Calling all owners of Lie-Nielsen Scraping Planes; 212 112 85

[Theo Hall]

Hello all,

I was given a 212 Scraping plane from a very kind family member for Christmas. I must be doing something wrong however, as the only shavings I am currently getting are either so rough, they are like a blunt plane iron would give you (complete with dreaded tearout), or just dust, like a blunt cabinet scraper would give you.

To run through what I have done; I have set it at 45 degrees in my honing guide, so the bevel is completely flat to the stone. Then honed it on a 1,000 waterstone, and then a 8,000 waterstone (but without slightly raising the angle for the 8,000, as I would for a normal plane iron). Then I lapped the back of the iron on the 8,000 stone, to roll off the wire edge. Should one hone it at a higher angle to 45 degrees on the 1,000 stone , and even higher still on the 8,000?

I then set it in the Plane, which I have sat on a piece of float glass. I have tried setting it both completely flat, and with a piece of paper underneath the tongue of the plane. I am careful not to overtighten the thumbscrew on the bronze cap.

I am then trying to use it as one would with a normal plane iron, not pressing too hard; just with a nice even smooth pressure all along. the piece of wood.

Please could somebody with experience of this tool, also explain to me, if one moves the frog so the blade is more vertical (towards 90 degrees from flat), will that make the blade cut more, or less? And vice-versa, if I move the frog backwards, so it is more towards 70 degrees from flat, what effect does that have on the cutting action of the blade?

Any help would be very kind. Thanks.

[Theo Hall]

I have also just noticed that the base of the frog on my 212 is lopsided. Is this a fault? Should I return it for a replacement? Any advice again, would be much appreciated.
Have a good day.

375445

[Pete Taran]

Did you check out the manufacturer's website? I've never been a fan of that plane, the 112 or #12 works much better in my opinion and turning a burr and sharpening the iron is much easier. You can make a regular scraping blade for that plane out of an old used up saw and see if it works any better. The great virtue of any kind of scraper is you can file, quickly hone and turn a burr in 2 minutes. That efficiency is lost on a blade made of thick tool steel. Try it and see. That plane seems to be coveted by guys who make bamboo fly rods by using it to taper the blanks before gluing them together.

Blade Sharpening:

Our Scraping Plane comes with a much thicker blade than the original. This allows the blade to be prepared somewhat differently than other scrapers. We recommend that you hone the blade to a sharp edge like a plane blade and do not use a burr (at least until you get used to using the tool). We have found that our thick scraper blades sharpen easily and produce a better surface with a 45° bevel on the blade. Slightly round the corners of the blade with a stone to prevent them from marking the work.Burnishing:

If you wish to create a burr, hone the blade, and then clamp it upright in a vise. Using a burnisher, begin by holding the burnisher at about 45° to the blade, working up to 75°. Work the edge until you can feel a distinct ‘hook’ all the way across. Be very careful not to cut yourself on the upright blade. Use of a burr will give more aggressive cutting action, and depending on how consistent you are, turning the burr will require adjustment of the blade angle after sharpening to work best.Setting the Blade:

The blade is inserted with the bevel facing the knob. To set the depth of cut, lay the sole of the tool on a flat surface and loosen the thumbscrew. Press lightly on the top of the blade with your thumb and re-tighten the thumbscrew. Do not over tighten. Usually, this will be enough exposure for a fine shaving. If not, repeat with a slip of paper under the front of the tool. Minor depth adjustments may also be made quickly by lightly tapping the top of the blade with a burnisher or light hammer while the tool is resting on a flat board.Adjusting Blade Angle:

The blade angle should be set about 15° forward of vertical. Try adjusting the angle to find optimum performance in various woods. One way to get it close is to take some test passes holding the blade by hand, varying the angle until it cuts best, then hold the blade at that angle against the side of the plane and adjust the frog to match. The beveled faces of the nuts fit into the countersink on the hole in the post to provide a solid lock. Use: Normally, one pushes the Scraping Plane from the rear with the knob in the palm. The blade is inserted with a bevel facing the knob. It is best to use a light touch, rather than trying to remove too much material at once, or using too much downward pressure. Too aggressive a cut, including too much downward pressure, will result in chatter. You should be taking light strokes. Often it is helpful to scrape at an angle to the grain, then again from the opposite angle. David Charlesworth has a good discussion on the use of scrapers in his book Furniture Making Techniques, Vol. II.

[Andrew Seemann]

What kind of wood are you using it on? It sounds like it might want at least a light burr on the blade.

[Normand Leblanc]

I used to have the large scraping plane from Lie-Nielsen but all I was getting was vibrations. I kept that plane for a whole year and every once in a while I was trying to get it to work properly. I had notice that the blade wasn't supported in the centre at all, only on the sides. Took pictures, sent them to LN and they offer right away to replace it or reimburse me without me even asking. I took the money and bought a 4-1/2 from them.

I have tried with different sharpening - with or without a hook (Deneb at LN told me it should be without a hook) but the results didn't change...vibrations.

[Mike Brady]

Read the last paragraph of Pete Taran's post again. To paraphrase: Take the blade out of the plane and take a shaving with the blade held like a normal hand scraper. Transfer that same angle to the planes frog and lock it in. In other words, use the plane body and frog to duplicate your hand position. Don't change that frog angle, ever, but you can tweak the depth of cut using hammer taps. I find that it is best to not roll a burr on the scraper blade because it totally changes the effective cutting angle. Use a 45 degree sharpening angle. I have a 112 and a 212 and this works equally well in both. These are great tools.

[Jim Koepke]

Howdy Theo and welcome to the Creek. My success with scraping is minimal. Others are sure to have some answers.

jtk

[Chet R Parks]

Theo,
I have both the large and small, both are vary good tools. Pete T. gives good advise you also might want to try using less downward hand pressure.
Chet

[Theo Hall]

Thanks all so much for your advice so far! I will be sure to try it.
What do you all think of the angle of the base of the frog? Do you think this is a big fault?


I have also just noticed that the base of the frog on my 212 is lopsided. Is this a fault? Should I return it for a replacement? Any advice again, would be much appreciated.
Have a good day.

375445

[Patrick Chase]

I don't see any mention of burnishing/hooking in your description of your sharpening workflows. Did you do that?

[Theo Hall]

I don't see any mention of burnishing/hooking in your description of your sharpening workflows. Did you do that?

I didn't, mainly because Lie-Nielsen suggested not burnishing/hooking this tool initially; they claim it works well without hooking..?

[Patrick Chase]

I didn't, mainly because Lie-Nielsen suggested not burnishing/hooking this tool initially; they claim it works well without hooking..?

An unhooked scraper is just that: A scraper. The edge engages the wood at a >90 deg angle, which means that it simply can't cleanly cut the fibers. I would expect it to be limited to fairly thin, dusty shavings and to "gouge" if you try to take too thick of a cut (i.e. exactly what you described).

Burnishing the leading edge of a scraper forms a hook on its leading edge, that meets the wood at a much lower angle (60 deg or less). Doing that changes the mechanics from scraping to cutting, and allows a plane-like (not dusty) shaving to be taken.

There is no magic in cutting mechanics, and no reason why the L-N 212 would be different from every other scraping plane in the known universe.

[Normand Leblanc]

There is no magic in cutting mechanics, and no reason why the L-N 212 would be different from every other scraping plane in the known universe.

Have a look at LN video starting at 4:10 minutes. They do not recommend a hook but their method didn't work at all for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j342Bo_p1UU

[Mike Brady]

Consider that the Lie-Nielsen video represents what they demonstrate at their Hand Tool Event, and that they make the planes in question. Call and ask for assistance. If you use their live chat service on the web page, Tom Lie-Nielsen's daughter generally is the correspondent. She can get you answers and help. At their demos they don't say that the burr is right or wrong, but rather you don't need to have a burr to get effective scraping. I have long experience with the LN 212 and 112 scraper planes, not utilizing any sharpening beyond an 8000-10000 water stone. The scraper from them that I did not keep very long was the #85 that has a fixed blade angle. I found that the variable angle is needed depending on the type of wood being scraped.

[Pete Taran]

Theo,

It occurred to me, do you have experience sharpening and using an ordinary card scraper with success? Can you file, stone and roll a burr with success everytime? If not, you might consider starting there and master the art of the hook and how to use it before moving on to more complicated applications like scraper planes. The Stanley #80 is cheap and there are many examples around both old and new production. I'd move there next and figure out how to use that tool before fussing with the 212. In my mind, the 212 is a very specialized tool that has limited use compared to other models like the 12 and 112. While the 112 has a great reputation and is sought after, I think the much less expensive 12 is easier to use and produces better results.

Irons for these scrapers can be an issue, but since they are just spring steel, you can make your own very easily. Just find a used up junker saw that has a relatively rust free blade. Mark it out a little wider than you need and take a 3 corner file and file a groove on the waste side of the mark. Go about 1/2 way through the steel. Then just put it in a vise and bend. It will snap right off. Then clean the ragged edge up by drawfiling and adjust to the right width. Last, file the 45 degree bevel, stone and draw a burr. Assuming you don't have an old saw in your shop, you can find one easily in a second hand store. While you are at it, look for a sharpening steel for kitchen knives. If you remove the serrations by grinding and polishing, they make great burnishing rods. You can get away with using a screwdriver or a relatively thick diameter drill bit (cobalt works better than HSS). Use the shank of course.

Finally, card scrapers that you hold in your hand are filed square. Most scraper planes have 45 degree bevels. Hope this helps.

[Rob Luter]

As a certified scraper nut, I'll chime in.

