Are your old plane irons disposable?

[Axel de Pugey]

Dear All, the other day I was sharpening irons for a Preston side rebate 2506 I received.
As the angles were not correct to my liking I realised I was super careful to take off the minimum amount of metal possible. If these irons are finished/damaged I could potentially find replacements but it would still be tricky.

Through the years I managed to purchase quite a few Stanley with the V logo or other old logo as well from the UK market, being bench plane or speciality planes such as the 140 block plane.

I know some people consider a plane iron like a drill bit i.e. not part of the original tool, but this is not my case. I am still using all my planes though, therefore my concerns.

I am absolutely not interested in resale value, but am just worried about the historical loss. I know this might sound silly for those living in the US, but these planes are scarce in Europe, specially in France where we only had woodies and I find it would be a pity for the tool to be transferred with a silly modern iron after my time with it.


Do you sometimes use a more recent iron instead of the original one, just for the sake of keeping the historical integrity of the whole tool ? Am I crazy ?

Thank you for your input

N.B. I apologise if this was already discussed and would appreciate to be then redirected.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Dear All, the other day I was sharpening irons for a Preston side rebate 2506 I received.
As the angles were not correct to my liking I realised I was super careful to take off the minimum amount of metal possible. If these irons are finished/damaged I could potentially find replacements but it would still be tricky.

Through the years I managed to purchase quite a few Stanley with the V logo or other old logo as well from the UK market, being bench plane or speciality planes such as the 140 block plane.

I know some people consider a plane iron like a drill bit i.e. not part of the original tool, but this is not my case. I am still using all my planes though, therefore my concerns.

I am absolutely not interested in resale value, but am just worried about the historical loss. I know this might sound silly for those living in the US, but these planes are scarce in Europe, specially in France where we only had woodies and I find it would be a pity for the tool to be transferred with a silly modern iron after my time with it.


Do you sometimes use a more recent iron instead of the original one, just for the sake of keeping the historical integrity of the whole tool ? Am I crazy ?

Thank you for your input

N.B. I apologise if this was already discussed and would appreciate to be then redirected.

I'm noy sure of the the length or width of your blades, but sharpened, they make great scrapers!

[Eric Danstrom]

I keep the old plane blades in a drawer because I'm a pack-rat but if I liked the original blade I wouldn't have replaced it with a "silly modern" French made Hock blade.....

[Mike Henderson]

I replace the original irons with modern, thicker irons. I find they work better. Add to that the improvements in steel, such as the LV PM-V11, and there's more reason to replace the irons - the modern irons stay sharp longer.

I own planes to use them, not to conserve them for a museum. There are many, many Stanley planes out there. And some are in collections where they're never used (with the original irons).

Mike

[Stew Denton]

Hi Axel,

It depends, I like the old irons but may end up going to the modern irons like Mike, but have not yet. I look hard at the prices, and the old Stanley replacement irons used to be pretty cheap.....but don't seem to be as much that way now.

As it gets to the point that the old irons cost closer to what modern replacement irons cost I will give serious consideration to the new ones. For now, I like how well the old irons seem to work.

In the case of the old Bedrock 605 that i inherited from my dad, I went to some trouble to get the correct iron to match the type# of the plane to put it back to the original status. Same thing with the old Ohio plane that I inherited from my grandfather. For those two, the family ties outweighed any other considerations. Getting replacement parts to put the old Ohio back to original status was a pain, it needed 5 or more parts if I recall correctly, I looked for parts for maybe a couple of years and paid too much for them. However, that is the only way I was able to get the needed parts.

That said, I may get replacement irons to actually use in those two planes if the originals start get worn enough that they don't have several years of life left in them. I want to be able to leave those two planes, especially to son-in-laws and grand kids and I want to turn them over with all true to type parts.

Stew

[Frederick Skelly]

You are not crazy if you feel the historical provenance of the tool is important. At the same time, you show a respect for the tool and it's past by using it well and properly. To me, that includes using the original iron. But there is nothing wrong with your approach.

Changing subjects, I see you are in France. Please accept my heartfelt sympathy for the damage to your magnificent Notre Dame. I hope to see her restored and proud again in my lifetime.

Fred

[Andrew Seemann]

I normally use the original irons because I like that style iron more than those modern thick ones. If I did replace one for some reason, I would probably keep the old iron.

I saw Notre Dame when I was 18, which was a few decades ago. I caught part of a video of the spire coming down; it brought tears to my eyes. I couldn't watch any more of it.

[Kevin Hampshire]

Axel, I carefully read through your post. I think I understand exactly (and probably completely agree) with what you are saying.

