Holtey plane blades I do not need

[Joel Gelman]

I was able to purchase 2 used Holtey Planes (earlier 98 series smoothers, not low angle) for an incredibly low price. The owner died. With the planes came 2 other blades that were not for those planes and I just stored them away.

I am now on a mission to improve the performance of these fancy smoothers. Getting tear out with figured woods, and that is after sharpening 1000 to burr then 6u then 2u then 1u then strop. I have the original 25 degree bevel and perhaps a higher angle would help, but it seems those blades to not take on as keen of an edge as my other plane blades. I just purchased an Edge Tester (used on the Katz Moses videos to test sharpness) as I want to compare and see just how sharp the edge is getting.

I just read in FW a very recent article by Garrett Hack on his favorite "treasured" planes. He mentioned that he did not like the blade at all on his 98 Low Angle Holtey smoother and found it hard to sharpen and Karl sent him another but that was still too hard. Garrett then had Ron Hock make him an O1 high carbon blade and now he loves the blade and the plane. !Quote:

Karl Holtey makes precise infill and other
planes that work incredibly well. Some
are modeled on classic Norrises, others
are his own design. He is meticulous
about construction, from fine depth
adjusters to space-age steels for blades.
We became friends when I bought a
couple of planes to test drive and give
him feedback.
My #98 is a Holtey original design, a
low-angle smoother in stainless steel,
rosewood, bronze, and high-tech blade
steel. With any new plane I expect
it could take a year or more to fully
understand and get the best work from
it, so I always put in the time. For weeks
this one frustrated me. The blade is
marked “E”—for Extra ornery, I came to
think, as my diamond stones could barely
sharpen it. Karl sent me a new blade, but
it wasn’t any more friendly. In the end,
Ron Hock made me a simple high-carbon
blade that works like a dream. Just like
the plane.


I can't get Ron Hock to do one offs as he sold to LV but I may be able to get Karl to make and sell me a replacement blade in O1 and maybe then I can be happy like Garrett, assuming that is the issue.

That brings me back to the blades I do not need as they do not fit any plane I own. They are pictured, 2.25 inches wide a length as shown. Stamped "S" which probably means Super Hard and Super hard to sharpen.

Can someone tell me what plane that would best be used for? I do not want to store it if I can't use it. It should be donated, sold, or thrown away.

Holtey Plane blades for what?.jpg

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Joel

The #98 is a bevel up smoother. This plane uses a single solid blade. The blades you have posted are for a bevel down smoother, and to be used with a chipbreaker.

The #98 has a 22 1/2 degree bed. It is intended to be used with a 30 degree bevel for a cutting angle if 52 1/2 degrees. This shoukd be fine for most unfigured woods, but when reversing grain is thrown in, you either need a higher cutting angle (around 60 degrees) or a chipbreaker. In this case, you need a higher cutting angle.

I have read that Holtey's early blades were extra hard A2 steel. This was at a time before A2 was commonly used. Sharpening them with oil stones would have been a disaster. You need diamond stones or diamond paste.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Joel Gelman]

Hi Derek,

If I understand correctly, the 98 smoother is low angle bevel up, and that is what Garrett has.

https://holteyplanes.com/no98.html

The most recent version being sold by Karl Holtey of that plane is the 986

https://www.holteyplanes.com/

In contrast, the planes I have (picture attached) are 982 bevel down smoothers.

https://www.holteyplanes.com/no982.html

Not sure if the 25 degree angle is best for those planes or not.

For the blades I have, they are clearly not for my planes, which do not involve a chip breaker. I am wondering what to do with them as I have no way to use them. If they are of value to someone else, great. Otherwise, trash.


982s.jpg

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Joel

My mistake - I thought that the #98 you referred to was your plane. In regard to your #982, a change of bevel angle will not alter the performance in regard to tear out. Two other factors may: no doubt a sharper edge will allow the plane to work to its optimal level, but I suspect that a single blade bedded at 55 degrees (which is high-ish) is still not high enough for some figure and reversing grain. We get this often in Australian timbers, and this is why 60 degrees is the number to aim for. To try this, add a 5 degree backbevel to the blade. Thiis can be a micro bevel, and removed quickly if you do not like the effect. I would also recommend that you wax the sole of the plane when doing this as a high angle on a bevel down metal plane will be a bear to push (this angle is better on a BU plane).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[stephen thomas]

Joel -
Those irons will probably fit most center post retention ("Bailey style") planes that could take a 2.25" iron, subject in some cases to thickness.

Are you saying they are or are not made by Holtey?
Am i seeing correctly that the BD planes you have, do not have any sort of chipbreaker?
What does the frog look like?
IOW, could a double iron be used with the plane if desired?
ISTR KH is not a proponent of tight throats (has been quoted arguing against them), so interesting if also no chipbreaker.
Or did he go apostate on the throat Q for those?

[stephen thomas]

We get this often in Australian timbers, and this is why 60 degrees is the number to aim for. To try this, add a 5 degree backbevel to the blade.

This is interesting.
In your experience, is 60deg, tight throat, no chipbreaker a better combination than say, 50 deg and a sharp well tuned chipbreaker set close?

I can't make up my own mind. Sometimes one combination works, as you know i am all about sharp, tight throats. Tendency always to go back that direction when "nothing" else works. And then occasionally, the perfect chipbreaker, perfectly set works as well with a higher angle.

