Holtey plane blades I do not need

[Warren Mickley]

Fortunately I read Nicholson in 1973.

Here is what I wrote on another forum in 2008:

I have used the double iron for controlling tearout for more than thirty years. It is a sophisticated system requiring practice and judgment. It does not surprise me that many do not have this skill. There is no shame in not knowing how to do it. However the lack of this skill is not something to brag about, as many have done.

The pole vault record is somewhere around 20 feet, but if you took a bunch of middle aged people and handed each a pole you wouldn't expect much the first day. I can imagine some saying the pole just got in the way, or they could jump higher without it.

It does surprise me how many were unable to read the information presented by Kato and Elliot. Those who suggested that the setting needed to be within .004" might reread the material.

[stephen thomas]

But months later I found out I kind of knew the guy. He had married a woman whom I had known since she was six years old, and I had met him a few times. Then I felt pretty bad about it, like I had let him down.

I figured out i probably know people who know you.
I kind of feel bad about that, too.



Why is everything contentious with you, instead of a project for knowledge?

[Rafael Herrera]

But months later I found out I kind of knew the guy. He had married a woman whom I had known since she was six years old, and I had met him a few times. Then I felt pretty bad about it, like I had let him down.

What happened to the guy, did he eventually get the right plane(s)?

[Warren Mickley]

What happened to the guy, did he eventually get the right plane(s)?

He is a research scientist and just became director of a 16 person lab. I spoke to his in-laws last month. I gather that he doesn't do much woodworking any more, but I am not sure.

[Charles Edward]

I started using hand planes having no clue how to setup the chipbreaker. I asked here how to deal with it, the answers, if I recall, were card scrapers, pour water or mineral spirits before planing, perhaps even buy a BU plane with several irons sharpened at different angles. Maybe not the last one, but that certainly is advised to beginners all the time. Once, I almost bought a BU jack plane, but I was soon dissuaded, I did not trust the advise of those advocating them, youtubers and such.

As per the block plane, actually a 9 1/4, it did work planing the maple edge I was testing it on. However, a no. 4 or 3 would be a better choice of tool. Not only that, the smoother would work on more situations. I'd be nuts if I tried to use this block plane to smooth panels.

Attachment 525774

Good advise for the beginner is what is most frequently needed, advise on what to buy or use is one of the most frequent topics in the forums. How to get something straight or flat with the minimum fuzz is liberating, let's you move on to topics a lot more interesting. The learning curve for a hand plane is not unsurmountable, getting distracted by bad advice will hold many of us back.

In regards to Joel's plane, does Holtey have customer support? Can the plane be sent to them for tune up? On the other hand, what are the capabilities of this plane? Is there some kind of user guide?

Close-set cap irons are in every British woodworking manual written since the early 1900s. Nobody here 'rediscovered' a bloody damned thing. George Ellis, Planecraft, Robert Wearing, Ernest Scott, several others. If you're waiting to run across important knowledge about the craft on a woodworking forum, I'm going to make the bold suggestion that you visit your local library.

[stephen thomas]

Amen, Charles - but don't scare the OP off!

I love and support my local real library - but one thing about them is that a person searching a somewhat esoteric craft technical skill has to know what they are looking for. Then they have to be in a library that has books that accurately represent that skill or they might (probably will) get worse or more conflicting advice from pop/canned content writers than they would get here.

Stuff routinely gets rehashed on websites - because newbies show up to learn.
They should be encouraged. Multiple perspectives laid out: each practitioner is going to use his own combination.
Learning is by experimenting & iteration. The combination that works is the correct one for that practitioner and situation.

Basic knowledge is often near fully developed about elements of craft.
But then someone decides to take elements to degrees never considered before .
New materials appear. New methods for working materials. Things are forgotten, sometimes willfully - it's in full swing on the shaper thread, so i'm (mostly) staying well clear. Per the OP; many of Karl Holtey's planes are almost a microcosm of this sort of dynamic flux: More beautiful and possible better made, and yet most of the expected accoutrements of technically correct planes from the past are omitted.