I have a nice set of card scrapers, four #80, one #81, one #12, and a #112. The ones that get used the most are the #80's and the cards. The #12 works great but is pretty aggressive as currently set up. The #81 offers a very delicate touch. The #112 (with Hock blade) is a PITA to get dialed in and never gets used.

[Mike Brady]

A good tool that is overlooked is the Lee Valley's version of the #80. It is better in the same sense that modern premium planes outperform their antique counterparts, in the hands of most users and is easy to adjust.
Also as a general comment, comparing "#112 planes" without specifying the brand is not helpful or relevant.

[david charlesworth]

I have already replied on UKworkshop.co but here are a couple of thoughts.

It perplexes me that L-N advise no hook to start with. This may work on exotic hardwoods but not well on softer woods. The hook on a scraper makes it cut wood like a plane, leaving a much nicer surface.

The 20 degree forward lean on the blade is associated with the angle that one burnishes the hook at. 75 degree hook with 20 degree lean. There are people who prefer to use a square edged scraper blade but their burnish and lean angles are likely to be different.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

[Patrick Chase]

Also as a general comment, comparing "#112 planes" without specifying the brand is not helpful or relevant.

Based on this and some previous posts you seem to have a grossly inflated sense of the differences between these planes. They all present a simple scraper to the wood in basically the same way, share the same cutting mechanics, and require basically the same tuning and setup as a consequence. The idea that the L-N would respond differently to burnishing/hooking is simply ludicrous.

Brand does determine fit and finish and also some "second tier" features such as how the blade is cambered (if at all) but that's not what the OP was asking about.

[Patrick Chase]

It perplexes me that L-N advise no hook to start with. This may work on exotic hardwoods but not well on softer woods. The hook on a scraper makes it cut wood like a plane, leaving a much nicer surface.

An un-hooked scraper used in a plane of any brand will leave dusty shavings on hard woods and gouge on softer ones. Oddly enough, that's basically what the OP complained about.

It seems blindingly obvious at this point that the real problem is with L-N's setup recommendations.

[Pete Taran]

+1 to what Patrick said. Hence the recommendation to make a normal spring steel blade and try it out. As others have noted, for general scraping, there are many other tools that work much better than the 212. If I were working with small burlwood panels, the 212 would be a great choice. For large area scraping, not so much. Perhaps send it back and get something more useful?

[Pat Barry]

Lie Nielsen instructions:
"Our Scraping Plane comes with a much thicker blade than the original. This allows the blade to be prepared somewhat differently than other scrapers. We recommend that you hone the blade to a sharp edge like a plane blade, and do not use a burr (at least until you get used to using the tool). We have found that, with a 45° bevel on the blade, our thick scraper blades sharpen more easily and produce a better surface. Slightly round the corners of the blade with a stone to prevent them from marking the work. Burnishing: If you wish to create a burr, hone the blade, and then hold it upright in a vise. Begin by holding a burnisher at about 45°, working up to 75°. Work the edge until you can feel a distinct ‘hook’ all the way across. Be very careful not to cut yourself on the upright blade. Use of a burr will give more aggressive cutting action. Turning the burr will require adjustment of the blade angle after sharpening to work best."

The last statement is the rationale for the recommendation not to use a burr. Adding the burr and getting the correct hook angle is not easy.

[Mike Brady]

Clearly I'm doing something wrong. I just used my 112 and 212 from Lie-Nielsen, sharpened at 45 degrees and the result was shavings, which we now know is impossible. Someone should share this information with Thomas Lie-Nielsen. I am curious about one thing: with all due respect to Patrick, David and Pete, are you speaking from direct with the Lie-Nielsen scraper planes?
https://flic.kr/p/23aRaaJ

[Pete Taran]

Unlike many on the interwebs, I only comment and offer advice on matters which I actually know about. I never said using the 212 was impossible, just for general scraping there are at least 4 other better choices.

I don't subscribe to a newspaper, so I couldn't pose my 212 with it, hostage style.

375514

[david charlesworth]

You bet, the best part of 45 years.

David C

[Patrick Chase]

Lie Nielsen instructions:
"Our Scraping Plane comes with a much thicker blade than the original. This allows the blade to be prepared somewhat differently than other scrapers. We recommend that you hone the blade to a sharp edge like a plane blade, and do not use a burr (at least until you get used to using the tool). We have found that, with a 45° bevel on the blade, our thick scraper blades sharpen more easily and produce a better surface. Slightly round the corners of the blade with a stone to prevent them from marking the work. Burnishing: If you wish to create a burr, hone the blade, and then hold it upright in a vise. Begin by holding a burnisher at about 45°, working up to 75°. Work the edge until you can feel a distinct ‘hook’ all the way across. Be very careful not to cut yourself on the upright blade. Use of a burr will give more aggressive cutting action. Turning the burr will require adjustment of the blade angle after sharpening to work best."

The last statement is the rationale for the recommendation not to use a burr. Adding the burr and getting the correct hook angle is not easy.

That sounds to me like a rationale to learn how to turn a consistent burr (which actual IS fairly easy), not a reason to avoid doing so altogether. There's a huge difference in achievable surface quality between cutting at >90 deg (no burr) and cutting at <60 deg (which is what a burr allows). Thickening the iron does nothing whatsoever to change that, so L-N seems to be engaging in some magical thinking about the benefits of thick irons. It would not be the first time they've done so.

I've tried the L-N 212 and 112, and I have the LV equivalents. The reason I chose the LVs is because I prefer the combination of a thinner iron with a camber adjustment screw. Flexibility is a feature in a scraper, not a defect.

To be honest I mostly use card scrapers nowdays as Pete suggests, though, as I prefer the additional control and immediacy of feedback.

[Pat Barry]

That sounds to me like a rationale to learn how to turn a consistent burr (which actual IS fairly easy), not a reason to avoid doing so altogether. There's a huge difference in achievable surface quality between cutting at >90 deg (no burr) and cutting at <60 deg (which is what a burr allows). Thickening the iron does nothing whatsoever to change that, so L-N seems to be engaging in some magical thinking about the benefits of thick irons. It would not be the first time they've done so.

I've tried the L-N 212 and 112, and I have the LV equivalents. The reason I chose the LVs is because I prefer the combination of a thinner iron with a camber adjustment screw. Flexibility is a feature in a scraper, not a defect.

To be honest I mostly use card scrapers nowdays as Pete suggests, though, as I prefer the additional control and immediacy of feedback.
I have no experience with this tool but I do believe the LN recommendation is good advice. What burr angle do you recommend that LN should direct the user to put on their tool for best performance? I'm thinking they would like to know.

[Patrick Chase]

I have no experience with this tool but I do believe the LN recommendation is good advice. What burr angle do you recommend that LN should direct the user to put on their tool for best performance? I'm thinking they would like to know.

For a scraping plane iron with a 45 deg bottom bevel, I hold the burnisher at about 15 degrees below horizontal with the bevel facing me and the side that is to receive the hook away from me (so 30 degrees above the bevel). The diagram on p. 5 of the instructions for the LV scraping plane (http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=48431&cat=1,310,48431) shows the same thing.

For an ordinary flat-bottomed card scraper I hold the burnisher at about 10 deg above horizontal, again with the side to receive the burr facing away from me.

I typically put larger burrs (more pressure with the burnisher) on 45-deg scraping irons than on cards.

[Patrick Chase]

I don't subscribe to a newspaper, so I couldn't pose my 212 with it, hostage style.

Is that an iron-bodied L-N 212?

It doesn't appear to be a Stanley as the iron profile, knob shape, lever cap material etc. are all wrong and the iron is too thick. With that said the pin matches the body in color, and both are more neutral than the lever cap, so that would seem to rule out the conventional bronze-body L-N (I'm judging based on relative colors since digital camera color balance can easily make bronze look like iron in absolute terms).

Did Tom give you a one-off?

[Stewie Simpson]

That sounds to me like a rationale to learn how to turn a consistent burr (which actual IS fairly easy), not a reason to avoid doing so altogether. There's a huge difference in achievable surface quality between cutting at >90 deg (no burr) and cutting at <60 deg (which is what a burr allows). Thickening the iron does nothing whatsoever to change that, so L-N seems to be engaging in some magical thinking about the benefits of thick irons. It would not be the first time they've done so.

I've tried the L-N 212 and 112, and I have the LV equivalents. The reason I chose the LVs is because I prefer the combination of a thinner iron with a camber adjustment screw. Flexibility is a feature in a scraper, not a defect.

To be honest I mostly use card scrapers nowdays as Pete suggests, though, as I prefer the additional control and immediacy of feedback.

Do your research Patrick. Veritas® Scraping Plane http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=48431&cat=1,310,48431

A feature unique to our scraping plane is an integral thumbscrew that bows the blade to eliminate ridges in the work surface caused by blade corners. The plane comes with a 0.055" high-carbon steel blade suited to this technique, and an optional 1/8" (0.125") thick blade of A2 tool steel is available for those who prefer uncambered blades.

[Patrick Chase]

Do your research Patrick. Veritas® Scraping Plane http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=48431&cat=1,310,48431

A feature unique to our scraping plane is an integral thumbscrew that bows the blade to eliminate ridges in the work surface caused by blade corners. The plane comes with a 0.055" high-carbon steel blade suited to this technique, and an optional 1/8" (0.125") thick blade of A2 tool steel is available for those who prefer uncambered blades.

Err, I have the plane and am aware of the thick blade. I just don't use it for the reason I specified. What part do you think I haven't researched?

[Pete Taran]

Probably trying to understand how LV can claim a thumbscrew and bowed blade is a unique feature. It’s only been used on a every #80 style scraper for 150 years.

[Stewie Simpson]

Err, I have the plane and am aware of the thick blade. I just don't use it for the reason I specified. What part do you think I haven't researched?