Several years ago I would clean up and sometimes refurbish antique and vintage planes. Back then, I used to pull most of my vintage blades and replace them with incredibly inexpensive but good quality replacement blades.

Most of those planes still have those replacement blades in place and the original antique and vintage blades are just sitting in a stack. I treat the modern blades like a rented mule. I wouldn’t enjoy doing the same to a late 19th century blade, a “V logo Stanley “ or a Sweetheart blade. Just MY personal philosophy for MY tools.

Unfortunately, the answer to your question is to do what YOU feel comfortable doing with these tools.

While the style of Stanley planes you describe are somewhat common in the U.S. and some other areas, since there aren’t “many, many, many” of them in France, you may reasonably choose to treat them differently than those of us here would do.

BTW, I no longer have a source for inexpensive new replacement blades. Faced with that, I would be forced to use the vintage blades or buy a premium replacement blade.
That will affect my decision in the future.

[Jim Koepke]

Some of my planes have Hock blades in them. One type 6 #4-1/2 came with a blade that only has STANLEY stamped on it. Some of the type studies place that as being between the blade with a Stanley Patent AP'L 19,92 mark and the Stanley Rule & Level stamped blades. If that is the case, it would be a replacement blade on this plane. The plane didn't look like it was used that much when it was found. Anyway that blade isn't on the plane at this time.

Other than one blade on an early #113 my oldest blades are the Stanley Patent AP'L 19,92 series.

Most of my planes have blades that are not necessarily type correct. Though a few of my SW period planes do have a blade that could have been an original to the plane.

It doesn't matter much to me. The old blades work fine. The new Hock blades tend to hold an edge a bit longer. PMv-11 would likely be the blades to get if you want to avoid sharpening.

Here is a page with the trademarks if anyone is interested: https://www.antique-used-tools.com/stantms.htm

jtk

[Kevin Hampshire]

Jim, Thanks, I haven’t looked up those marks in several years. I have had a few of the pre 92 patents and quite a few post 92, but I don’t recall any Stanley only blades. I ‘ll have to dig through what I have.

[roger wiegand]

Original irons in old planes just means they weren't used very much. Sharpening is a destructive process and using a plane every day will wear through a blade in a couple years; they were not meant to last for generations. I'm sure the plane collectors will insure an adequate supply of old blades for the museums, I feel no qualms about updating to a thicker blade with better steel for actual use.

[Warren Mickley]

I use two plane irons in my daily work that are about 100 years old. Neither is original to the plane it is in. If I wear one of these out I will look for a "Bailey Wood Plane" with a good iron for replacement. I think they are better than what is available today.

[Rob Luter]

My former user set were all vintage Stanley's, with none newer than about 90 years old. The bench planes all were fitted with Hock irons and the vintage ones saved. The block planes used the vintage irons as they generally saw very light use. When I sold them, the buyers were pleased to get the original irons and I was pleased to sell the Hock irons separately.

[Jim Koepke]

Original irons in old planes just means they weren't used very much. Sharpening is a destructive process and using a plane every day will wear through a blade in a couple years;
[edited]

In my opinion what wears most on a blade is people who do not know how to properly sharpen a blade.

Most of the blades that came to me as very worn had one thing in common, they all appeared to be sharpened on a grinder without any other honing. If someone feels a need to grind a blade every time it becomes dulled, it will likely 'wear out' quickly.

My blades are seldom sharpened on a grinder or other powered sharpening system. Some of them are sharpened on almost every visit to my shop. To me it seems they will last well beyond my lifetime.

Recently Chris Schwarz was on The Woodwright's Shop talking about planes. His comment on sharpening a scrub plane blade was interesting. He claimed he sharpens it once a year since, "a scrub plane blade doesn't need to be razor sharp to do its job."

jtk

[steven c newman]

Someone "up-dated" this old Stanley No. 3c...type 11/12 with a SW iron....
408181
Was in use last night...flattening a piece of Ash...no tearout.

BTW: Millers Falls, on the irons marked "Solid Tool Steel" are actually thicker than the Stanley irons.
408182
Which is what the Millers Falls No. 11 Junior Jack plane has onboard. Also used on Ash..
408183
Needed to "joint" this edge a bit....until it was smooth..
408185
One of the shavings is laying there, on the vise...

All the planes I use have their OEM irons on-board....have never found any need to "upgrade" to something not designed to be used in that plane, when it was made. feels like added something from Edelbrock to a mini-van from VW...