Now there is an OP and a project to learn what will make his planes work.
Is there another reason we hang out on websites?

The double iron/chipbreaker system became prominent, because it can be readily tuned and adapted by any craftsperson with no more tools than normal sharpening kit, and only slightly depends on the platform into which it is inserted for use.
It was generally more reliable than pitch, and yet can still be used in concert with it. Tight throat and the access to tune one is a lot more difficult and complex, so they tended to languish. Neither good nor bad, yet still an additional avenue for control for some preferences for some situations. At the limit, both a double iron and a perfectly designed tunable throat are chipbreakers. Where the chipbreaker attaches has different advantages and liabilities. And to sum up; for most people it doesn't even matter.

[Charles Edward]

Close-set cap irons are in every British woodworking manual written since the early 1900s. Nobody here 'rediscovered' a bloody damned thing. George Ellis, Planecraft, Robert Wearing, Ernest Scott, several others. If you're waiting to run across important knowledge about the craft on a woodworking forum, I'm going to make the bold suggestion that you visit your local library.

And then there's the woodworking/writer whose name escapes me at the moment, who swore there wasn't a rough patch he couldn't tame with a bevel-up block plane with an adjustable mouth. High angle (make it what you want at the grinder), small mouth aperture, fine cut, small plane, easy to push.

[Derek Cohen]

Originally Posted by Charles Edward
Close-set cap irons are in every British woodworking manual written since the early 1900s. Nobody here 'rediscovered' a bloody damned thing. George Ellis, Planecraft, Robert Wearing, Ernest Scott, several others. If you're waiting to run across important knowledge about the craft on a woodworking forum, I'm going to make the bold suggestion that you visit your local library.

And then there's the woodworking/writer whose name escapes me at the moment, who swore there wasn't a rough patch he couldn't tame with a bevel-up block plane with an adjustable mouth. High angle (make it what you want at the grinder), small mouth aperture, fine cut, small plane, easy to push.

Let's take a short trip back in time on the forums (SawMill Creek WoodCentral, WoodNet, and Knots). Before 2012/3, there was little content discussion about chipbreakers controlling tearout. The only person to mention this was Warren, which he did quite often. Over at Knots, and also on WoodCentral, Larry Williams (Old Street Tools) pushed his woodies, which were single iron and 50-55 degree beds. He would later argue that the double iron was unnecessary and a dinosaur. On WoodCentral, in 2002, Lyn Mangiameli wrote an influential article on high angle smoothers. This was later to be published in a lesser format in FWW magazine, and it cemented the era of high cutting angles to control tearout. I began reviewing and writing about tools around this time, and then was invited by Rob Lee (Lee Valley) to road test their BU planes (and other tools), which continued for about 15 years. I had a great opportunity to share these experiences with others on the forums, which I did. My interest was primarily as one working with interlocked Australian hardwoods, and controlling tearout in these timbers. We already had a local planemaker, Terry Gordon (HNT Gordon), who specialised in high angle planes for this market, all woodies with 60 degree beds (bevel down). Note, still no one making planes with double irons specifically aimed at controlling tearout.

A mention must go to David Charlesworth. While I was never a fan of his #5 1/2 "Super Smoother", David championed a 10-20 degree back bevel, often using a 65 degree cutting angle with this plane on difficult grain. Later, David discovered the closed chipbreaker, and was a convert. Rare flexibility in such a high profile teacher.

In 2012, a video was published by Professor Yasunori Kawai and Honorary Professor Chutaro Kato at Yamagata University as part of their research in the role of chipbreakers. This began a series of discussions on chipbreakers on the forums. While Warren commented frequently "I told you so", getting information from him "how" to do this was not forthcoming. I credit David Weaver for his experimentation here, and his subsequent article at WoodCentral for showing us the way. Steve Elliott also supplied research in this area. It really was a narrow time in which this took off. Of course, there were those who came along and claimed that they knew this method all along, but then why did you not speak up before?

