hock O1 blades are well liked and do tend to hold an edge longer than the original blades. Their added thickness does have a tendency to dampen the feel of the plane cutting through wood. All that said and done, the majority of my planes have original Stanley blades and work fine in all from jointers to smoothers.

jtk

[Allen Jordan]

I have a WWII-era stanley 60-1/2 that I've tuned in every way I can and still tends to chatter a bit on the cut at full width. And the iron seems really soft compared to most I've used. Might be a candidate for replacement. Veritas makes some nice replacement irons.

[Patrick Chase]

I know some that would disagree with you, Patrick. They are woodworkers as well as planemakers.

Philip Marcou builds planes of the highest order (I have one), and his favourite steel for use is D2. He has said to me that it is all in the heat treatment.

Terry Gordon, of HNT Gordon, offers HSS as his premier blade. He would not do so if it compromised the performance of his planes.

A Kiwi and an Aussie, respectively :-).

I should have explicitly made an exception for highly abrasive woods. IMO if the wood is really nasty then that shifts the optimum towards really abrasion resistant high-alloy, high-carbide steels like D2 and HSS. PM-V11 should perform quite well, too.

[Warren Mickley]

I would consider a Sweetheart iron a "premium blade". This evening I planed interlocked jarrah, 100 strokes at .001 inches, then curly walnut 50 strokes at .0005 inches. After this I would not call it sharp, but the iron cut end grain pine very cleanly.

I tried a Marcou plane in 2009; it was pathetic.

[Skip Helms]

The PM blade arrived for the junior jack today. I honed the secondary bevel but will need to open the mouth of the plane a little. I was able to squeeze a tiny shaving between the front of the mouth and the blade but I can't get a read on the effectiveness until it is enlarged enough not to trap the waste. Cheers, sh

[Stewie Simpson]

I would consider a Sweetheart iron a "premium blade". This evening I planed interlocked jarrah, 100 strokes at .001 inches, then curly walnut 50 strokes at .0005 inches. After this I would not call it sharp, but the iron cut end grain pine very cleanly.

I tried a Marcou plane in 2009; it was pathetic.

Warren; I am also a worker of sometimes cantankerous Australian Timbers, and I just cannot understand this strong desire to abandon more traditional steel. Some of the modern tool manufacturers have really got their advertising and promotional mumbo jumbo down to a fine art. Enough said on my behalf.

regards Stewie;

[Skip Helms]

Stewie; I haven't made the study of this that many have, but I really haven't found a steel that is as "satisfying" as well-made high-carbon either. For hogging, the newer compositions have advantages but for that perfect cut, I still like O1 the best. Haven't tried 1095 but I might get a bar when I order some other stuff from McMaster Carr just to test it out. I understand it needs a special quench but maybe I can find a way around that.

Skip

[Derek Cohen]

For hogging, the newer compositions have advantages but for that perfect cut, I still like O1 the best.

Skip, as one who actually has used all the steels, and actually does build furniture with them (rather than collecting tools for decorating benches), I will reaffirm that sharp is sharp, and that "newer compositions" are not just for hogging, but also the finest surfaces.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Stewie; I haven't made the study of this that many have, but I really haven't found a steel that is as "satisfying" as well-made high-carbon either. For hogging, the newer compositions have advantages but for that perfect cut, I still like O1 the best. Haven't tried 1095 but I might get a bar when I order some other stuff from McMaster Carr just to test it out. I understand it needs a special quench but maybe I can find a way around that.

Skip

Skip; we share similar thoughts on the attributes that 01 can offer the modern woodworker. I am not keen to venture further above that statement, as the numbers are against us on an open forum.

regards Stewie;

[Jim Koepke]

For me, some of yesterday was spent helping a new friend figure out why he was having trouble with some of his planes. One of the problems seemed to be increased by a premium (IBC) blade. The blade and chip breaker are both about 1/8" thick. The sole on the #5 plane was slightly concave end to end. The IBC blade seemed to actually make this worse than a Hock iron and chip breaker. The Hock is made of O1 and my recollection is the IBC is made of A2. In this case the composition of the steel was likely not as much a factor as the thickness of the blades and cap irons. Another problem is the IBC chip breaker couldn't be set close to the edge without making adjustment impossible.