[roger wiegand]

My comment was based on what Garrett Hack said in a workshop I attended in Saratoga Springs a couple of weeks ago. He reported "using up" the blades on his most used planes in 2-3 years. I didn't see anything at all questionable about his sharpening technique, it actually seemed pretty minimalist-- about three swipes on a fine stone and he was done. It seems that he has only a few planes that he uses constantly.

[Doug Dawson]

My former user set were all vintage Stanley's, with none newer than about 90 years old. The bench planes all were fitted with Hock irons and the vintage ones saved. The block planes used the vintage irons as they generally saw very light use. When I sold them, the buyers were pleased to get the original irons and I was pleased to sell the Hock irons separately.

The problem with "modern" blades is that you often have to file the mouth in order to get the blade to fit properly. This destroys the plane's historical value. In that case, you can send it to me for recycling.

BTW, filing the mouth isn't hard, cast iron cuts like butter. For reference, Rob Cosman has a good Youtube video on this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwEseXH8yzU

The more the merrier.

[Jim Koepke]

My comment was based on what Garrett Hack said in a workshop I attended in Saratoga Springs a couple of weeks ago. He reported "using up" the blades on his most used planes in 2-3 years. I didn't see anything at all questionable about his sharpening technique, it actually seemed pretty minimalist-- about three swipes on a fine stone and he was done. It seems that he has only a few planes that he uses constantly.

First my apologies if my comment seemed off. It was based on my own experience of someone not using a plane for a living. Many vintage planes were purchased by weekend tinkerers and didn't see a lot of use. Collectors dream of finding a plane given as a gift to someone who didn't need or want it. Which leads back to you mentioning it means if the blade isn't worn it wasn't regularly used.

It is evident Mr. Hack spends many more of his days working on wood than me.

In 2-3 years he is likely to produce much more work than me over the remainder of my life.

Of course Stanley was quite ready with replacement blades in every hardware store for when a blade did wear beyond use.


jtk

[Rob Luter]

The problem with "modern" blades is that you often have to file the mouth in order to get the blade to fit properly. This destroys the plane's historical value. In that case, you can send it to me for recycling.

BTW, filing the mouth isn't hard, cast iron cuts like butter. For reference, Rob Cosman has a good Youtube video on this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwEseXH8yzU

The more the merrier.

i never had an issue with that, excepting a low knob #6 that wouldn’t accept a Hock iron. All my sweetheart era stuff was just fine. All that said, what is to be preserved in historical value on a #5 from 1940 that is one of a bazillion made? They sell for $25 excepting antique stores selling to folks that don’t have a clue.

[Warren Mickley]

My comment was based on what Garrett Hack said in a workshop I attended in Saratoga Springs a couple of weeks ago. He reported "using up" the blades on his most used planes in 2-3 years. I didn't see anything at all questionable about his sharpening technique, it actually seemed pretty minimalist-- about three swipes on a fine stone and he was done. It seems that he has only a few planes that he uses constantly.

I think Garrett Hack was exaggerating how quickly an iron can wear out. He doesn't seem to work at any great rate and I don't think he does as much hand work as I do. I suspect I get over 10,000 sharpenings from an iron. I only own five bench planes.

[Mike Henderson]

The problem with "modern" blades is that you often have to file the mouth in order to get the blade to fit properly. This destroys the plane's historical value. In that case, you can send it to me for recycling.

BTW, filing the mouth isn't hard, cast iron cuts like butter. For reference, Rob Cosman has a good Youtube video on this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwEseXH8yzU

The more the merrier.

I replaced all the irons on my planes (and I have a decent number) and I didn't have to file the mouth on any of them. The replacements are LN's, Hocks, and LV's. But even if you had to file the mouth, if you wanted to put the old blade back in, all you have to do is move the frog forward.

And I don't have any concern about "historical value". There are many, many Stanley planes in the world. I really doubt of any of our user planes - even with the original iron - would be of interest to a museum or a collector.

Mike

[Doug Dawson]

i never had an issue with that, excepting a low knob #6 that wouldn’t accept a Hock iron. All my sweetheart era stuff was just fine. All that said, what is to be preserved in historical value on a #5 from 1940 that is one of a bazillion made? They sell for $25 excepting antique stores selling to folks that don’t have a clue.

Just something to be aware of. Most of my planes have had to have their mouthes aligned and refined for the option of a thicker blade.. Do I know what types they are? Hell no, I trust in God (er, I trust in my supplier, he has never failed to supply me with awesome tools.)

I'm not a collector. It would compromise and dilute my Slack.