Like others, I fumbled along learning to set the chipbreaker. It is not a simple matter for a newbie. When it clicked, and I came to appreciate the performance gains possible, I embraced my old Stanleys and a couple of LNs as if seeing them anew. But I did not stop using BU planes with high cutting angles, nor stop using my HNT Gordon planes. They all work. And do so very, very well. I had a Marcou smoother - since sold as this was simply too heavy for use - but it was the best performer of ALL planes I have ever used. I have a LN #4 1/2 in bronze, and this is just superb. Also heavy, but more manageable, and reserved for smoothing table tops. Otherwise I have a LN #3, a Veritas Custom #4, and a Veritas BU Smoother (set at 62 degrees). Fine, fine smoothers. We're talking smoothers here in view of the thread on Holtey planes.

Others to chime in with their memories?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Tom Trees]

I can agree with what Derek said above, as I was deeply in the woods as a newbie, even with the help of that WoodCentral article,
yes I'd read it, and it suggested what I hadn't came across in any article/book/advice before (other than Warren's, that is, of which I didn't see)

The steepness or profile of the cap iron is what I'm getting at, somewhere in the region of 50 or 60 degrees at the least, and not 45!....
so after taking the leap, and going against the advice of the giants...
Ya'know, those who taught me so much, and this was back when YT vids were 10 mins max, and there wasn't much woodworking vids at the time.

I was in somewhat uncharted territory by honing my cap iron steeper to 50 degrees.
Well It didn't work, as I was "mix and matching" or doing my own thing.
The issue, I was still under hypnosis!

Not being the clevererest, I struggled on, and it was such hard work, attempting to push my Bailey with the frog adjusted for a tight mouth.
The plane was getting hot to the touch in front of the mouth, yet tearout still remained.
I ended up springing for a narrow no.3, for dense timber with alternating "ribbon striping" and a no.80 scraper plane for blending thereafter,
well that didn't work either, and the work was even more difficult!

It was about that time that I realised that I hadn't listened, and once I moved the frog back all the way back, flush that is....
Then things started to click, like the correct distance the cap iron needs to be.
This time, I could set it closer, without the shaving compressing like a concertina, and the mouth clogging,
and tearout was being eliminated, without the strain I might add,
and once I got better at my cambers to actually allow for the cap iron to slide up to the edge without overshooting on the corners,
all wood became a homogeneous material, as in not really needing to worry or change direction or whatever,
so I was able to plane in rows, and be most efficient, and it was a lot easier, cleaner, less faff with only a single planing batten needed,
and my edges of my hand planes holding up tenfold, or whatever huge amount, became a very welcome attribute.


So kudos to Warren for goading David W into the challenge.
David also gave a great tip of getting the camber perfect, pressing ones finger down on the exact area, exactly over the work.
In effort to explain in my own words, imagine a tiny spot of sandpaper glued on ones fingertip, for spot sanding rust marks,
not close to the rust spot, but on it, which in turn, translated to sharpening ones cutter,
Matching those corners of the iron for symmetry, means you might indeed have to get one finger actually on the spot, yes getting ones finger in the oil/water,
and not just close, as suggested by some.
I could list a whole load of folks who wasn't aware of the necessary cap iron profile, nobody demonstrated anything on the subject, and if they did, it was by chance likely worked for them somewhat, on an old infill plane.
Screenshot-2024-4-1 Uncle Jim - Bench Planes - YouTube(1).jpgScreenshot-2024-4-1 Uncle Jim - Bench Planes - YouTube.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/BQkK04MP/Screen...You-Tube-1.png
https://i.postimg.cc/YS1gRZNG/Screen...s-You-Tube.png

Any of the neigh sayers are simply breaking the 3 rules
Steep cap iron, no corners nipped off the cutter, and an open mouth.

Those who contest the third, well funny thing is, I've ne'er seen any article on tuning the "wear" on a Bailey.
I think anyone who has done, is either keeping it to themselves for amusement, or still finds it hard going compared.

