Quote Originally Posted by Robert Hazelwood View Post
I am not following you here. How would lapping the sides of the plane casting affect the chipbreaker, and why would it cause the plane iron to contact wood only at the edges?

I would agree that lapping the sides is probably a waste of time unless you want it to look pretty. Due to the shape of the casting it's difficult to get the sides square with lapping- it's so easy to remove more material at the top of the side than at the bottom. But, I have done this on a couple of planes and it does not affect the camber required on the iron or the ability to set the chipbreaker.

It sounds more like you are describing a sole that is convex across its width.




It's true that the face of the frog doesn't need to be dead flat as the iron will be slightly concave, so will contact only at the base of the frog and at the top. But the late model frogs seem to have been finished on a belt sander and can be quite wonky- skewed, twisted etc. Most are probably fine, and most of the ones that aren't could be fixed without much trouble (though some are truly lost causes). But in my mind that is a point in favor of the older models- they were made a bit more carefully.
Sorry, I was a bit tired when I wrote that ...you are spot on Robert,
I was referring to the conditioning of the sole of the plane only, I should have said the long edges instead of sides in my post.
I never would risk lapping the side walls of the plane, as these are normally way too out of square to cure.
It would be amplifying even more so, that structural weak point which we all see brazed on some examples now and again.

I have never came across a 1950's or older plane where the frog was cast badly
I can't remember when the ribbing was introduced for reinforcement or stability on Stanley planes, but I've always looked for older ones than that which had no frog issues whatsoever.\

Thanks for pointing that out, it could have been misleading for some folks.
Tom