Has anyone trialled a light camber on these thicker rigid style scraper irons.

[steven c newman]

Hmmm, BTDT...
375572
Stanley #80.....

[Patrick Chase]

Probably trying to understand how LV can claim a thumbscrew and bowed blade is a unique feature. It’s only been used on a every #80 style scraper for 150 years.

Indeed :-). I expect that they would have trouble patenting that as an invention under the KSR-v-Teleflex precedent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_International_Co._v._Teleflex_Inc.), but you never know.

[J. Greg Jones]

Probably trying to understand how LV can claim a thumbscrew and bowed blade is a unique feature. It’s only been used on a every #80 style scraper for 150 years.
The statement loses context without the accompanying pictures, as LV is making a side-by-side comparison with what I would assume is the Stanley 112.

[Kevin Jenness]

I have had a L-N 212 for some 20 years. I use it mostly for spot removal of tearout on jointed edges, as it is easier than a card scraper to maintain a fair surface. I have never used it with a hook, just a honed 45 degree bevel. Set with a very slight (on the order of .001") projection, it produces fine shavings in hardwoods and works quite well for me. As the blade dulls I lean it forward slightly to increase the projection.

I may experiment with a hook, but I expect that it would require more frequent burnishing and resetting than I sharpen presently- the setting of the iron is the fiddly part.

[Rob Luter]

I just watched the LN video on using the #112 and I guess I’ve been taking the wrong approach. Deneb claims it’s intended to take exceptionally fine shavings on the order of .001 or thinner. I’ve certainly been trying to be more aggressive than that. Maybe I’ll monkey with it this afternoon and see how it goes.

[Patrick Chase]

I just watched the LN video on using the #112 and I guess I’ve been taking the wrong approach. Deneb claims it’s intended to take exceptionally fine shavings on the order of .001 or thinner. I’ve certainly been trying to be more aggressive than that. Maybe I’ll monkey with it this afternoon and see how it goes.

That makes sense. Very thin shavings on hard/exotic woods are where unhooked scrapers do best. I keep a couple thin/flexible unhooked card scrapers on hand for exactly that. With that said I don't see what a scraping *plane* buys you for that sort of use case. IMO the planes (including the #80) are most useful when you want to comfortably take more aggressive shavings over larger areas.

BTW you can take very thin shavings with a hooked scraper as well, particularly if you set a fine hook. In that case the hook retains the advantages of cutting at a much lower angle, and leaving a glassier surface.

The biggest challenge with burnishing is preserving an adequately sharp and clean edge. To get the best possible surface quality you want the tip of the hook to be as sharp and smooth as the edge you would put on a smoothing plane. To do that you need to start with a pristine edge and then use light pressure with a smooth burnisher, taking successive strokes at increasing angles to "sneak up" on the final geometry. If you whale on the burnisher or try to take it to the final angle all in one go you'll end up with a crushed edge and a ragged hook that leaves tracks all over the place. Ditto for the approach of using a pointed object to "adjust" the hook angle after the fact, IMO.

On a related note, burnishing a scraper work-hardens the tip of the iron. This is both a good and bad thing. It's a good thing because it actually increases edge life relative to the unhooked scraper blade (and note that most scraper blades are pretty soft at ~Rc50).

It's a bad thing if you don't file away all of that work-hardened steel the next time you sharpen. I can't count the number of times I've obtained an unsatisfactorily jagged edge when polishing a scraper (the final step prior to burnishing), and seen the tell-tale "shininess" of residual work-hardened patches when examining it under magnification.

[andy bessette]

...I don't see what a scraping *plane* buys you...

Perhaps you've never suffered from arthritis.

[Pat Barry]

I've always used my card scrapers for just the slightest of material removal. Mostly creating more dust than shavings per se. Just a final kiss after smoothing. This is probably the intent. If you are doing much material removal you've got the wrong tool.

[Patrick Chase]

I've always used my card scrapers for just the slightest of material removal. Mostly creating more dust than shavings per se. Just a final kiss after smoothing. This is probably the intent. If you are doing much material removal you've got the wrong tool.

Scrapers have an incredibly wide range of applications. Somebody who is truly skilled in their use (not me) could easily employ them for basically everything but roughing. If the applications you describe were all that existed then "heavy scrapers" like the 80 and 112 would never have been created.

The classic example where you want to take more than the "slightest of material" is for smoothing extremely difficult surfaces like burl. Admittedly we have more alternatives now that we've regained the proper use of the cap iron (and certainly my own scraper use has fallen off a bit since then).

[david charlesworth]

Stewie,

Yes, I always use a slight camber.

David

[paul cottingham]

I have the LV version of that plane. I sharpen the blade, put it back in the plane (on a flat surfacs) and set the blade flush. Then change the angle of the blade until it takes shavings.

[Patrick Chase]

OK, just for kicks i tried setting my LV scraping plane (112 equivalent) for moderately aggressive shaving on a maple offcut. The shavings range from under 1 to ~2 mils thick and basically look like plane shavings. The resulting surface has decent sheen, much better than I can do with sandpaper or an un-hooked scraper but worse than I can achieve with a smoothing plane.

375661
This isn't rocket science or even remotely difficult. It takes a little practice to figure out how to turn a consistent hook without mangling the edge, but that's about it.

I can't understand for the life of me why L-N is providing the advice that they are. I understand that they cater to a lot of "well-heeled amateurs" who want stuff that works out of the box, but correct scraper setup is one of those things that everybody has to learn, preferably sooner rather than later. As noted above their assertion than thickening the blade eliminates the need for burring is incomprehensibly bogus - Adding more metal to the top of the iron doesn't change the cutting mechanics down at the edge.

[Pat Barry]

OK, just for kicks i tried setting my LV scraping plane (112 equivalent) for moderately aggressive shaving on a maple offcut. The shavings range from under 1 to ~2 mils thick and basically look like plane shavings. The resulting surface has decent sheen, much better than I can do with sandpaper or an un-hooked scraper but worse than I can achieve with a smoothing plane.

375661
This isn't rocket science or even remotely difficult. It takes a little practice to figure out how to turn a consistent hook without mangling the edge, but that's about it.

I can't understand for the life of me why L-N is providing the advice that they are. I understand that they cater to a lot of "well-heeled amateurs" who want stuff that works out of the box, but correct scraper setup is one of those things that everybody has to learn, preferably sooner rather than later. As noted above their assertion than thickening the blade eliminates the need for burring is incomprehensibly bogus - Adding more metal to the top of the iron doesn't change the cutting mechanics down at the edge.
I suppose that with a relatively thick shaving like you are taking here (nice work by the way), that is not the optimum way to use the tool to get the best finish. What I mean is that if you didn't get a smooth and glassy surface then you are taking too much material off. Take it back a notch so that you are hardly taking anything for a shaving (like LN advises) and I bet you get a better surface..

[Patrick Chase]

I suppose that with a relatively thick shaving like you are taking here (nice work by the way), that is not the optimum way to use the tool to get the best finish. What I mean is that if you didn't get a smooth and glassy surface then you are taking too much material off. Take it back a notch so that you are hardly taking anything for a shaving (like LN advises) and I bet you get a better surface..

You can get a finer surface with a thinner shaving, but certainly not "like LN advises". If you cut at 90+ degrees (which is what happens with an unhooked scraper) then your surface will invariably suffer because you will be pulling at wood fibers instead of cleanly severing them. That's just basic wood-cutting mechanics, and it's why their advice is so unbelievably perverse.

If I want to take a wispy shaving and get the finest possible surface then I would probably use a card scraper with a very fine hook. As I said in an earlier post you can do an incredibly wide range of work with scrapers, and the planes were designed for the heavier end of that spectrum. With that said I'd note that the shaving on the right of that picture is down in the sub-mil range. It's pretty thin.

[Stewie Simpson]

Stewie,

Yes, I always use a slight camber.

David

Appreciate the feedback David. This morning I tested my Stanley #81 with a light camber across the cutting edge, on a Jarrah plane stock I am currently working on. A 30 degree primary bevel on the bench grinder, followed by a 45 degree secondary bevel on a sharpening stone. The back of the blade was then worked over the stone to remove the burr.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0286_zpsvfc3h9wy.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0286_zpsvfc3h9wy.jpg.html)

[Patrick Chase]

Stewie, did you hit that with a toothing plane before scraping?

I'm guessing "yes" from the ribbon-like quality of the shavings.

[Stewie Simpson]

Stewie, did you hit that with a toothing plane before scraping?

I'm guessing "yes" from the ribbon-like quality of the shavings.

Patrick; no I did not use a toothing plane. What your seeing are shavings straight from the scraper plane.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0285_zpslla1oqfr.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0285_zpslla1oqfr.jpg.html)

[Pete Taran]

Whenever I encounter one of these discussions, I always look to see what they did in the old days. My thinking is with all the work that people did for their livelihood back in the old days, if there was a need for a thick, 1/8" scraping iron they would have made one. They didn't. All the ones I've ever seen are spring steel and much thinner. I think this is a case of LN thinking that there was some good justification for this sort of iron, but in practice, it just isn't there. I will say again that the great virtue of scrapers is how fast and easy they can be sharpened. I even roll and reroll a burr without doing a single bit of filing or stoning. I rarely stone my scrapers and get a great shaving.

I do have the plane, and I do have the thick iron, but I never use it. Takes too long to prepare and too long to maintain. Having said that, I rarely use the 212, except when working unruly small areas that require that kind of control.

YMMV

[Stewie Simpson]

Whenever I encounter these type of open forum discussions I look for those members that can validate their claims by providing some photos.