All the best
Tom

[Derek Cohen]

Those who contest the third, well funny thing is, I've ne'er seen any article on tuning the "wear" on a Bailey.
I think anyone who has done, is either keeping it to themselves for amusement, or still finds it hard going compared.

Tom, actually David Charlesworth did so. He wrote about chamfering the inside of the mouth.

I wrote about this here: https://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commen...sStanley3.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Rafael Herrera]

I'm pretty sure Warren mentioned the chipbreaker in the thread where I asked my question about tear out. Obviously, it went in one ear and came out the other.

I also tried the closed mouth on the Bailey plane, after some Sellers video. It's a waste of time, it limits you to take thin shavings and clogs if you don't set the chipbreaker away from the edge, basically neutering the plane.

Here's another tip I got from David Weaver, if you fit your plane with a super duper thicker iron and the plane chokes when the cb is set close. You can still have this problem after moving the frog back as much as it can go. The tip is to file a bevel on the front of the mouth. This allows for clearance for the shavings. The bevel keeps the plane mouth the same size, about 3/16" on a typical plane.

(Before I get another hysterical response. No, David does not claim he invented it, nor is he calling it the "Weaver Mouth Trick".)

The usual advise to fit thicker irons is to file the mouth bigger, crude but it works too.

What is the size of the mouth of metal planes designed with thicker irons, like this Holtey? If anyone has one of these planes, like a LN or LV, can you measure the mouth? Does the mouth have a wear or it's just square?

Stephen, how did you design the mouth of your planes?

[Joel Gelman]

When I was at a 5-day Garrett Hack workshop, I remember asking him about something he wrote in his hand plane book, and he reminded me that this book was published quite a while back (1997). It is true that things change, and new things come up.

In the acoustic guitar world, 30-40 years ago, people would mostly think about Martin guitars, perhaps some Guild and Gibson models. The "pre-war" guitars had a lot of appeal, and if you found the right one, you were rewarded with a very nice tone. Hit and miss. During the past 20-30 years, many luthiers were able to develop high end guitars with innovative design modifications, some of which were subtle. If you buy one of those expensive guitars, and order it in advance, you can pretty much be assured you will get the desired sound without having to play it along with other similar models first. Luthiers include Olson, Walker, Wingert, and Ryan among others. This is an example of the things Kevin Ryan does

https://ryanguitars.com/design-innovations

I have been to his shop. He mentioned CNC but also incorporates more traditional methods. We once went to an event at the Maloof compound together before Sam died, and Kevin had the opportunity to show Sam one of his guitars.

I am better at telling differences in guitars than hand planes, but the guitar example and the Garrett Hack comment makes me think of the "newer" plane makers like Holtey and Sauer and Marcou and others, makers who can make planes with heavier low center of gravity planes with the use of CNC etc. with a precision you can't expect of a mass produced plane from yesteryear. I am not suggesting new is better than vintage in all cases, as with guitars, certainly there is something magical if you find the right Martin guitar, but it would seem that some of these new planes, like Holtey, should offer some advantages.

Is it really the case that the experiences of people decades ago are applicable today to the extent that they were applicable when written?

[stephen thomas]

And then there's the woodworking/writer whose name escapes me at the moment, who swore there wasn't a rough patch he couldn't tame with a bevel-up block plane with an adjustable mouth. High angle (make it what you want at the grinder), small mouth aperture, fine cut, small plane, easy to push.

Sounds like something i wrote to make a point?
Basically you get either double iron, set perfectly; & moderate throat.
Or-
given an adjustable throat block plane, you can tune and set the throat tight, and adjust the bevel as needed.
But (so far) you can't have both at once.

As written here and elsewhere that potential within the block planes i used strongly informed my plane making.
"British infill" planes made a fetish of tight throats, or at least many writers at the time did so.
Yet none had adjustable throats.