[Jim Koepke]

[eited]

All that said, what is to be preserved in historical value on a #5 from 1940 that is one of a bazillion made? They sell for $25 excepting antique stores selling to folks that don’t have a clue.

My first #5 cost me $35 from a tool dealer at a flea market. That was definitely before my first clues came along. Since then the most paid for a #5 was about $20. Most in the $10 or less range. All but the one bought from the tool seller required time to clean them up and tune them.

As far as being disposable, this blade was:

408268

That came with a #7 jointer found in an antique mall. Here is the story on it:

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?114373

Trying to clean up the back didn't help:

408269

The plane is a type 7 and the mouth is a bit tight even with a Stanley replacement blade. If you have a pristine example that is worth a lot on the collector market, you shouldn't worry about filing the mouth. Using it for its intended purpose will likely do as much to lower its collector value.

jtk

[Axel de Pugey]

Dear All, Many thanks for sharing your views on this topic.

If I understand correctely, Creekers mainly swap their irons to reach better performance but still keep the originals in a safe place.

I was naming Edward Preston not to have a bias on the availability of original parts, the volume produced is not the same as Stanley !

Stew, Andrew, Kevin, many thanks I think you nailed my issue. Fortunately most Preston planes I have are speciality planes and will never see as much use as a bench plane would. I will carry on with being carefull during sharpenings and hope for the best.

Whether to save the original iron or to use a better performing blade, there is a clear consensus on Hock products apparently, at least I know where to look if I need some bench plane irons.



You are not crazy if you feel the historical provenance of the tool is important. At the same time, you show a respect for the tool and it's past by using it well and properly. To me, that includes using the original iron. But there is nothing wrong with your approach.(...)

Thank you Frederick, that is a refreshing idea! I did not forsee this way of thinking and I now completely understand your view! Thank you

Thank again to everybody for sharing their view, I can't do much on the Preston side, for my old Stanley now, time will tell, I might swap irons if my experience dictates the change then!

[Doug Dawson]

...there is a clear consensus on Hock products apparently, at least I know where to look if I need some bench plane irons.!

Don't overlook the LeeValley PM-V11 blades. A worthy competitor. Try them both, choose what you like.

[Axel de Pugey]

Frederick, Andrew, Thank you for the nice words.

It is actually quite touching to see support coming from all over the word…

The framing of this cathedral was called « the forest » as every single beam was a tree.

You can check some pictures here (http://www.notredamedeparis.fr/en/la-cathedrale/architecture/la-charpente/).

Unfortunately in France there is only 1 guy (the president) out of 67 millions who truly believe it will be rebuilt in only 5 years…

We have the knowledge, specially with an ancient guilde uninterrupted since medieval times called « Compagnons du Tour de France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnons_du_Devoir)». These guys learn their craft by going all over the country to be taught few months/years with a master, then go to another master and so on, they are creating wonders.

Unfortunately my fear is that instead of asking these people to rebuild with the proper technics, some ginormous modern building company will be given the contract…for the moment it is too early to know.

And even if this is the most famous, we have dozen of other amazing churches in France, my favorite is not in Paris but is Notre-Dame de Reims…each time I enter I have a wow effect. If you like good food and bubbly wine…go and have a look, Champagne region is quite nice !

Thanks again for your kind words

[Mike Henderson]

Whether to save the original iron or to use a better performing blade, there is a clear consensus on Hock products apparently, at least I know where to look if I need some bench plane irons.

I would also recommend the Lee Valley PM-V11 irons over the Hock or the Lie Nielsen.

Mike

[Doug Dawson]

And even if this is the most famous, we have dozen of other amazing churches in France, my favorite is not in Paris but is Notre-Dame de Reims…each time I enter I have a wow effect. If you like good food and bubbly wine…go and have a look, Champagne region is quite nice !


One of my favorite colognes is Gucci Pour Homme, which smells a lot like my memories of those places. I wish we could still get it, long since discontinued. The copies don't do it justice. If you do find the original, well...

[Warren Mickley]

d…


We have the knowledge, specially with an ancient guilde uninterrupted since medieval times called « Compagnons du Tour de France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnons_du_Devoir)». These guys learn their craft by going all over the country to be taught few months/years with a master, then go to another master and so on, they are creating wonders.

Unfortunately my fear is that instead of asking these people to rebuild with the proper technics, some ginormous modern building company will be given the contract…for the moment it is too early to know.


Last evening I told a friend there was going to be a big fight in Paris. I did not need to tell him what it was about. He knew that there would be people who thought something that lasted for 800 years was not good enough. Good luck.