After flattening the top surface of Tiger Myrtle with a smoothing plane;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0287_zpsxs9q9bii.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0287_zpsxs9q9bii.jpg.html)

Moving on to a scraper plane;

How long did it take to resharpen that cutting edge on the scraper iron. It was as quick as re-honing the edge on that smoothing plane iron.


http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0288_zps1tw3m9fg.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0288_zps1tw3m9fg.jpg.html)

The scraped top surface revealed;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0289_zpsca4pax1u.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0289_zpsca4pax1u.jpg.html)

[Pete Taran]

Stewart,

Shall I take a picture of all the scraping planes I own with thin, original spring steel blades installed? Not sure how that adds to the discussion or the point I made.

[Patrick Chase]

I will say again that the great virtue of scrapers is how fast and easy they can be sharpened. I even roll and reroll a burr without doing a single bit of filing or stoning. I rarely stone my scrapers and get a great shaving.

That's one trick I haven't mastered. My shavings look OK but I get more surface tracking/striation than i like when I re-roll the burrs on my scrapers without filing/stoning. The work-hardened burr is certainly more brittle than virgin spring steel, so I probably need to go about re-turning it more gradually/gently or something along those lines.

[Stewie Simpson]

Stewart,

Shall I take a picture of all the scraping planes I own with thin, original spring steel blades installed? Not sure how that adds to the discussion or the point I made.

Pete; it would certainly benefit the OP if you supplied a photo of the shavings from a well tuned 212.

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=375514&d=1515181869&thumb=1 (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=375514&d=1515181869)

[Patrick Chase]

Whenever I encounter one of these discussions, I always look to see what they did in the old days. My thinking is with all the work that people did for their livelihood back in the old days, if there was a need for a thick, 1/8" scraping iron they would have made one. They didn't. All the ones I've ever seen are spring steel and much thinner.

Pete undoubtedly knows this, but I think there are a few reasons why almost everybody used (and uses) thin spring steel:


It's inexpensive. Blue-hard 1095 sheet has been ubiquitously available for a very long time. If you want to save some money on scrapers, then head on over to McMaster-Carr (https://www.mcmaster.com/#grade-1095-steel-sheets/=1b0o3to) or any other supplier of quality metals. The classic Sandvik scraper is 0.032", and the Stanley #112 is 3/64" = 0.047" per Derek (http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/Thick%20verses%20thin%20112%20Scraper%20Plane%20bl ades.html) (the LV version is 0.055"). You could make 8 #112-sized irons out of that 4" x 24" x 0.05" sheet that they sell for all of $31.41. It might even make sense to do so (including the value of your time).
It's stiff enough to do the job in skilled hands.
It's flexible enough to be cambered, which provides a fair degree of control for working into low spots and keeping the corners off the work. This is done by directly flexing the scraper in the case of a card, and via the camber screw in the #80 and the LV planes.
As a bonus, cambering stiffens the scraper quite a bit and reduces the required thickness. In engineering we call this a "virtuous cycle".

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks for linking my article (http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/Thick%20verses%20thin%20112%20Scraper%20Plane%20bl ades.html), Patrick. This was probably written about 10 or so years ago, and is a comparison of thick and thin scraper plane blades. In a nutshell, they produced similar results, but the thicker blade was more pleasant to use (quieter!).

Both were capable of continuous shavings, such as Tasmanian Oak, here ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/Thick%20verses%20thin%20112%20Scraper%20Plane%20bl ades_html_m10de3756.jpg

To answer one earlier question - why does LN recommend a blade sans hook? - they suggest that a hook is for advanced users. In other words, the blade-without-a-hook is an easy set up recommended to beginners.

Personally, I do not use scraper planes, and probably have not done so for about 10 years, and very lightly in the 10 years before then. In recent years, since the re-introduction of the chipbreaker, I have not even looked at a scraper plane. Before then, a high cutting angle was usually sufficient in even the most interlocked wood. On the other hand, I do use card scrapers or cabinet scrapers (I prefer the latter term) because these excel at smoothing small sections, or curved sections ... scraper planes are designed to smooth long, flat sections. They are one-shot tools and lack the flexibility I treasure in a cabinet scraper.

A few years ago I discovered thick cabinet scrapers. I made one out of the rear of a 1/8" plane blade. This is sharpened to a fine wire on a bench grinder. No other preparation is needed ...

https://s19.postimg.org/moeca3j83/Sharpening-blade-scrapera_zpslgrvfjha.jpg

Used here to shape and smooth the inside (concave) of a bow drawer front ...

https://s19.postimg.org/5cil25mrn/1_zpspr2v0uh1.jpg

It is amazing the fine finish that is achieved off such a crude edge.

How does this help in setting up scraper plane blades? Essentially, there are many methods of use, and you need to find the one that fits with your work method or need. Experiment.

Regards from Cape Town

Derek

[Pat Barry]

Whenever I encounter these type of open forum discussions I look for those members that can validate their claims by providing some photos.

After flattening the top surface of Tiger Myrtle with a smoothing plane;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0287_zpsxs9q9bii.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0287_zpsxs9q9bii.jpg.html)

Moving on to a scraper plane;

How long did it take to resharpen that cutting edge on the scraper iron. It was as quick as re-honing the edge on that smoothing plane iron.


http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0288_zps1tw3m9fg.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0288_zps1tw3m9fg.jpg.html)

The scraped top surface revealed;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0289_zpsca4pax1u.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0289_zpsca4pax1u.jpg.html)
Thanks Stewie, that's what I was attempting to describe. More like dust than shavings because very little material being removed. Not to say you can't use a card scraper with an agressive hook if needed for more significant material removal.

[Derek Cohen]

..... that's what I was attempting to describe. More like dust than shavings because very little material being removed. Not to say you can't use a card scraper with an agressive hook if needed for more significant material removal.

Pat, if you are getting dust off a cabinet scraper or scraper plane, then the blade has not been set up correctly. The scraper - whether hand held or plane held - should cut in a similar manner to a plane. The hook creates a cutting edge. Yes, you can use a blade sans hook, but it is not cutting. It is truly scraping, and that leaves a poor finish. A scraper can be set yo to take very fine shavings, or thick shavings - this depends on the size of the hook. I would say that a scraper plane which has a hook on the blade but is creating dust is likely set at the incorrect angle.

Moderately thick shavings off a cabinet scraper ...

https://s19.postimg.org/npzc68mr7/Scraping_html_7731962a_zpsjhnogkss.jpg

Thin shavings from a #112 ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/Thick%20verses%20thin%20112%20Scraper%20Plane%20bl ades_html_m1531a516.jpg

Thick Hard Maple shavings ...

https://s19.postimg.org/9nygjllqb/Thick_verses_thin_112_Scraper_Plane_blades_html_m6 5a5ee99.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Pat Barry]

It is called a scraper afterall.http://www.finewoodworking.com/2005/10/25/using-a-card-scraper

[steven c newman]

So was this..
375692
A Stanley No. 70....can be pushed or pulled
375693
Been using it to remove beads of dried glue. As for that chisel...meh, found a better handle for it...

[Derek Cohen]

It is called a scraper afterall.http://www.finewoodworking.com/2005/10/25/using-a-card-scraper

Pat, I searched out a few quotes as well :)

"In the four videos I watched I actually did not see large fluffy shavings but minute ones and lots of dust and yet they were saying that when the scraper went dull you ended up with powder and little shavings ... In the end I felt so frustrated because again it was a crowded mass of miss-information that clouded the real truth. " Paul Sellers (http://https://paulsellers.com/2013/12/using-card-scraper-good-heel-beats-two-thumbs/)


"The cutting edge of a scraper is a fine hook" ... Garret Hack (https://books.google.co.za/books?id=eocj61YsM2IC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=scraper+sharpening+hack&source=bl&ots=zP5VdrpXFN&sig=8ulmPAHxD24UVT5YosMvSw2_XxM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqzYrxqcbYAhXnLcAKHfwnBnkQ6AEIQTAF#v=on epage&q=scraper%20sharpening%20hack&f=false)



Regards from Cape Town

Derek

[Pat Barry]

Pat, I searched out a few quotes as well :)

"In the four videos I watched I actually did not see large fluffy shavings but minute ones and lots of dust and yet they were saying that when the scraper went dull you ended up with powder and little shavings ... In the end I felt so frustrated because again it was a crowded mass of miss-information that clouded the real truth. " Paul Sellers (http://https://paulsellers.com/2013/12/using-card-scraper-good-heel-beats-two-thumbs/)


"The cutting edge of a scraper is a fine hook" ... Garret Hack (https://books.google.co.za/books?id=eocj61YsM2IC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=scraper+sharpening+hack&source=bl&ots=zP5VdrpXFN&sig=8ulmPAHxD24UVT5YosMvSw2_XxM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqzYrxqcbYAhXnLcAKHfwnBnkQ6AEIQTAF#v=on epage&q=scraper%20sharpening%20hack&f=false)



Regards from Cape Town

Derek

"In the end I felt so frustrated because again it was a crowded mass of miss-information that clouded the real truth."
Amen

[Patrick Chase]

It is called a scraper afterall.http://www.finewoodworking.com/2005/10/25/using-a-card-scraper

That's actually a really good example of using a card scraper for finish work, which is something I've already referenced multiple times in this thread. Planes and cabinet scrapers aren't as good for that, because you can't instantaneously vary the angle and camber as Brian describes, and because there isn't as much feedback (note that Brian referenced "feeling" for angles etc a couple times in that video. You can't do that with a plane).

Brian was unquestionably using a hooked scraper there. I say that for three reasons:


There was a burnisher laying conspicuously on the bench, right next to his workpiece.
While thin, the shavings were continuous in a way that doesn't happen with an unhooked scraper.
You can't get a mirror finish like that from an unhooked scraper except maybe on the very hardest exotics.
He referenced finding the critical angle at which the hook engages the wood (though he didn't word it quite like that). Unhooked scrapers don't have that sort of response to the wood.

