best way to sharpen plane irons?

[Joe Bailey]

Yes, and there are others like him, hence my not-so-subtle needling about "professionalism" earlier.

The reference was by no means lost on me.
I imagine that, from our limited exchanges, Warren knows how I feel about his certitude regarding his own pronouncements.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

(1) I really like the India stone I have, in combination with an Arkansas. I have no desire to use anything beyond O1 or traditional high carbon steel, but that is a whole different debate, and you would have people who worship at the altar of the supersteel bringing small animals and children in to be sacrificed. Thread looks long enough as it is.

But unless you have a bunch of A2 and PMV-11 laying around, my vote would be for the oilstones that have been mentioned a couple of times. I would also vote for the Stanley No. 4 or 5, particularly if you have someone near you who can offer an hour or two to help you get it set up properly.

(2) If you want waterstones, which will handle the supersteels, I would suggest the Norton 1000/8000 instead of the 4000/8000. You want something coarser in your kit. Keep some sandpaper around for getting a new to you blade into shape. The 1000 is too fine to deal with nicks, a completely new bevel, etc.

(3) If you have not figured it out, Warren has made his living with hand tools for about 40 years. One of the handful of people on the board who can say they have ever done that. The vast majority of us are a mix of professionals who use a blend of power and hand tools, and hobbyists who do whatever we want because it is a hobby.

There is a big difference between using a smoother to touch up a board that was ripped to width on the bandsaw, flattened on the jointer, and thicknessed on the drum sander or planer (on the one hand) and doing all of that with a ripsaw, jack, and jointer (on the other hand). There is a big difference between doing that every once in a while, and doing it daily for a long period of time.

Warren annoys some people, apparently, with the fact that he is pretty sure he knows what he is doing. I have the impression that comes across to some people as arrogance.

On the other hand, I work 12-14 hours a day in the job that pays my bills. I use my spare time to read stuff and fool around in my shop. I would have to be pretty arrogant myself to conclude that I know as much from my hobby projects as a man who has spent 40 years in the trade.

I was looking around on woodcraft's site and found a norton combination 4000/8000 stone. The price isn't bad, about what i am willing to spend. Does any one have any experience with this stone? pros cons? I know many people have suggested norton stone for their price to quality ratio.

[Warren Mickley]

Yes, and there are others like him, hence my not-so-subtle needling about "professionalism" earlier.

There is a lot of subjectivity being passed off as objective truth here, and IMO neither the difference between 2" and 2-3/8" nor the difference between 5 lb and 6.75 lb is going to be a deal-breaker in the real world. I think that the 4 or 5 is a safer choice for somebody who doesn't yet know what their subjective preference will be, though.

Here are some weights for my planes:

#3 ............................... 2 lb 10 oz
#4 ............................... 3 lb 1 oz
Jack plane (wood) ........... 2 lb 12 0z ............. 16 inches
Trying plane (wood) ......... 5 lb 11 oz .............. 22 inches

Compare to Lie Nielsen:

#4 .................4 lb ........... 9 1/2 inches
#4 1/2 ...........5 lb 8 0z .....10 3/8 inches
#5 1/2........... 7 lb ........... 14 1/2 inches

I think that if you are doing any real amount of planing you want to limit your time working with a seven pound plane plane. It would slow you up and tire you out. Tennis racquets usually weigh about 10 ounces. If you used a 7 pound racquet, there would be a really solid feeling when you hit the ball, and a lot more momentum. You might not want to play for an hour.

When I go to a Lie Nielsen event I am always struck by the heaviness and clumsiness of the 4 1/2, which is what they demonstrate most often. I can't imagine wanting an even heavier plane for any period of work. Believe or not, the 5 1/2 is two and a half times the weight of my jack plane, which is slightly longer.

I am not familiar with the 5 1/4, Chet.

[john jesseph]

Mike Dunbar also said the 5 1/2 was his favorite plane, for what that’s worth. Edit to say I just weighed my 5 1/2, which is 5 pounds 12 ounces. All the equivalent Stanley planes are lighter than the LN/LV tools.

Asking questions on forums sometimes leads to woodworking by committee, where people inject personal preferences and assumptions that don’t solve problems for the OP.

What type of work do you want to do? For example, being a historical reenactor vs an acoustic guitar luthier will give completely different sets of answers/solutions for for questions.

Do you want to make things, or “rehab” tools?

And so on.