Some of the original blades on his planes were in pretty bad shape. If one is using a plane for smoothing, a few pits on the edge is all it takes to make the work unsatisfactory. A plane being used as a scrub or even a jointer may not have as much of a problem with a few pits along the edge. Of course if a new blade can be afforded then considering replacement is only natural. Sometimes bringing an old blade back into use isn't as practical as buying a new blade.

Then comes a thought about a question posed in the post starting this thread:


A bonus question, do you use different steels for different planes? Again, I'm wondering if O1 might be better for a smoother for light cuts and an air-hardened steel for jacks taking more stock per pass.

My low angle bevel up jack plane has an A2 blade and is used primarily for shooting. When first starting with this blade it seemed a bit 'chippy' in use. Now after a few years and 2 or 3 times of regrinding the bevel it seems to be less likely to chip in use. As this blade is much thicker than most of my blades, it is a bit tricky to hone it by hand. One of my #60 (-1/2) type planes has an A2 blade. The funny thing in this case is the LN plane and blade are quite a bit heavier than my other #60 type planes. Often the lighter planes get grabbed first for most work. If something is getting a finish cut, the LN plane is chosen since I know the blade is likely to still be sharp from the last time it was used. As a caveat, my right hand has an old injury that makes it difficult for me to apply a lot of pressure to properly hold a block plane. In my case a lighter plane is easier to handle. A heavier block plane may be a better choice for others.

In summation the A2 blades are great for their ability to hold an edge doing a demanding job, but they can be a bit more work to put back to work once they need honing. My O1 Hock blades take a very good edge and tend to be easier to get back to work once they become worn. There always seems to be a trade off between longevity of an edge and the ease with which it can be maintained. O1 steel can be worked easily on my oil stones. My A1 blades need to get sharpened before the freezing weather has my water stones out of commission for the winter.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Skip, as one who actually has used all the steels, and actually does build furniture with them (rather than collecting tools for decorating benches), I will reaffirm that sharp is sharp, and that "newer compositions" are not just for hogging, but also the finest surfaces.
Derek

That flies in the face of basic physics and metallurgy.

Non-PM high-alloy steels have much coarser structures and specifically larger carbides than low-alloy ones. Those carbides are not very strongly retained within the matrix, and tend to chip out quite easily. I can put a very fine edge on D2 or M4 using diamond paste, but it doesn't stay fine for long because the most exposed carbides chip out in short order. Nothing you can possibly do in sharpening can change that, other than to increase the bevel and thereby provide more support to the carbides along the edge, but that brings its own costs.

As George has pointed out several times, the higher alloy steels tend to lose their initial edge quickly but then stabilize for a very long time in a "slightly degraded" state once the most vulnerable carbides have chipped out. That's great for tasks where you don't need the sharpest possible edge, or where the wood is so nasty that no steel can hold a super-sharp edge. It's not-so-great if you need the keenest edge possible.

As you said in a previous post, processing can influence how big the carbides become and therefore the size of the chips, but with the exception of PM there is no processing that can possibly make them anywhere near as small as in O1/W1/HCS.

Powdered metallurgy changes things quite a bit, assuming that all of the downstream processing is optimal.

[Christopher Charles]

Derek,

For those of us here in NA without exposure to the nasty woods of down under, I'd be curious to hear about your recent experience working with maple (recognizing that you may not have done as much handtool work on your kitchen cabinets). Would be an interesting comparison for those of us trying to sort out how much longer the new steels stay sharp and cost benefits of investing in new steel/sharpening media etc.

Best,
Chris

[Derek Cohen]

That flies in the face of basic physics and metallurgy.

Patrick, my comments are based on experience and not the laws of physics. Theory (supported by microscopic images) says that steels such as D2 and M4 have a large and coarse grain structure. In actual use, this is not apparent. It may eventually be so, as the edge wears, but that is a lot later in the life of that edge. By then I would have re-sharpened the blade.