This video doesn't contradict anything anybody has said in this thread. It just shows a different use for a different type of hooked scraper, so if anything it reinforces the arguments the rest of us are making.

[Pat Barry]

That's actually a really good example of using a card scraper for finish work, which is something I've already referenced multiple times in this thread. Planes and cabinet scrapers aren't as good for that, because you can't instantaneously vary the angle and camber as Brian describes, and because there isn't as much feedback (note that Brian referenced "feeling" for angles etc a couple times in that video. You can't do that with a plane).

Brian was unquestionably using a hooked scraper there. I say that for three reasons:


There was a burnisher laying conspicuously on the bench, right next to his workpiece.
While thin, the shavings were continuous in a way that doesn't happen with an unhooked scraper.
You can't get a mirror finish like that from an unhooked scraper except maybe on the very hardest exotics.
He referenced finding the critical angle at which the hook engages the wood (though he didn't word it quite like that). Unhooked scrapers don't have that sort of response to the wood.

This video doesn't contradict anything anybody has said in this thread. It just shows a different use for a different type of hooked scraper, so if anything it reinforces the arguments the rest of us are making.
The point of the video was purely to provide demonstration that for finish work the scraper produces more dust than shavings. That's exactly what he demonstrates. He notes 'gouging' created by his rougher, deeper cutting use of the same tool. It might be that LN intends their scraping planes to be used for final finish, not taking shavings.

[Patrick Chase]

Pat, I searched out a few quotes as well :)

The video Pat cited is actually really good IMO. The shavings are "fluffy enough", and there are several aspects (spelled out in another post) that demonstrate that he's making good use of a hooked scraper.

[Patrick Chase]

The point of the video was purely to provide demonstration that for finish work the scraper produces more dust than shavings. That's exactly what he demonstrates. He notes 'gouging' created by his rougher, deeper cutting use of the same tool. It might be that LN intends their scraping planes to be used for final finish, not taking shavings.

Except that that's not what he demonstrates. He's creating curls for the most part, not dust. An unhooked scraper can't do what he's demonstrating in that video, so even if that's what LN "intends" with their advice it isn't what they achieve.

Also he's demonstrating use of a card. Many of the techniques he describes simply aren't feasible with a plane like the 212. L-N's advice is inappropriate for the tool they are selling.

[Patrick Chase]

I do have the plane, and I do have the thick iron, but I never use it. Takes too long to prepare and too long to maintain. Having said that, I rarely use the 212, except when working unruly small areas that require that kind of control.

Enquiring minds still want to know how you got that iron-bodied 212 :-)

[steven c newman]

Seems to be a lot of hair-splitting going on here....oh well...

[Patrick Chase]

Seems to be a lot of hair-splitting going on here....oh well...

You're basically right, but at the same time it's critical to the OP's problem (212 creating dust, not shavings). While "hooked or not" seems like a small difference, the difference between ~50 degree cutting angle and ~100 degree cutting angle is *huge*.

[Patrick Chase]

The statement loses context without the accompanying pictures, as LV is making a side-by-side comparison with what I would assume is the Stanley 112.

Replying late: Pete's point is that adding a #80-style camber screw to a #112-style scraping plane is an obvious combination of existing features. That's why I cited the KSR-v-Teleflex case in response (a well-known patent case in which the Supreme Court established that such obvious combinations aren't patentable inventions).

[Patrick Chase]

I may experiment with a hook, but I expect that it would require more frequent burnishing and resetting than I sharpen presently- the setting of the iron is the fiddly part.

I don't think that's necessarily correct. The hooked edge is more acute and therefore more susceptible to some types of wear, but it's also work-hardened and therefore has better wear resistance. I'd call it a wash based on my own experience (I make rare use of unhooked scrapers in very difficult circumstances where I actually *want* a 90+ degree cutting angle).

[Derek Cohen]

The video Pat cited is actually really good IMO. The shavings are "fluffy enough", and there are several aspects (spelled out in another post) that demonstrate that he's making good use of a hooked scraper.

No Patrick ... or perhaps we are focussed on two separate issues (I agree that it was a good video). In the picture to which Pat referred (which constituted mostly dust and just a few shavings), Pat commented, "Thanks Stewie, that's what I was attempting to describe. More like dust than shavings because very little material being removed". My earlier comment was that scraping is about cutting and creating shavings, not creating dust. The video that was linked to shows Brian Boggs making shavings. Lots of shavings. Any dust is incidental, not deliberate. Boggs commented when the shavings have become finer and finer - "that almost dust and little bit of shavings". He is describing the scraper burnishing at a late stage. This was the last stage of the process he was going through. It is right at the end. It does not represent the process of scraping, per se. To say that dust and scraping are synonymous is misleading.

Regards from Cape Town

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

No Patrick ... or perhaps we are focussed on two separate issues (I agree that it was a good video). In the picture to which Pat referred (which constituted mostly dust and just a few shavings), Pat commented, "Thanks Stewie, that's what I was attempting to describe. More like dust than shavings because very little material being removed". My earlier comment was that scraping is about cutting and creating shavings, not creating dust. The video that was linked to shows Brian Boggs making shavings. Lots of shavings. Any dust is incidental, not deliberate. Boggs commented when the shavings have become finer and finer - "that almost dust and little bit of shavings". He is describing the scraper burnishing at a late stage. This was the last stage of the process he was going through. It is right at the end. It does not represent the process of scraping, per se. To say that dust and scraping are synonymous is misleading.

Regards from Cape Town

Derek

Yes, we agree. My point was that the video he linked completely demolished his own argument, so I was arguing not to throw the baby (the Boggs video) out with the bathwater. That's all.

[Theo Hall]

Hello all, thanks for such a lot of responses! It has all been really interesting information and very helpful for me to know.

One quite important question I have is; when it comes to re-sharpening the blade, what does one do with the slight remainder of the burr left on the blade? Bear in mind I am using 1,000 and then 8,000 waterstones. Do I just leave it there and re-hone on the stones? Or try to get rid of the remainder of the burr, with the stones or burnisher, before re-sharpening again?

To the person who asked; yes, I do have great successes with standard card scrapers. I sharpen them in the way Brian Boggs shows in his great video on that subject. I use card scrapers alot and love the finish they leave. I find I get around 3-4 times to re-roll the burr with my burnisher, before the quality starts diminishing, so I go back to the file, then stone...

Theo

[Patrick Chase]

Hello all, thanks for such a lot of responses! It has all been really interesting information and very helpful for me to know.

One quite important question I have is; when it comes to re-sharpening the blade, what does one do with the slight remainder of the burr left on the blade? Bear in mind I am using 1,000 and then 8,000 waterstones. Do I just leave it there and re-hone on the stones? Or try to get rid of the remainder of the burr, with the stones or burnisher, before re-sharpening again?

You should stone the burr off, particularly if you're going to file the edge to get to "clean" steel. The burr is work-hardened to significantly more than the ~Rc50 initial hardness of the scraper, and will wreak havoc on all but the very hardest files. If you've ever done ski tuning, it's similar to how you remove work-hardened rock impact damage before you can file the edge. Diamond plates make short work of scraper hooks, and they don't get scored like coarse stones do.



To the person who asked; yes, I do have great successes with standard card scrapers. I sharpen them in the way Brian Boggs shows in his great video on that subject. I use card scrapers alot and love the finish they leave. I find I get around 3-4 times to re-roll the burr with my burnisher, before the quality starts diminishing, so I go back to the file, then stone...

The person who asked was Pete Taran, who founded Independence Tool which was subsequently bought by L-N and became their handsaw business. If you have to pick one person on this thread to listen to you could do a lot worse.

[Theo Hall]

The person who asked was Pete Taran, who founded Independence Tool which was subsequently bought by L-N and became their handsaw business. If you have to pick one person on this thread to listen to you could do a lot worse.

Thanks Pete!!

[Pete Taran]

Theo,

Glad to help. When I was making all those saw handles, I used card scrapers extensively for smoothing the flat surface of the top and bottom of the horns. There was no shortage of them because I always had offcuts from making the blades.

Patrick, to answer your question, I got that plane back around the time I sold the business to TLN. Some of the payment were for various tools, that was one. The box indicated that it came in either iron or bronze, perhaps he stopped making the iron model. Was never a fan of any of the bronze stuff as a wear surface on wood.

Since Stewart asked, I will endeavor to take some pictures tomorrow and show the 212 in action.

[Theo Hall]

Theo,

Glad to help. When I was making all those saw handles, I used card scrapers extensively for smoothing the flat surface of the top and bottom of the horns. There was no shortage of them because I always had offcuts from making the blades.

Patrick, to answer your question, I got that plane back around the time I sold the business to TLN. Some of the payment were for various tools, that was one. The box indicated that it came in either iron or bronze, perhaps he stopped making the iron model. Was never a fan of any of the bronze stuff as a wear surface on wood.

Since Stewart asked, I will endeavor to take some pictures tomorrow and show the 212 in action.

Hi Pete, and thanks again! I would love to see your 212 in-action pictures.

When you come to resharpen the 212, Pete, how do you remove the burr? Would you do it flat on a waterstone? I am treating it like a regular plane blade in my sharpening, with the only addition of rolling a burr at the end. Rather than use a file to re-establish the primary bevel, I am doing that on a Tormek t3. But your tips on re-sharpening it and the treatment of the burr would be really appreciated.

Theo

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks Stewie, that's what I was attempting to describe. More like dust than shavings because very little material being removed. Not to say you can't use a card scraper with an agressive hook if needed for more significant material removal.