[Todd Stock]

Patrick:

I disagree - I believe the weight difference is definitely a factor for the slightly built, those with limited upper body strength (many women and a surprisingly large number of men), and the elderly, who are generally seeing progressive loss of both muscle mass and bone density. We keep a nice, svelte Stanley #3 over the bench for those students, and I'm still looking for a good #5-1/4 to handle plate jointing for those students that cannot heft a LN #5 for more than a few moments. Expecting all of our students to be in at least average physical condition is unreasonable, so some accommodation is clearly necessary.

[Jim Koepke]

Heck, at times my #6 is my most used plane. At other times a #3 is "doing it all."

It all depends on one's plane management strategies. For me having at least one of each size works fine. For others having just one or three sizes works fine.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick:

I disagree - I believe the weight difference is definitely a factor for the slightly built, those with limited upper body strength (many women and a surprisingly large number of men), and the elderly, who are generally seeing progressive loss of both muscle mass and bone density. We keep a nice, svelte Stanley #3 over the bench for those students, and I'm still looking for a good #5-1/4 to handle plate jointing for those students that cannot heft a LN #5 for more than a few moments. Expecting all of our students to be in at least average physical condition is unreasonable, so some accommodation is clearly necessary.

I agree completely with what you say, but that's far different from claiming that no professional uses or would use a 5-1/2.

You're giving reasons why *some individuals* would need a lighter plane. Warren was claiming that *everybody* needs to use a lighter plane. See the difference?

FWIW I'm pretty burly but I use a #3 quite a lot. I subjectively prefer light- or mid-weight planes, but I also recognize that that's my preference and not some sort of platonic ideal.

[Jeff Heath]

Weight of a plane is a subjective objection. Not everyone is bothered by weight. Some of us consider it a quality. The laws of physics and momentum come to mind. As an educated engineer from a nearly 3 1/2 decades ago, I still remember most of the laws. My point is, not everyone has a meager build, and some of us prefer the extra mass.

I love my 5 1/2, and I also love my #6 (own 2 of them). I like the extra width of the blade, and use them for planing wider furniture and cabinet parts. Having the extra width allows for skewing and still having enough iron to not need to make side-by-side passes. I use my #5 1/2 as a panel smoother, sharpened for the task, as well as one my #6's for the same situation. The mass of neither troubles me at all, as I'm a larger human that has spent my entire life doing hard work. I'm 53 years old, and still bench press well over 300 lbs. (it's all relative, as I'm 6'-2", 270 lbs.). So, judging the use and viability of planes based solely on their weight is not always a good argument to make. A 7 or 8 lb. plane is not a big deal to use all day long for some of us. If plane mass is a problem for you, perhaps a set of woodies would be a much better choice, as they are much lighter.

The best answer, in my opinion, to what the best sharpening system to learn to use is, quite simply, which ever system you choose to invest the proper amount of time in, learning and perfecting it to suit your sharpening needs. It doesn't matter whether or not you use $20 worth of sandpaper or $1500 worth of NASA approved (that's a joke) diamond and ceramic stones......or anything else in between. They will all work quite well on most of the steels found in woodworking tools.

The best plane choice, with a little bit of knowledge, is also relatively interchangeable, too. With some sharpening and iron shaping ingenuity, with a couple of extra interchangeable irons, if you so desire, you can use any of the planes mentioned to hog wood or smooth wood. Is it optimal....nope. Can it be done.....sure. When I was just starting out as a woodworker, a very tight tool budget forced me to get creative in a lot of different ways. I'm sure plenty can relate.

[Todd Stock]

I stand corrected, Patrick - I should have limited my disagreement to the special cases noted versus the more general. Can we view the lack of current featherweight plane options in the market, as well as the notable failure of previous forays in light-alloy bench planes - such as the Stanley A-series - to find much in the way of market share, as supporting evidence for your position?

[Warren Mickley]

I agree completely with what you say, but that's far different from claiming that no professional uses or would use a 5-1/2.

You're giving reasons why *some individuals* would need a lighter plane. Warren was claiming that *everybody* needs to use a lighter plane. See the difference?

That is the second time you distorted what I wrote.

I wrote: The 5 1/2 planes were not popular 100 years ago and I have never seen one in a professional shop.

There are several thousand woodworking shops within 20 miles of my shop. Rob Cosman's shop is several thousand miles away.

Please be more careful.

[Rob Young]

I bought my first plane when I was a college student student many years ago. It was $9.49 at the hardware store and I had a ten dollar bill in my wallet. As the clerk rang it up I realized I had forgotten about tax, so I fished around in my pocket and luckily there was a quarter. Three years later I could plane any wood any direction without tear out and I had abandoned scrapers as superfluous. When I became a full time woodworker, I still had not spent a thousand dollars on tools and equipment.