I am a craftsman. I use the 100 year old irons because they are the best. Being thin and laminated, they sharpen much faster than the thick nasty stuff. And they get a finer edge because of the texture of the steel.

[lowell holmes]

I agree with Mike an I put Hock Irons and breakers in my Bedrock planes.

[Jim Koepke]

I would also recommend the Lee Valley PM-V11 irons over the Hock or the Lie Nielsen.

Mike

The Lee Valley blades need less back prep. The Hock O1 blades are at a good price.

The original blades are a bit easier to sharpen. It seems the Hock blade have a more prolonged life, but then more work is needed to restore it to full sharpness. The Stanley blades are more likely to develop small chips.

My next excursion into the world of premium blades is likely going to be made of PMv-11.

jtk

[Stewie Simpson]

The Lee Valley blades need less back prep. The Hock O1 blades are at a good price.

The original blades are a bit easier to sharpen. It seems the Hock blade have a more prolonged life, but then more work is needed to restore it to full sharpness. The Stanley blades are more likely to develop small chips.

My next excursion into the world of premium blades is likely going to be made of PMv-11.

jtk

Jim; with respect, your talking bollocks.

regards Stewie;

[Warren Mickley]

I have to agree with Stewie here. Something is very wrong if an old Stanley blade is chipping. It is not like A2 or some other cheap alloy.

[Tom M King]

I have, and use a lot, one of each, and several of some of the old planes. With the woods I work, mostly Heart Pine, and Cypress, with a small percentage of White Oak, and Walnut, the stock irons are just fine, and I have never felt the need for something "better". I don't do a lot of grinding, but I've only ever completely worn down one block plane iron from sharpening on stones.

Maybe it's because I have so many planes that no one gets used that much, but without a lot of grinding, it would still take an awfully lot of use to wear one out from sharpening. When I'm in the middle of a job, like planing all the new siding to go on a house, typically I'll sharpen first thing in the morning, and at lunch break.

In clean wood, I've never had trouble with the Stanley, or Record irons chipping.

[steven c newman]

Two irons...

408320
Now...which should be kept around....both are 2" wide Stanley irons....shorty is a Stanley Rule & Level logo, longer one (newer?) is from a Stanley Victor No. 1104...maybe 60 years of wear and tear on the shorter one...before the Victor plane was sold new.

[Jim Koepke]

Jim; with respect, your talking bollocks.

regards Stewie;


I have to agree with Stewie here. Something is very wrong if an old Stanley blade is chipping. It is not like A2 or some other cheap alloy.


[edited]
In clean wood, I've never had trouble with the Stanley, or Record irons chipping.

So you guys don't plane a lot of wood with knots?

In my experience planing mostly fir, with copious amounts of knots, the Stanley blades are more likely to develop rough spots, flattened spots, areas that reflect light along the edges or what my post referred to as 'chips' than are the Hock blades in planes working the same wood.

jtk

[Tom M King]

Almost none of the wood I use has knots in it. Occasionally there will be some in the Heart Pine, but it's never a problem. Fir doesn't grow around here, so I no need to be using it, or at least, not with a planed surface.

I bought a Hock O1 iron to replace the one I wore out in that block plane. I don't see that it's a lot better than the stock irons, and I really don't like the square corners on a block plane, but do still use it.

[Jim Koepke]

I really don't like the square corners on a block plane, but do still use it.

The square corners are my main reason for not buying Hock block plane blades.

For my #10-1/2 (#4 sized rabbet plane) the lower corners had to be ground down to help get the blade into the plane.

In my use the Hock blades appear to have a slightly different wear pattern (profile?) than the original Stanley blades. Often it isn't noticed until trying to set the plane for a very light shaving.

jtk

[Kevin Hampshire]

Jim,
For living on opposite sides of the country, it’s amazing that we often can see the same views.

I’ve been doing mid-Atlantic period pieces and using lots of SYP. I’ve chipped plenty of vintage Stanley (and other) HCS blades and some of my modern “cheap alloys” from up north...as in Canada and Maine.

Fortunately, my sharpening regimen works perfectly with HCS so I can deal with all those unchippable Stanley blades!

I’m pretty sure pine knots will chip marshmallows.

[Jim Koepke]

I’m pretty sure pine knots will chip marshmallows.

A good knot from a thick piece of wood makes a good small mallet. A hillbilly gen'no? :eek:

jtk

[Tom M King]

We're fortunate to live in a time with many choices. I'm glad that there are still plenty of the old ones, but I should have all I ever need anyway.