M4 can become frighteningly sharp. I have two beater 3/4" chisels on my bench, one in 3V and another in M4 ( beaters as they are durable enough to be used on anything). I had a visit from Rob Lee a few days ago, and ground and honed the M4 as part of a demo of the CBN wheels. Honing took under 1 minute. The edge was impressive. It will remain that way for a long time.

I am not suggesting steel like this for others. The only reason I have it is because of tests I was involved in a few years ago. I would not go out of my way to purchase it as it does require specialised equipment - not anything more than many already own (CBN wheel to grind and Spyderco stones) - but most would struggle to get an edge on other equipment. The point is that, theory set aside, practice shows that these steels are usable and durable.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

Derek,

For those of us here in NA without exposure to the nasty woods of down under, I'd be curious to hear about your recent experience working with maple (recognizing that you may not have done as much handtool work on your kitchen cabinets). Would be an interesting comparison for those of us trying to sort out how much longer the new steels stay sharp and cost benefits of investing in new steel/sharpening media etc.

Best,
Chris

Hi Chris

I love working with Hard Maple!

Compared with Jarrah and other West Australian hardwoods, it has a tight grain that leaves a smooth, silky surface when planed. It planes very easily, more easily than, say, Jarrah. Visually, the shaving holds together better. As a result I get long, straight chips - where as for Jarrah one ends up with short and broken shavings.

Using either a chipbreaker or a high cutting angle, Maple planes with- or against the grain. I did notice that it has a tendency to tear out when the grain reverses suddenly, which was apparent on the jointer. This was easily removed with a hand plane (I handplane to final dimension, before sanding to achieve a uniformly flat, non-ridged surface. Raking light in a kitchen would show up any plane tracks).

In some ways the Maple reminded me of working with Cherry. Both of these are a pleasure because of the final finish, which was clear and polished off the plane.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Skip Helms]

Derek; it's a journey. My second PM blade just came and I like it. I like the O1 blades I've used on the rehab planes. Now that I think about it, it might be the mass of the thicker blades I like more than which steel. Making mostly guitars -- sometimes in figured woods -- I've found the pitch angle of attack matters a lot. Since I homebrewed my high-angle smoothers with thick O1 steel, that might be why I think fondly of them. I don't use them for hours at a time, though.

The plane I use most is a 2" finger rabbet plane I bandsawed out of a piece of 1" brass plate. It's only used for shaping braces. IIRC, the iron in that used to be a radial saw blade. As someone here mentioned, sharp is sharp.

Cheers, sh

[Stewie Simpson]

For me, some of yesterday was spent helping a new friend figure out why he was having trouble with some of his planes. One of the problems seemed to be increased by a premium (IBC) blade. The blade and chip breaker are both about 1/8" thick. The sole on the #5 plane was slightly concave end to end. The IBC blade seemed to actually make this worse than a Hock iron and chip breaker. The Hock is made of O1 and my recollection is the IBC is made of A2. In this case the composition of the steel was likely not as much a factor as the thickness of the blades and cap irons. Another problem is the IBC chip breaker couldn't be set close to the edge without making adjustment impossible.

Some of the original blades on his planes were in pretty bad shape. If one is using a plane for smoothing, a few pits on the edge is all it takes to make the work unsatisfactory. A plane being used as a scrub or even a jointer may not have as much of a problem with a few pits along the edge. Of course if a new blade can be afforded then considering replacement is only natural. Sometimes bringing an old blade back into use isn't as practical as buying a new blade.

Then comes a thought about a question posed in the post starting this thread:



My low angle bevel up jack plane has an A2 blade and is used primarily for shooting. When first starting with this blade it seemed a bit 'chippy' in use. Now after a few years and 2 or 3 times of regrinding the bevel it seems to be less likely to chip in use. As this blade is much thicker than most of my blades, it is a bit tricky to hone it by hand. One of my #60 (-1/2) type planes has an A2 blade. The funny thing in this case is the LN plane and blade are quite a bit heavier than my other #60 type planes. Often the lighter planes get grabbed first for most work. If something is getting a finish cut, the LN plane is chosen since I know the blade is likely to still be sharp from the last time it was used. As a caveat, my right hand has an old injury that makes it difficult for me to apply a lot of pressure to properly hold a block plane. In my case a lighter plane is easier to handle. A heavier block plane may be a better choice for others.