I thought Rob Young's answer was the best (combination India stone). My first thought was a medium India $24 and a soft Arkansas $26 both 1x2x8. Alternatively you could get a hardware store combination stone (silicon carbide), a fine India and a soft Arkansas.

I would recommend a #4 plane or a #5, not a 5 1/2. The 5 1/2 planes were not popular 100 years ago and I have never seen one in a professional shop.

I would like to add that the India stones have NO PROBLEM with "exotic" steels. I've got a motley mix of steels, although I do prefer O1/vintage. But no issues with some D2 (I think that's the stuff), A2, PMV11, rando vanadium etc. It may take 5 figure 8's on the stone to raise a burr on O1 but only 8-10 for the PMV11. I do have some Washita and soft and hard Ark stones to use as intermediates and they too can sharpen the "exotic" steels. Anybody that says otherwise is either impatient or has glazed their stones through abuse and/or lack of care.

And I'll pitch on on the which-planes-to-buy argument by asking a question, what do you (OP) plan to build? Small boxes and other little things, maybe a nice low-angle block + a #5. Small to medium sized furniture, a #3 or #4 + a #5 or #6. Then as you have the time and money, fill it in so that you have coarse, medium and fine covered.

[Adam Herd]

So some how people kinda got off track and got more talking about the choice of plane, which is fine. A lot of people suggested that I go with a number 5 instead of a number 5 1/2 which I am very flexible on as the number 5 is about I believe $20 cheaper. Also many people were wondering what kind of things I want to build. I would have to say medium to large furniture. Over the summer I made a coffee table for friends and if the weather ever gets warm here again (IT IS CURRENTLY SNOWING!!! It has been a very long winter in CNY) my next project will be a wine rack for a friend. I will up load pictures so everyone can see the size of these.

[steven c newman]

Just throwing this out there...weight of a plane: all very nice to have a heavy plane to move forward, BUT, when you have to lift and drag all that weight BACK to start a new pass....tends to get a bit tiresome.

Sharpening: I use oil stones to start, after a new bevel has been made. 600 medium India, then a 1000 grit oil stone. Then, I spread a bit more oil on the last stone used, lay a piece of wet-or-dry sandpaper into that oil....paper stays put. I work through the grits up to 2500 grit.....and green stick on a leather belt strop. Works for my stuff, YMMV.

I tend to use a size of plane that matches the work I am trying to do.....I have most sizes from #3 to #8....except for the overweight 4-1/2.....never found much use for it.

plane til.jpg
YMMV

[Patrick Chase]

I would like to add that the India stones have NO PROBLEM with "exotic" steels. I've got a motley mix of steels, although I do prefer O1/vintage. But no issues with some D2 (I think that's the stuff), A2, PMV11, rando vanadium etc. It may take 5 figure 8's on the stone to raise a burr on O1 but only 8-10 for the PMV11. I do have some Washita and soft and hard Ark stones to use as intermediates and they too can sharpen the "exotic" steels. Anybody that says otherwise is either impatient or has glazed their stones through abuse and/or lack of care.

Be careful not to over-generalize about "exotic" steels here. India stones are made of Aluminum Oxide. AlOx is harder than Chromium carbide, so Chromium-based steels like A2, D2, and PM-V11 do just fine on it as you say.

AlOx is softer than Vanadium carbide and a couple others, so steels with a lot of the carbides of those alloyants are problematic (note that not every steel that contains V has a lot of or large Vanadium carbides, hence the careful wording). For example, CPM-S110V is no fun on AlOx.

[Brian Holcombe]

Patrick:

I disagree - I believe the weight difference is definitely a factor for the slightly built, those with limited upper body strength (many women and a surprisingly large number of men), and the elderly, who are generally seeing progressive loss of both muscle mass and bone density. We keep a nice, svelte Stanley #3 over the bench for those students, and I'm still looking for a good #5-1/4 to handle plate jointing for those students that cannot heft a LN #5 for more than a few moments. Expecting all of our students to be in at least average physical condition is unreasonable, so some accommodation is clearly necessary.

Or those working 80 hours a week with hand planes.

I have LN 4, 5 and 7 along with a host of Japanese planes and wooden jack/jointer. The heft that seems appealing when you're buying a plane is not as appealing in use. I like my LN planes so I keep them, but I can't see the weight as an advantage.

I tend to prefer light planes, and even to some degree prefer to use the smaller Japanese planes in typical use over much of anything else.

When I was building the white oak kitchen last year, I built it about 90% by hand, all material was dimensioned by hand. There were plenty of times where lugging that heavy plane back to the start of the board was getting old.