advice needed on aftermarket plane blades--

[Jeffrey Larsen]

Since I started posting a month or so ago, I have gone down the buying slope full speed ahead and now have about 25 stanley's and a few miller falls of various types. I am not collecting planes. I have one number 3, 4 number s, 3 number 5s, a 606, a # seven and a number 8. Also several block planes and a 45 and 55 as well as several other specialty planes.

I am planning to use the duplicates to for different applications with differences in the throat and the grind on the blade.

Anyway, My question has to do with aftermarket blades. I was pretty happy with old stanley blades until I rescently bought a Hock to put in my stanley low angle block plane. It it a totally different tool now. Shaves through oak endgrane like butter.

Is there usually this much improvement upon installation of such a blade? Although the hock works great, I notice that there are many other brands are more expensive--what is the difference--are any apreciably better than the hock?


Thanks! jeff

[David DeCristoforo]

"Is there usually this much improvement upon installation of such a blade?"

Yes.

"...are any appreciably better than the hock?"

Not really. Hock blades are pretty much "top of the line" though as you point out, you can spend more dough. But there is a point of "diminishing return" and the Hock blades are a great product for a very fair price..

[Gary Curtis]

Now that you've got thicker steel for a cutter, you have pretty much arrived. The limit on performance from here will be your ability to sharpen the blade. And possibly on the addition of an aftermarket cap-iron.

About the cap iron. I'm kind of a neighbor of Ron Hock's and talk to him a few times a year. The thicker cap irons do the most good on planes such as the No. 5-8 where you are aggressively removing lots of wood. Not much improvement would be noticed on something like a No. 4 1/2 smoother, where you seek paper-thin shavings and blade chatter is unlikely.

Gary Curtis
Northern Calif.

[Mike Henderson]

Any of the "quality" blades are good. The steel is essentially the same in all of them and they all know how to heat treat it. Take a look at the Lee Valley blades. They're a bit less expensive than the Hock and IMO just as good.

Mike

[added note] For some Stanley Bailey planes, there's a maximum thickness for the blade. If you go too thick, you won't be able to open the mouth enough, even with the frog pushed back as far as you can go. The reason is because of the way the frog mount is designed.

[jonathan snyder]

Jeffrey,

Craftsman studio has hock irons on sale with free shipping. I just got one for my 4 1/2. http://www.craftsmanstudio.com/html_p/H!BENCH.htm (http://www.craftsmanstudio.com/html_p/H%21BENCH.htm)

Jonathan

[Jim Nardi]

If you need 25 or so blades you might want to think about making some yourself out of 01 tool steel. Sweetheart stanley blades are pretty good quality IMO. I have bought quite a few different blades from LN, Hock, LV, Shepherd toolworks, Steve Knight and home made 01. Lee Valley A2 blades are my favourite because they really hold a nice edge and the ground back is so easy to polish up. I start with a 4000 norton and after 15 min's go to the 8000 stone.

[Eddie Darby]

A couple of suggestions would be that since you have several of the same size planes, then one blade will work in more than one plane, so buy one of each, say for example, one Hock Carbon Steel blade, and one Hock A2 Steel blade, and see how both work in several planes. Then you could try a LN or LV next. Better yet if you know someone who has these blades, ask them if you can take them for a test spin.

I think the A2 will be a better choice for tough woods, and aggressive planing, while the Carbon Steel will do a great job finishing off things with whisper thin shavings.

You might end up with Carbon Steel blades for all your planes and a single back-up blade of A2 that can be used in several same size planes, if called on to do demanding jobs.

A2 is a little more demanding when it comes to sharpening, than Carbon Steel, so you will gain experience here, and then may decide to go with or without it in your repertoire of blades.

I have LV, LN and Hock blades. All are good blades so you won't be unhappy with any of them. Right now I like the extra thickness that LN make for their blades, but they come in Cryo A2 only, no Carbon Steel.
I have DMT diamond stones, so the A2 doesn't present any problems for me.