Your welcome Pat. I just watched that same Brian Boggs video. To reinforce your comments, Brian does cover the benefits of taking a lighter cut with a scraper card to protect the integrity of the finished surface. Poignant given my choice to use a smoothing plane to take the heavier shavings, and lighter cuts with a scraper plane to further refine that surface. http://www.finewoodworking.com/2005/10/25/using-a-card-scraper

[Pete Taran]

Theo writes:


Hi Pete, and thanks again! I would love to see your 212 in-action pictures.

When you come to resharpen the 212, Pete, how do you remove the burr? Would you do it flat on a waterstone? I am treating it like a regular plane blade in my sharpening, with the only addition of rolling a burr at the end. Rather than use a file to re-establish the primary bevel, I am doing that on a Tormek t3. But your tips on re-sharpening it and the treatment of the burr would be really appreciated.

Theo

I never fool around with waterstones when it comes to rehabbing a scraper. Take your burnisher and roll that burr back so the back is flat. Easiest way is to clamp the blade flat on the bench and just apply pressure back and forth and it will easily roll. You can then burnish along the 45 degree bevel and then finally roll it again and use it some more. You can usually get away with this at least once. If the burr is shot and needs reworked, roll it back to the bevel side, and take a 6" mill smooth file and give a couple swipes to remove it and then stone if you feel it needs it, burnish and roll.

As I mentioned, everything is harder when you have 1/8" of steel to work with. In the pictures below you can see a standard .060" thick iron I made from some spring steel. It's easy as can be to use. Just roll a burr, I like mine to be enough that you can catch your fingernail in it. I find the easiest way to set the iron (and what I did in the pictures below) is to take the plane and put it on something dead flat, like your bandsaw table and just put the iron in and set it flush with the sole. 9 times out of 10 it will work great. Don't ask me how as it should not work, but it does. If the plane is not taking a shaving, just loosen the back knob, then the front knob by the same amount and tighten the back knob again, That will make the blade slightly more vertical and make the iron protrude just a little bit more. I didn't need to adjust mine in the pictures below. It's taking a pretty nice shaving, not quite as thick as a plane shaving, but more than you could get with a card scraper which is the point.

Testing the burr freehand:

375787

A little scraping:

375788

Nice bed of shavings:

375789

Hope this helps and convinces Stewart that in fact I do have a 212 and know how to use it.

[Pat Barry]

Except that that's not what he demonstrates. He's creating curls for the most part, not dust. An unhooked scraper can't do what he's demonstrating in that video, so even if that's what LN "intends" with their advice it isn't what they achieve.

Also he's demonstrating use of a card. Many of the techniques he describes simply aren't feasible with a plane like the 212. L-N's advice is inappropriate for the tool they are selling.
I'm sure LN will appreciate you getting back to them with your knowledge. Please write them a letter and tell us how it turns out.

[Derek Cohen]

Actually Pat, Patrick is correct about what the performance of the types of scraper blades. The edge off a scraper blade without a hook will scrape but not cut. The hook creates a cutting edge akin to a plane with a high angled bed. Further, the blade sans hook will dull rapidly, while the hooked edge will keep cutting.

This is very easy to test out for yourself.

Regards from Cape Town

Derek

[Pete Taran]

+1 to what Derek said. A great analogy is working at the lathe. You can scrape all day long and it leaves a dusty sort of torn look. Contrast that with the finish you get from a sharp tool like a skew or gouge. Glassy and smooth. In the first scenario you are rubbing the wood away, in the second you are cutting it.

I will admit I have not thought about the 212 in a long time, but I too am scratching my head as to what problem LN was hoping to solve by making that plane with a heavy iron? More work, more cost and harder to use and not as good results. It is really perplexing.

Pete

[Stewie Simpson]

Veritas also supply a thick 1/8" blade for their scraper plane. http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?cat=1,310&p=48431

While Veritas promotes the use of a turned hook on their scraper blades, LN provides the user with the option of using their scraper plane with/or without a turned hook. A fact that seems to have been pushed aside within the commentary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHcgZiEOWPU

[Pat Barry]

Veritas also supply a thick 1/8" blade for their scraper plane. http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?cat=1,310&p=48431

While Veritas promotes the use of a turned hook on their scraper blades, LN provides the user with the option of using their scraper plane with/or without a turned hook. A fact that seems to have been pushed aside within the commentary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHcgZiEOWPU
Perhaps P can reply to Deneb that dusty shavings are not what he is supposed to get from his scraping plane. Looks like he could do that right in the you tube comment section. May even get a response there.

[Stewie Simpson]

Dependant on the type of grain, and density of the timber being worked, a turned burr that's designed to take a heavier shaving can either mitigate tear-out, or it can generate it. From my perspective, (and I have no given loyalty to either LN or LV), that is the primary message being offered by LN within their range of Scraper planes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHcgZiEOWPU

As an example, the following is a high density hardwood with a patchy areas of reverse grain through out. The top surface of the timber had previously been worked flat, and free of tear-out using a double iron smoothing plane. The scrapers cutting edge was freshly reground to 45 degree bevel. That edge was then worked over the stone to a light camber, before a turned hook of 15 degrees was applied using a burnisher. Finely set, the scraper plane was then worked in both grain directions. The resulting surface was then lightly chalked to more easily highlight areas of grain tear-out.

Note; the Stanley #81 that I am using has a fixed bed of a 115 degrees. A turned hook much greater than 15 degrees would not fully engage the surface of the timber.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0292_zpsaht4qagb.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0292_zpsaht4qagb.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0291_zpstgexybjt.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0291_zpstgexybjt.jpg.html)

[Patrick Chase]

Dependant on the type of grain, and density of the timber being worked, a turned burr that's designed to take a heavier shaving can either mitigate tear-out, or it can generate it.

This is a really good point.

A turned burr and the face of the scraper behave similarly to a plane's iron and cap iron respectively: The iron or burr separates the shaving from the workpiece by cutting at a relatively low angle, and then the cap-iron or scraper face turns the shaving and "breaks" it. The size of the burr is analogous to the cap iron's setback, so if it's too big then tearout won't be prevented as well.

In a fixed-angle plane like your #81 the burr angle also determines the cutting angle (though it's not 1:1 because of the way the steel moves when the burr is formed). The further you turn the burr, the lower the cutting angle and the higher the tendency for tearout.

[Patrick Chase]

I never fool around with waterstones when it comes to rehabbing a scraper. Take your burnisher and roll that burr back so the back is flat. Easiest way is to clamp the blade flat on the bench and just apply pressure back and forth and it will easily roll. You can then burnish along the 45 degree bevel and then finally roll it again and use it some more. You can usually get away with this at least once. If the burr is shot and needs reworked, roll it back to the bevel side, and take a 6" mill smooth file and give a couple swipes to remove it and then stone if you feel it needs it, burnish and roll.

One last remark: It has been my experience that many modern made-for-the-purpose scrapers and blades are difficult to cut with most files. For example the iron that came with my #112-like LV Scraping Plane is more or less impervious to the standard Bahco mill files that I use around the shop. I have a couple boxes of hard-chromed ski files that are billed as Rc72 (same as Valtitan/Corinox, but different mfr) and that get the job done nicely. It would not surprise me if your LN's iron required similar handling.

[Pete Taran]

Patrick,

I’ve never messed with the original iron. I’m referring to the shop made iron shown in the photos. It’s easy to file with regular files. That thick, hard iron is just too difficult to deal with in my opinion.

[Russ Kupiec]

I own the large LV scraper plane. This tool frustrated the daylights out of me, could not get decent scraping curls. Paul Hamler's spring trick solved all my complaints. Apparently either not a popular modification or maybe not well known. Basically you "unfix" the blade so it can flex during each stroke by removing one of the locking nuts and replace with a spring. Works like a charm for me so I hope no one writes a detailed rebuttal and destroys my illusions.
Here's a link (http://lumberjocks.com/reviews/4047) to an article that describes the modification. Took me about ten minutes. Took longer to locate the little plastic box of springs I bought at HF. There is one drawback- an annoying snapping sound as the blade returns to its static position once the blade is released from contacting the wood surface.

[Patrick Chase]

I own the large LV scraper plane. This tool frustrated the daylights out of me, could not get decent scraping curls. Paul Hamler's spring trick solved all my complaints. Apparently either not a popular modification or maybe not well known. Basically you "unfix" the blade so it can flex during each stroke by removing one of the locking nuts and replace with a spring. Works like a charm for me so I hope no one writes a detailed rebuttal and destroys my illusions.
Here's a link (http://lumberjocks.com/reviews/4047) to an article that describes the modification. Took me about ten minutes. Took longer to locate the little plastic box of springs I bought at HF. There is one drawback- an annoying snapping sound as the blade returns to its static position once the blade is released from contacting the wood surface.

Nope, nothing irredeemably wrong with that mod. As he says in the LJ review the rear nut is the one that carries the load during use, so replacing the front one with a spring doesn't do anything to the "critical (load-bearing) path". As with any such mod there are tradeoffs of course.

Does that snapping sound go away if you de-tension the camber knob such that you're using the blade flat? The reason I ask is because the one thing the front nut *does* do in that design is resist the camber screw in the unloaded state, which is probably why your modified plane "snaps" when transitioning from cutting to unloaded. The snap you're hearing may actually be the iron de-flexing.

[andy bessette]

...Here's a link (http://lumberjocks.com/reviews/4047) to an article that describes the modification...