In summation the A2 blades are great for their ability to hold an edge doing a demanding job, but they can be a bit more work to put back to work once they need honing. My O1 Hock blades take a very good edge and tend to be easier to get back to work once they become worn. There always seems to be a trade off between longevity of an edge and the ease with which it can be maintained. O1 steel can be worked easily on my oil stones. My A1 blades need to get sharpened before the freezing weather has my water stones out of commission for the winter.

jtk

Jim; do you find it more difficult to raise a burred edge on A2 steel, as you progress through your finer grit stones.

Stewie;

[Christopher Charles]

Thanks Derek, it is a lovely wood (almost as nice as cherry :)).

Do you notice substantial differences in edge wear using different metals with maple or did you stick mostly to the new metals? In other words, what are your thoughts about the relative benefits of new metals on maple compared to O1, etc. Clearly the edge lasts longer for all metals on maple, but does the benefit gap narrow?

Best,
C

[Brian Holcombe]

I finally replaced the blades in my LN planes with 'premium' blades, the favorite of which is a blue steel blade with laminated backing from Tsunesaburo.

I tapped it out to form a nice landing on the back and sharpening it is extremely easy.

I replaced the A2 blade in my 4 smoother for a Ron Hock iron, and it performs quite well.

These are photos of the reflection made by the O1 blade on Honduran Mahogany.

https://brianholcombewoodworkerblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/img_5656.jpg

https://brianholcombewoodworkerblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/img_5658.jpg

[Jim Koepke]

Jim; do you find it more difficult to raise a burred edge on A2 steel, as you progress through your finer grit stones.

Stewie;

Yes, but I tend to catch the burr when it is smaller due to checking more often.

jtk

[Stewie Simpson]

Yes, but I tend to catch the burr when it is smaller due to checking more often.

jtk

Appreciate the feedback Jim.

Stewie;

[Allen Jordan]

Brian, are these the blades you used:

http://www.toolsfromjapan.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=339_514_546&zenid=336e032b31d44defa764e942b1a7afd0

? How did the thicknesses compare with the original LN blades?

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, my comments are based on experience and not the laws of physics. Theory (supported by microscopic images) says that steels such as D2 and M4 have a large and coarse grain structure. In actual use, this is not apparent. It may eventually be so, as the edge wears, but that is a lot later in the life of that edge. By then I would have re-sharpened the blade.

M4 can become frighteningly sharp. I have two beater 3/4" chisels on my bench, one in 3V and another in M4 ( beaters as they are durable enough to be used on anything). I had a visit from Rob Lee a few days ago, and ground and honed the M4 as part of a demo of the CBN wheels. Honing took under 1 minute. The edge was impressive. It will remain that way for a long time.

Which M4 chisel?

It it's one of the ones Stu sells and that you reviewed a while back, then be aware that the specific alloy used is Hitachi HAP-40, which is a PM version of M4. As I've said repeatedly, PM changes the rules. I have some of those (I bought the first one on the basis of your review as a matter of fact) and they take and hold an edge brilliantly.

As you know 3V is a PM steel as well. It's difficult to hone because the Vanadium carbides are harder than anything besides CBN and diamond, but its grain size is pretty good.

[David Eisenhauer]

Does the LN cap iron work with the Hock iron or did you have to swap it also?

[Derek Cohen]

Which M4 chisel?

It it's one of the ones Stu sells and that you reviewed a while back, then be aware that the specific alloy used is Hitachi HAP-40, which is a PM version of M4. As I've said repeatedly, PM changes the rules. I have some of those (I bought the first one on the basis of your review as a matter of fact) and they take and hold an edge brilliantly.

As you know 3V is a PM steel as well. It's difficult to hone because the Vanadium carbides are harder than anything besides CBN and diamond, but its grain size is pretty good.