Remember also that my planes started as a big joke on the whole "high end" plane mystique.
So i just put all the elements that make a plane work well (except adjustable pitch at the time) in one platform, and was working on 2 of them for a dueling set to be carried in a French fitted case. In order that gentleman cabinet makers could settle issues like these at dawn, with seconds, in a suitably chosen venue. The loops were an extension of the joke - using a knapp joint instead of the traditional DT's. Ironically, DT's are not ideal in metal, and Knapp is really bad in wood. But in metal, Knapp is better. After a while, Karl Holtey began copying it. I'm pretty sure my tight throat performance partially influenced LV's path to revisit the old Stanleys.

I was invited to give a seminar to CJWWA on cutting tools, and demonstrated cutters for both power tools (shapers, moulders); as well as made, hardened and used a small moulding iron on site for a Stanley 45 platform. It was at that seminar that the mock-ups for a round sided loopy smoother were presented. Noodled away at it for a bit in spare moments.

My intern at the time called attention to the advertised first FWW owner-built tools issue and suggested contacting them. They had closed entries but based on photos of WIP said if one could be completed in something like a week, they would include it. So i never finished the pair at the same time, and never made the french case. Can't remember how Tony Murland & I were in contact and agreed to meet at PATINA 2002, when he took #1 back to England and included it in his annual auction catalog for that July.

#2 used to be a test horse that traveled among users for feedback, but it got stuck at a certain shop in Delaware when it was his turn. I still consider both him and his wife friends, we mostly met, socialized, stayed together in Washington DC decades ago. What i had not realized is the guy is a world class procrastinator.

Lyn Mangiamelli was intrigued, and commissioned one with a micrometer adjustable throat. At the time, he was one of the more prominent testers in the WW world, so i was glad for the opportunity to see what he thought. He was a great supporting presence. I decided to make a batch of 6 at the same time. There have been a number of prominent testers and a few seminars with some of the planes since. One SMC'er arranged for me to present at RIT when he was teaching there (long before i personally knew SMC existed). etc. A friend in Canada would come down and we would meet or go skiing. Then he would smuggle one back and sell it somewhere in the world (easier from Canada at that time)

After that batch, though, it did not seem to be a fun joke anymore, so i put them off, thinking maybe to revisit the whole enterprise in old age. Maybe when i could take it seriously?

A few things i learned:
There is seldom only one answer for every user and situation.
Within that context, fundamentals matter - tune the ones given, eliminate basic problems.
The best tuned planes in the world might or might not work well in a given situation for any specific user.
It is easy to make a plane perform poorly.
There are still things to learn, at least situationally, for me.
If it can't be made fun it's probably not that interesting.

I've always been involved with planes. Made my first match plane out of a 2 x 4 when still a teenager - it worked but nothing i'd show anyone, if it still existed. Been making parts for planes ever since. Still part of a group that meets every Wednesday night to work on planes for fun.

DSCN0012.jpg

DSC_0180.jpgDSC_0187.jpg

smt

[Charles Edward]

The problem is when some of the so-called 'experts' who are often invoked in these threads decide to make a video in which they produce 3/4" to 1" wide shavings with their smoother. That's not smoothing. It's a fundamental error of camber vs. cutter depth. Hard to listen to anything else they (or their mentors) have to say on hand planes and planing. I would suggest that you don't. Most are just aping all the British writers I referred to in another post and calling it their own. Go to the source.

[Jim Koepke]

Others to chime in with their memories?

I remember my first (adult) experiences with a hand plane. One was a Record #778 Rabbet/Rebate plane given to me. It didn't have a chip breaker and didn't work too well as a smoother. At the time my only honing stone was an old Washita purchased many years before. Another plane, a Lakeside #5 was given to me. It had a chip breaker, about which I knew nothing. Without a way to get a real sharp blade, it was noticed if the chip breaker was set too close to the blade's edge it would cause shavings to clog. It wasn't until improving my sharpening set up and skills combined with reading about setting the chip breaker here on SMC that knowing the chip breaker was doing something and knowing there was a method to setting the chip breaker kind of clicked and greatly improved my results when using planes.

jtk