About thickness of blades and if they will fit your planes, I got this from this site: http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?cat=512

"A NOTE ABOUT THICKNESSES: All replacement Block Plane blades will be 1/8" thick, unless otherwise noted, (tools with a fixed opening between cap and blade like the 102, where the cap is positioned under a pin riveted in the body of the tool and therefore the maximum thickness the blade can be is fixed) as we prefer to use as thick a blade as possible.
Replacement blades for Bench Planes must be thinner to fit the original Stanley, Record or other makers' Bench Planes. If the blade is too thick, the yoke on your plane will not properly engage the slot in the Chipbreaker, The Chipbreaker Screw may not be long enough to install the Chipbreaker at all, but most important the mouth opening may not be large enough to allow the blade, or a shaving, to pass.
Therefore, Bench Plane blades ordered from the list above, identified by width, will be .095" thick, which will work fine on most Bench Planes. Blades of the same width, ordered as replacement blades for our own planes, identified by the tool number (e.g., BL-4) will be thicker (.125" for the 4 and 5, .140" for the 4-1/2 and .175" for the No. 8.)"

[Dan Evans]

I have had great success with Hock blades and if you order directly you will talk to Ron Hock who is extremely friendly and very knowledgable about blades and steel. My most recent purchse from Ron is two replacement blades for my stanley 80 scraper. What a difference these made!

I would also suggest using the Hock Chip Breakers with his blades. They do make a difference. I started buying them for my old Stanley's over time to spread the cost and they improve the performance of his blades. Same applies for older LN planes.

[Robert Rozaieski]

If the Stanley blades are performing well, why replace them? Most of your planes will be used for rough work so they don't need a Hock blade. I think there is too much emphasis on getting a perfect 0.000001" thick shaving. This is only necessary with your final smooth plane. Your other planes should take a thicker shaving.

My advise would be to save the hock blades for your smoothers and maybe a jointer. These planes need the utmost precision and have to leave the flattest surface behind. The others don't. Tune the planes properly and you shouldn't get chatter anyway, even with the thinner stanley blade. I have one Hock blade in a #4 because the original blade was trashed. All my other blades are stock and they work fine, but my planes are tuned to eliminate any chatter. Make sure the iron beds well and you shouldn't need a new iron.

[Bob Smalser]

Read the article on block planes I have on this page. I like Hock irons too, but of your stock Stanleys aren't performing just as well it's either because the iron back or sole isn't sufficiently flat.

Here's an example of why one doesn't work well, even with a dead-flat iron and exceptional cutting edge:


http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/17020258/263733969.jpg

This Stanley 110's sole won't flatten with anything short of a machine shop surface grinder. Note the index fluid still present in front of the mouth. The front of the mouth holds the wood fibers down so the blade can cut it. With it too high, it's like trying to cut a flying ribbon with a scissors. And as the mouth is too wide to begin with, major grinding will only worsen that.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/17020258/263733968.jpg

As a result, the plane won't take a full-width shaving and is real hard to push in oak. It's suitable only for softwood framing lumber.

The kid who comes around to pick up a load of pine to make his toddlers bunk beds may get this one...but the kid getting hard maple for his first child's cradle definitely won't. It'll just convince him he needs to spend 150 bucks to find a block plane that works.

[Randal Stevenson]

As someone mentioned blades that were trashed, and I've been plane hunting, what are blades to AVOID buying?

I mean I have heard (no experience) that the Stanley planes of today, aren't all that good, but are their replacement irons?

Thanks

[Bob Smalser]

As someone mentioned blades that were trashed, and I've been plane hunting, what are blades to AVOID buying?

I mean I have heard (no experience) that the Stanley planes of today, aren't all that good, but are their replacement irons?

Thanks

I can let you know in a week when I recieve the 60 1/2 replacement iron I ordered from Stanley.