From that article:
"With the 0.055” blade that comes with the plane, I found sometimes I just could not get a mixed grain surface just right. The blade had enough flex that it would leave slight unevenness as it transitioned from straight to tougher grain sections and back again. I tried a 1/8” thick 2” wide HSS plane blade from a wooden plane, and it smoothed those areas right out. So, I purchased the thicker A2 blade from LV, which has worked out very well. Then I discovered my tool room guys at work had some 3/32” O1 tool steel, so I had them cut a couple of blade blanks and heat treat to ~52 Rc. This intermediate thickness provides the best of both worlds – a thicker blade that doesn’t flex, but can still be slightly bowed. Ron Hock sells 3/32” O1 scraper plane blades that will fit this plane."

[Patrick Chase]

From that article:
"With the 0.055” blade that comes with the plane, I found sometimes I just could not get a mixed grain surface just right. The blade had enough flex that it would leave slight unevenness as it transitioned from straight to tougher grain sections and back again. I tried a 1/8” thick 2” wide HSS plane blade from a wooden plane, and it smoothed those areas right out. So, I purchased the thicker A2 blade from LV, which has worked out very well. Then I discovered my tool room guys at work had some 3/32” O1 tool steel, so I had them cut a couple of blade blanks and heat treat to ~52 Rc. This intermediate thickness provides the best of both worlds – a thicker blade that doesn’t flex, but can still be slightly bowed. Ron Hock sells 3/32” O1 scraper plane blades that will fit this plane."

The review doesn't say whether he burred the thicker iron or not, or whether/how he was using the camber screw with the thinner iron (which helps a bit in the situation he outlined). Without knowing those I wouldn't dare to comment except to say that:

- People have been doing terrific work with ~0.05" irons in 112-style planes (which is what that is) for 132 years. If somebody has trouble achieving good results that way then I think that the presumption has to be that there's a problem with their technique, not the plane/iron.

- IMO there is nothing inherently wrong about a thicker iron, particularly one that's still thin enough to camber as here. It will be a bit more work to file, stone, and burr, but if the user is willing to "eat" that penalty then more power to them. My gripe with L-N is that they were claiming nonexistent *benefits* for thicker irons.

[Rob Luter]

I just watched the LN video on using the #112 and I guess I’ve been taking the wrong approach. Deneb claims it’s intended to take exceptionally fine shavings on the order of .001 or thinner. I’ve certainly been trying to be more aggressive than that. Maybe I’ll monkey with it this afternoon and see how it goes.

Wow! This thread grew some legs.

I pulled the blade (3/32 Hock) out of my #112 and prepared a pristine edge. Primary bevel was at 45* with a very small secondary at about 46* using my finest abrasive media. It was extremely sharp. No hook was added. I trialed the blade in "hand held" fashion in order to wrap my head around an appropriate angle. Once established, I reloaded the blade into the #112 and dialed it in for a very light cut. The work piece was a length of finely spalted maple I had laying around. I was able to take a very fine shaving, but the surface was not smooth by any means. It was "fuzzy" if that makes sense. I pulled out my trusty #80 (with hook) and peeled off tissue thin shavings that left the surface very smooth.

I guess my next step is to try a small hook on the #112.

[Russ Kupiec]

Great comments on the LJ article.
Here's a pix of the thick blade on cherry( I hope I did this right)
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4615/25743494168_e821da9bdb_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FdS8VJ)LV scraping plane (https://flic.kr/p/FdS8VJ) aruuk (https://www.flickr.com/photos/92403490@N00/)
The snapping sound is greater with the thin blade. It is caused when the blade unloads as in when you pass over the end of the board. Much less an issue with the thick blade, which I favor. It gives more consistent scrapings for me. I should note that when using the spring trick, you can instantly change cut depth with the tip of your index finger, on the fly, by tweaking the knurled adjustment knob. Just like you were using a bevel down plane.

[Pete Taran]

Apparently their "unique feature" is not a helpful one. My vintage Stanley 112 experiences no snapping and make shavings just like those shown in the picture above with an ordinary 1/16" spring steel iron. I am not so foolish to think that something new could actually be helpful, but when it comes to the world of old tools and time tested designs, I think manufacturers change things at their own peril. If something like a thick scraping iron or a blade flexing screw in a 112 were important, Stanley would have made them that way. They made what worked and sold to guys that worked with their hands every day, not to satisfy weekend hobbyists. I think this concept is the key take away from this 7 page thread: What is old works best (at least when it comes to scraping)

[Rob Luter]

.... What is old works best (at least when it comes to scraping)

I am old, therefore I work best. Thanks Pete!

[Patrick Chase]

If something like a thick scraping iron or a blade flexing screw in a 112 were important, Stanley would have made them that way.

I agree with your overall point, but as you've pointed out Stanley used the blade flexing screw in the #80, so they clearly saw value to that adjustment for this class of tool.

I suspect that that specific instance is one where material advancements (economical availability of ductile iron) enabled LV to add a feature to the tool that Stanley would have if they could. If you look closely at the LV 112's castings, the presence of that camber adjuster creates some tricky geometry in between the angle adjuster support and the mouth, and would likely be problematic in (relatively brittle) grey iron. The #80 had no such constraints because there's nothing else competing for space behind the mouth.

I agree about thick irons for scrapers. IMO they're harmful inasmuch as they make it harder to properly fettle the tool (with a burr). With that said you can still get good results with them if you're willing to pay that setup overhead. If you forced me to use such an iron I'd probably use my flat disc grinder instead of filing or something like that.

[steven c newman]

Per the instructions that came with the Stanley No. 80......a 45 degree bevel was to be ground. Then a burr was form towards the back of the iron.
375994375993375995375996

[Pat Barry]

The debate continues. Interesting final post in this thread
https://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?7103-Preparing-a-Stanley-80

[Stewie Simpson]

Pat; the last post in the attachment was an interesting read.

[Patrick Chase]

The debate continues. Interesting final post in this thread
https://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?7103-Preparing-a-Stanley-80

There ought to be a statute of limitations :-).

[Normand Leblanc]

The debate continues. Interesting final post in this thread
https://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?7103-Preparing-a-Stanley-80

In this thread I noticed that both Hock and Superior Tools are not discussing any hook with their instructions for preparing an edge for a scraper. That was in 2004. Today, if you go visit those websites, both talk about a hook.

It's interesting to see that they've update their website but the fellows discussing this topic in 2004 seems to be happy with a "no burr" solution. Who's right?

[Patrick Chase]

In this thread I noticed that both Hock and Superior Tools are not discussing any hook with their instructions for preparing an edge for a scraper. That was in 2004. Today, if you go visit those websites, both talk about a hook.

It's interesting to see that they've update their website but the fellows discussing this topic in 2004 seems to be happy with a "no burr" solution. Who's right?

I think that the woodworking community have rediscovered a number of "old ways" since the dark ages of the 1990s and 2000s. The most obvious example is proper use and setup of cap irons, and this would appear to be another.

[Stewie Simpson]

In this thread I noticed that both Hock and Superior Tools are not discussing any hook with their instructions for preparing an edge for a scraper. That was in 2004. Today, if you go visit those websites, both talk about a hook.

It's interesting to see that they've update their website but the fellows discussing this topic in 2004 seems to be happy with a "no burr" solution. Who's right?

Depends who is giving the advise. LN seem to offer the user the choice to experiment with both options. A clear indication that not all timbers and grain types will react favourably with a turned hook. No different to that opinion being reflected in the 2004 thread.

[Derek Cohen]

Pat; the last post in the attachment was an interesting read.

Well spotted Stewie ... but that was 14 years ago. Time moves on.

It would also be interesting to link to the UK forum, where this same thread is running. Pity we cannot do so, as the commentary there is the same as here: hooks rule.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[brian zawatsky]

I realize that I am waaaaay late to the party (as usual), but here’s my .02

old Stanley 112 (a type 1 according to Mr Leach) with a Hock iron. I like the iron because its stiffness seems to help eliminate chatter but it is still soft enough to drawfile & turn a nice hook. When I first tried to use this tool, I did so with no hook a la Lie Nielsen and got very poor results.

376573

[Stewie Simpson]

Unlike the Stanley #80 the #81 Scraper Plane was never supplied with a thumbscrew adjuster to camber the blade. After tapping a new threaded hole, my #81 now has that additional feature.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0297_zpswhnhvoft.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0297_zpswhnhvoft.jpg.html)

[Stewie Simpson]

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0300_zpsondj48ed.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0300_zpsondj48ed.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0298_zps8dixy4cr.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0298_zps8dixy4cr.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0299_zps7r8d1q2x.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0299_zps7r8d1q2x.jpg.html)

[Derek Cohen]

What does that teach you, Stewie?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

For the benefit of other members; as a firm request from the site moderators, I am not allowed to respond directly to any posts from DC.

DC is well aware of that fact.

[Derek Cohen]

Stewie, it is 2018. How about starting the year with a clean slate? Shake hands?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Rob Luter]

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0300_zpsondj48ed.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0300_zpsondj48ed.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0298_zps8dixy4cr.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0298_zps8dixy4cr.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0299_zps7r8d1q2x.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/scraper%20plane%20shavings/DSC_0299_zps7r8d1q2x.jpg.html)

Very interesting! I have a #81 and even with the most perfect of hooks am only able to peel off the very thinnest of shavings. Setting it for a more aggressive cut doesn't seem to work out well without blade camber. My understanding of the tool was that Stanley intended it to be the kindest and gentlest of scrapers for delicate work, stringing and the like. I'd consider your modification, but I keep 4 sharp #80 at the ready for more agressive work.