When i was building the all-angle plane, i did do some preliminary tests on real work (during an extensive real job with difficult and hard khaya) with back bevels, and found them dreadfully inconvenient.

smt

[Joel Gelman]

Yes, these are Holtey blades. I am attaching a picture that better shows the "Holtey" on both blades


Blades front.jpg

[Joel Gelman]

Holtey Plane bevel down, no chip breaker

Plane in use.jpg

[Joel Gelman]

On the blades, for sure they were make by Karl. He knew the prior owner of the planes well personally. However, he could not recall what those blades were for. Clearly they were not meant for my planes. I was mostly wanting to know if anyone here would use them and value them. I posted the width and length and photos. They are thick. If so, great. If not, trash.

[Derek Cohen]

This is interesting.
In your experience, is 60deg, tight throat, no chipbreaker a better combination than say, 50 deg and a sharp well tuned chipbreaker set close?

I can't make up my own mind. Sometimes one combination works, as you know i am all about sharp, tight throats. Tendency always to go back that direction when "nothing" else works. And then occasionally, the perfect chipbreaker, perfectly set works as well with a higher angle.

When i was building the all-angle plane, i did do some preliminary tests on real work (during an extensive real job with difficult and hard khaya) with back bevels, and found them dreadfully inconvenient.

smt[/COLOR]

Hi Stephen

Perhaps the best known of Australian-made planes are the HNT Gordon range. These are divided into two groups: the original, Asian-style woodie, which has a 60-degree bed, and is pushed via side handles.

My trying plane and smoother ...



Then there are a more traditional style plane, with a rear handle, front knob and blade adjuster, which I believe were designed for the international market. These have a 55-degree bed. All planes have a choice of O1 or HSS steel blades, which are 1/4" thick and do not use a chipbreaker. All mouths are tight.






Terry was designing these planes before the chipbreaker's resurgence in around 2012. I will add that some will argue that the finished surface off a high cutting angle will be less polished than off a low cutting angle, but my experience shows that this is minimal and probably not evident after a finish is applied.

Terry made a point, a few decades back, that the mouth size is not relevant to control tear out once the cutting angle is around 55 degrees. I find this is so. It would explain why Holtey does not obsess about the mouth size. However, I do not see bed/cutting angles from Holtey that get as high as Terry's. Incidentally, the mouth size on double iron planes with a closed up chipbreaker is similarly irrelevant to controlling tear out. In fact it is needed to be open so as not to block the escapement when the chipbreaker is closed up. Mouth size becomes more important when the chipbreaker is not treated this way.

Which is better at controlling tearout, high angle vs chipbreaker. My money is on the chipbreaker. This is not to say that a high cutting angle (60 degrees) is not good - it is very good. But for the last 5-10%, the chipbreaker is better. I never have difficulty planing into the grain with a chipbreaker. For less demanding occasions I am happy to use a high cutting angle, especially where planing requires a small or a light plane.

Could one add a chipbreakered blade to the Holtey? I do not see this as an option. Even if you could find a set to fit, the combination of a higher cutting angle (52 degrees) plus a closed chipbreaker is likely to overwhelm the plane's performance. It is a case of one or the other and not both. I tried the combination with a 50-degree LN #3, and really did not like the result.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Rafael Herrera]

Stephen,

At the time of the publication of Holtzapffel book, knowledge of the effect of the bed angle, mouth opening, chip breaker, etc. was well known. If I remember correctly, in the sections where these are discussed, the 60 degrees are recommended for mitre planes (bevel up planes).

I took one of my block planes, a 9 1/2 or something similar, and re-sharpened to get a total of about 60 degrees cutting angle. I didn't grind the whole bevel to 40 or 48 degrees, whatever it is that's needed to add up to 60 degrees, I just lifted the iron and went at it, a very narrow secondary bevel. I didn't really measure.

Tested it edge planing a piece of hard maple, it has a bit of reversing grain, planed in both directions.

The result was no tear out, a smooth finish.

The block plane has a fixed mouth, so no closed mouth effect. It was harder to push. What's also remarkable is that this is a run of the mill block plane, nothing else had to be done to the plane. Sharpened to a higher angle of attack and it works better than before.

So, there it is, another solution to tear out mitigation known since a long time ago. It's a one trick pony, though. Taking thick shavings is not that easy with this set up.

Turning and Mechanical Manipulation, Vol.2 by Charles Holtzapffel

https://archive.org/details/pli.kerala.rare.6416

[steven c newman]

Early Stanley No. 5-1/2 Jumbo Jack planes...used a width of 2-1/4"...instead of the later 2-3/8" width.....Millers Falls No. 15 Jumbo Jacks also used a 2-1/4" wide iron...
keep THAT in mind.

because? There are people out there looking for irons in THAT size....

[Rafael Herrera]

The depth adjustment yoke won't reach the chip breaker with this almost 1/4" thick iron. It won't fit through the mouth without some serious filing either. Who, with any sense, would be looking for irons like these?

You could spring the money for this thing, https://www.woodbywright.com/shop/p/yoke, if you reeeeaaaally want the irons for your plane.

[steven c newman]

Hmm...Happen to have both of the Jumbo Jack sizes in USE in my shop....

I also happen to have a all wood bodied Jack plane that merely needs an iron and a wedge...

If one asks around this site..the very FIRST thing some will always suggest...is throw away an OEM iron, and drop in a THICK one to magically improve a plane....

I really do not have any real use for those thick irons...as my OEM ones work just fine....YMMV, of course...

[stephen thomas]

what is the bed angle?


Auburn smoother.jpgAuburn smoother 2.jpgbuck rogers smoother.jpg