I'm sure it's made of good tool steel just like they always have been....the issue is how flat the back is, and how much work it takes to make it flat.

Like I've said, it's the whole package, not just the iron. I suspect most folks who think Stanley irons are too thin are experiencing chatter because their sole isn't flat, not because the iron is too thin.

[Mike Henderson]

As someone mentioned blades that were trashed, and I've been plane hunting, what are blades to AVOID buying?

I mean I have heard (no experience) that the Stanley planes of today, aren't all that good, but are their replacement irons?

Thanks
I can relate some experience with modern Stanley blades. A group of local woodworkers got together and we were comparing sharpening techniques. To test our work, we had a piece of maple in a vise, end grain up. I had a modern Stanley 60 1/2 plane. No matter what I did to sharpen it, when I planed the end grain the edge would fracture leaving marks on the planed surface. I tried many times and many different sharpening angles, and the back of the blade was flat and polished. People with a lot of experience gave me suggestions and I tried most of them.

A friend loaned me a LV low angle plane with an A2 iron and told me to try it. I sharpened the iron using the same techniques as I used with the 60 1/2 and it produced a smooth flat surface on the edge grain.

I sold that 60 1/2 and bought a LN low angle block.

Now, maybe I just got a bad blade in that 60 1/2 but I've heard stories from other woodworkers who I know can sharpen about the poor quality of modern Stanley blades. I never hear stories about how good the modern Stanley blades are.

Mike

[Homer Faucett]

I can relate some experience with modern Stanley blades. . . .
Mike

I have a silly question. How modern is "modern" when it comes to Stanley plane blades, or planes in general, not being considered up to snuff? Is is post 1950 or 1960's?

I just received a couple of Stanley Bailey's with Sweetheart blades (a No. 5 and a No. 3) from an auction, and I will be putting through Bob's rehab routine shortly. I expect that these will be as good as any plane you can buy once properly tuned. Am I mistaken in this expectation?

[Bob Smalser]

... I will be putting through Bob's rehab routine shortly. I expect that these will be as good as any plane you can buy once properly tuned. Am I mistaken in this expectation?

No. That's boat-grade White Oak framing stock in my block plane pics, not wimpy, soft pine or cedar.

Next week I'll try that new Stanley replacement blade....and we'll see. I'm sure it's real tool steel. Whether I toss it or not will depend on whether it has any vanadium (think cheap socket set) or other hard, gummy HSS additives, and how flat it is.

Not to knock L/N....a fabulous plane. Practically right out of the box it tied for second place with my two fettled, pre-war Stanleys. You simply can't beat that kind of quality. The problem for a newcomer who still needs a whole shop full of tools is...of course...paying 150 bucks for the same thing I got for around 15 bucks and 45 minutes of lost TV time.

[Mike Henderson]

I have a silly question. How modern is "modern" when it comes to Stanley plane blades, or planes in general, not being considered up to snuff? Is is post 1950 or 1960's?

I just received a couple of Stanley Bailey's with Sweetheart blades (a No. 5 and a No. 3) from an auction, and I will be putting through Bob's rehab routine shortly. I expect that these will be as good as any plane you can buy once properly tuned. Am I mistaken in this expectation?
For me, a "modern" Stanley is any one that you buy new, now made only in England. A Sweetheart is definitely not "modern". I think the Sweetheart logo was used between about 1920 and 1935. Someone can correct me on this.

Mike

[Homer Faucett]

For me, a "modern" Stanley is any one that you buy new, now made only in England. A Sweetheart is definitely not "modern". I think the Sweetheart logo was used between about 1920 and 1935. Someone can correct me on this.

Mike

Thanks, Mike. I'm just not up on the terminology, and I know that sometimes "modern" refers to an era, and I did not know when that modern era begins with Stanleys. I think you're right as to the date on the Sweetheart logo . . . but I would never have believed that my rusty planes from the early 1900's would still have part of the sticker left on the handles. I guess they did not see much use!