[Bob Leistner]

I bought a 112 and a LV O-1 blade some time ago and it has confounded me to say the least. I did pull it back off the shelf because of this thread and have decided to give it another go. This thread has been encouraging and I am now getting shavings more to those like Brian Z. shows above.
The wood is oak and hard maple.
In reversing grain areas it is working to an acceptable level and I am satisfied I could use this tool in difficult areas.
I think my biggest problem is/was not realizing how sensitive it is to angle adjustment.
However, should I be able to adjust it to see shavings such as Stewie is showing?
Is this a tool that is worth spending alot of time learning to use or would it be more efficient to pick up an 80 or 81 and walk away.
Up to now I am picking up a card scraper or sandpaper and I want to avoid sanding as much as possible.
My ultimate goal is,was and always will be to turn out useful objects made of wood. I am not interested in collecting tools or sharpening paraphernalia.

[Derek Cohen]

Bob, with the #112, you are able to adjust the scraping angle (unlike the fixed angle of the #80/81). So, simply hold the blade as if it were a cabinet scraper, and take some shavings. The angle you are successful is the angle you will set the #112.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Pete Taran]

I think there are two things that prevent people from using scraping type planes successfully. One is understanding how to prep the edge and turn a burr. Second, and one that is often overlooked, is setting the iron with two much exposure. Most people dont have the upper body strength to press down hard enough with a plane like the 112 to allow for an aggressive cut, especially when the iron is sticking out too much. That is the reason I like the #12 much better. That T handle arrangement allows you to press the plane down very easily with your entire upper body and really take off some stock. Properly sharpened and set, you can really get after it. The 112 is much harder to use like this in my experience and requires a much more careful approach in setting the iron. The #12 is often overlooked and is a great tool.

Pete

[Patrick Chase]

I bought a 112 and a LV O-1 blade some time ago and it has confounded me to say the least. I did pull it back off the shelf because of this thread and have decided to give it another go. This thread has been encouraging and I am now getting shavings more to those like Brian Z. shows above.
The wood is oak and hard maple.
In reversing grain areas it is working to an acceptable level and I am satisfied I could use this tool in difficult areas.
I think my biggest problem is/was not realizing how sensitive it is to angle adjustment.
However, should I be able to adjust it to see shavings such as Stewie is showing?
Is this a tool that is worth spending alot of time learning to use or would it be more efficient to pick up an 80 or 81 and walk away.
Up to now I am picking up a card scraper or sandpaper and I want to avoid sanding as much as possible.
My ultimate goal is,was and always will be to turn out useful objects made of wood. I am not interested in collecting tools or sharpening paraphernalia.

You should be able to get plane-like shavings from the 112 (though for most real work you'd go lighter than that).

Posting mine again:

376912'

The shaving on the left is ~2 mils, the shaving on the right is <1 mil.

I actually don't have a lot of experience with the 112 as I now prefer to use conventional planes with close-set cap irons in most situations where the scraper plane might be an option. I also didn't fiddle with the angle at all before making those. They key is to have a consistent process for burring the scraper, so that the cutting angle doesn't change. If you can do that then you don't need to worry much about the angle adjustment in the plane. Just find the right setting once, and it will remain "good" for as long as you keep burring the scraper the same way.

I guess the message that a bunch of us are trying to send is that consistently and smoothly burring a scraper is a foundational woodworking skill, that you must learn for good results. Once you have learned it basically all types of scrapers and scraping planes will work much better than before.

[Bob Leistner]

Thank you for the replies. I think I am doing it wrong: all of the above. I have used a card scraper for years and I thought the 112 would just be easier on the fingers. I just have to be more careful and consistent when I pick it up. I'll get it soon enough. I will also keep an eye out for a 12 and try it. Thank you again.

[Stewie Simpson]

Patrick; that shaving on the left looks more like a smoothing plane shaving than a scraper plane shaving.

Stewie;

https://sawmillcreek.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=376912&d=1515286605

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick; that shaving on the left looks more like a smoothing plane shaving than a scraper plane shaving.

That was sort of the point.

If you know what you're doing you can get a scraper plane to take a shaving that is hard to distinguish from a plane shaving. That shouldn't be a surprise, because the cutting mechanics are fairly similar (albeit with angles on the high end of the range) if the hook is set properly. Note also how vertical my iron is - that reduces cutting angle at the expense of reduced clearance. The back of the hook has to be well-formed for that to work though.

For the shavings in that picture I turned the hook on my 112's iron with the burnisher held 15 deg below horizontal (30 deg above the 45 deg face of the iron). Assuming I did it precisely, the tip would have ~15 deg of clearance behind the cut and a cutting angle less than 15 + 45 = 60 deg with the iron held vertical (which is basically what I did). Those parameters are very much compatible with "plane-like shavings".

To get a shaving like that from your 81 you'd have to turn a steeper burr, to keep the cutting angle in the "plane-like shaving range" despite the steeper forward lean of the iron. The 81 really isn't designed to be used the same way as a 112. As I've said several times in this thread, scrapers have a huge range of applications, with different tools, techniques, and setup requirements.

EDIT: The hook gets "squished" during turning so the cutting angle is less than the starting edge angle (45 deg in this case) plus the clearance (15 deg in this case), but I don't know how much less. If I have some spare time I may burr, section, and image a piece of 1095 this weekend to find out.

[Stewie Simpson]

The following is the process i have settled on to form a hooked edge on my Stanley #81 Scraper Plane.

Others will recommend that you should continually remove the wire edged formed on the non bevel side of the scraper blade prior to turning the hooked edge with the burnisher. I would recommend you take the time to experiment with all the options available, and choose a method that will best work for you.

Stewie;

A 60 degree flat bevel is filed along the cutting edge, and then checked against a straight edge.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0301_zps8f1cqtsd.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0301_zps8f1cqtsd.jpg.html)

The wire edge formed on the non bevel side of the cutting edge during filing is removed on a sharpening stone. The blade is then held upright at 90 degrees to the sharpening stone and the edge is jointed to form an exact straight edge. The resulting wire edge on the non bevel side of the cutting edge is again removed.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0302_zpsdpt9t2sa.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0302_zpsdpt9t2sa.jpg.html)

From this stage onwards, the wire edge that's formed during further stoning work is not removed, but is allowed to further increase in size prior to being turned over by the burnisher to create a hooked edge.

A fast cutting crystolon oil stone is the 1st stone to be used to form a slightly steeper secondary bevel. The wire edge formed is quite heavy to the touch and reaches across the full width of the blade.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0303_zpsi4dwkj7b.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0303_zpsi4dwkj7b.jpg.html)

The secondary bevel is further worked on a finer grit stone to further increase the size of the wire edge.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0304_zpsqhooof4o.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0304_zpsqhooof4o.jpg.html)

The process is again repeated on a final finer grit stone.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0305_zpszcmvd0yj.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0305_zpszcmvd0yj.jpg.html)

The cutting edge of the blade is then secured in a bench vise, with the burnisher held at 15 degrees to the primary face of the blade, The edge is then worked by the burnisher at that constant angle to form the hooked edge. Generally 2-3 full strokes are required.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0306_zpsgdphuali.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0306_zpsgdphuali.jpg.html)

The scraper blade is now ready for a performance test.

The 1st lot of shavings were taken with the blade cambering screw disengaged. Moderate force is required to work each of the shaving due to the full width of cutting edge being in contact with the woods surface.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0307_zpsn30v5ryn.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0307_zpsn30v5ryn.jpg.html)

The next lot of shavings are with the blade cambering screw in service with a 1/2 turn. The force required is slightly less than the non cambered blade as less blade width is in direct contact with the wood surface.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0308_zpsrxfvjcgr.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0308_zpsrxfvjcgr.jpg.html)

The final shavings were taken with a full turn of the cambering screw. The force required is slightly less than that set with a 1/2 turn of camber.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0309_zpsingouh0c.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/stanley%2081%20cabinet%20scraper/DSC_0309_zpsingouh0c.jpg.html)

[andy bessette]

SS--well done and thank you.

[Bob Leistner]

Derek,Pete,Patrick and Stewie, I thank you for your help and encouragement. I have spent the better part of this weekend working with the 112 and feel pretty confident that I can use it well. I can say when I get a tough grain problem I'll go to it. I think it may open the door to using more unusual grained woods that in the past I have shunned due to tearout. 95% of the time I have been able to deal with issues with a plane but this is another avenue of help. I think I used up a good 1/16" of the iron trying all the different suggestions and learning a bit about burr angles in this tool.

[Patrick Chase]

Derek,Pete,Patrick and Stewie, I thank you for your help and encouragement. I have spent the better part of this weekend working with the 112 and feel pretty confident that I can use it well. I can say when I get a tough grain problem I'll go to it. I think it may open the door to using more unusual grained woods that in the past I have shunned due to tearout. 95% of the time I have been able to deal with issues with a plane but this is another avenue of help. I think I used up a good 1/16" of the iron trying all the different suggestions and learning a bit about burr angles in this tool.

That's basically how I learned.

After all that I've said here, I do want to reiterate one cautionary note that Warren also sounded in the other thread: You can create basically the same tearout-preventing edge geometry as a hooked scraper with more precise and more readily changeable control using a close-set cap iron in a bevel-down bench plane. Surface quality is also maximized by keeping our edges pristine rather than burnishing. As a bonus you, you can see what's going on with your edge geometry without having to destructively section your iron.

Although I created a 3 mil hook in the "image" thread and demonstrated a 2-mil scraper shaving earlier in this thread, I wouldn't use a scraper plane set up like that for real work because those are both in the range that I can easily achieve using a plane. The point of the former was to show how a hooked scraper can create continuous plane-like shavings (in response to the OP's question from way back when), while the latter was to make the burr easier to image. At this point I mostly use scrapers for super-fine work on stuff like burl.

[steven c newman]

Just used that Stanley #70 SW yesterday.....
377161
Had a ridge along a glue joint to flatten out..
377163
Wood is Ash. Wasn't in the mood for see-through stuff.....had work to do. This was in a spot that the other plane was just skipping over...
377164
YMMV