Not one of Stu's chisels, Patrick. I know which one you mean. Stu refers to it as PM- HSS. He sent me one years ago for testing. The M4 and CPN-3V chisels I have were made by a private manufacturer, who was looking to get into the field a few years ago. Again, for field testing.

Stu's Fujikawa chisel is still the hardest steel I have honed. It works more easily with a hollow grind.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks Derek, it is a lovely wood (almost as nice as cherry :)).

Do you notice substantial differences in edge wear using different metals with maple or did you stick mostly to the new metals? In other words, what are your thoughts about the relative benefits of new metals on maple compared to O1, etc. Clearly the edge lasts longer for all metals on maple, but does the benefit gap narrow?

Best,
C

Chris, I have not planed enough Maple to come to a conclusion. My impression, which is biased by the enjoyment of working this Maple, is that it is far less abrasive than the woods I am used to - similar to Tasmanian Oak, which is not from hot and dry Western Australia. I sharpen blades before they are dull enough to affect performance, but I do not count shavings to determine whether a particular blade is lasting longer. Unless I am specifically testing a tool, my interest is the wood, not the steel.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

I finally replaced the blades in my LN planes with 'premium' blades, the favorite of which is a blue steel blade with laminated backing from Tsunesaburo.

I tapped it out to form a nice landing on the back and sharpening it is extremely easy.

I replaced the A2 blade in my 4 smoother for a Ron Hock iron, and it performs quite well.

Brian, I assume that the blades are much thinner than the LN. I have a couple of the Tsunesaburo. One I used in a Stanley #65 for a few years before purchasing a LN #60 1/2. That was some years ago. The other is a Smoothcut, but I understand is the same blade. This is in a Stanley #51 shooting plane, which also is no longer used. However I recall them as excellent blades: easy to hone and held an edge for longer than Stanley steel.

My LN#3 and #4 1/2 both use PM-V11, but with the original LN chipbreakers - only these chipbreakers work with LN. I also have old (hand beaten) Clifton O1 blades for these planes. The Veritas and Clifton blades feel very similar in use, but the Veritas holds the edge so much longer.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Brian Holcombe]

Brian, are these the blades you used:

http://www.toolsfromjapan.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=339_514_546&zenid=336e032b31d44defa764e942b1a7afd0

? How did the thicknesses compare with the original LN blades?

It's thinner than the original blade, which is problematic. I made the change but it is not reversible.


Does the LN cap iron work with the Hock iron or did you have to swap it also?

The cap iron worked fine, but I needed to modify the adjuster on the frog to accommodate the thinner blade. I was non-plussed that it needed to be done, but all in all much happier with the Tsunesaburo blade.


Brian, I assume that the blades are much thinner than the LN. I have a couple of the Tsunesaburo. One I used in a Stanley #65 for a few years before purchasing a LN #60 1/2. That was some years ago. The other is a Smoothcut, but I understand is the same blade. This is in a Stanley #51 shooting plane, which also is no longer used. However I recall them as excellent blades: easy to hone and held an edge for longer than Stanley steel.

My LN#3 and #4 1/2 both use PM-V11, but with the original LN chipbreakers - only these chipbreakers work with LN. I also have old (hand beaten) Clifton O1 blades for these planes. The Veritas and Clifton blades feel very similar in use, but the Veritas holds the edge so much longer.

Regards from Perth

Derek




Glad to hear that you enjoy these blades. They're thinner, doesn't make a difference in the cut, but it does make it more than a simple swap. I used the LN breaker.

[Derek Cohen]

I have a photo of the Stanley/LN/Clifton chipbreakers, from one of the articles on my website.

The cut out on the LN chip breaker is about 1/4" further back than on the Stanley and the Clifton chipbreakers, which is why one run's out of adjustment on a LN plane if setting a closed up chipbreaker using anything but a LN chipbreaker.


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/MoreAboutShootingPlanesandTheirBlades_html_6fba391 7.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Christopher Charles]

Thanks Derek. Looking forward to seeing your completed cabinets.