Thread: Shapton pro series or ohishi waterstones?

I do have an LN no.4 bronze, 5 1/2 and 7 and a low angle Veritas and I had a veritas smoother which I regret selling Chris Vesper said I would regret and he was right. I will do exactly as you said and get back to you. Thanks heaps. I thought a higher angle was needed on the BU though but I will try that angle you mentioned before going on the others and see how that goes as well.

Originally Posted by section1

What little understanding I have of this and I mean little is this, all the closely fit chipbreakers is doing is physically applying a steep back bevel to a BD blade. The logic behind this it's easier to maintain a single bevel on a blade than it is a double bevel, the potential failure is that there is a chance that between pieces if there is a gap, shavings will jam.

I don't doubt your suggestions Derek but having screwed up one chipbreaker I'm reluctant to give it another go, since you've made mention that no chipbreakers underside are completely flat and ready to go I do not see the point in back beveling for the very reason I mentioned above. However I do have two options available to me, either purchase a high angle frog or purchase a spare blade and hone a 60 deg angle on it.

so is it fiddley to install a high angle frog or simpler just to replace blades when I need to.

That's a close assumption, but not quite right. The cap iron is bending the chip upward, but it is not the same as just applying a steep angle to a single iron. The cut is being made at 45 degrees, and the quality is generally that of a 45 degree cut if set properly.

The cap iron is pushing down on the chip to keep it from raising, just as a steep angled cutting edge would, but without requiring the actual cut to be made at a steep angle.

I'v disovered that modern day cap irons/chipbreakers are not designed to be messed with, I've also studies the stanley cap irons and they are curved much like having a 50 or 60° bevel on it and still you do get tear out. Just how Derek has managed to taake shavings against the grain bewilders me and if I'm ever down your way old boy I shall pay you a visit. The solution to the tearout issue was to hone a 50° bevel on my low angle jack, so far no tearout and where it wants to tear is tiny whiskers that can be scraped but it's very hard to push even with jobo oil on it so I'm expecting larger biceps soon enough. I've fallen in love with this timber all over again.

IanW once again thanks for a great afternoon, I simply had a ball and I love you tool cabinet and all those wooden clamps. If you still have the drawings for those bar clamps I would love to get a copy of it. It's not often one spends an afternoon with a fellow woodie just talking wood and nothing else, it was just sheer relaxation.

For lack of a better way to put it, if you keep using the stock stanley cap iron, eventually you will not have problems with tearout, and you won't have as much resistance as a single iron plane set at 62 total degrees (which is a bit of a wrist breaker with any shaving thickness).

I'm just curious though why did they abandon the stanley cap iron designs

You mean LN and LV? No clue.

Neither of them actually used the cap irons to break chips until recently, at least that's what I gather. That conclusion can be made easily for LN since they didn't seem to notice that their cap irons were too short to work on many of their planes.

LV apparently had the old style cap iron (stanley style, but thicker) on their original bench planes, but I don't think those ever sold well.

I'd be curious to know how many premium planes get heavy use (or purchased vintage planes for that matter).

When I first started this, I bought a bunch of vintage planes, and when they were available from someone else, I bought them from someone else used. I never had one that was used heavily and many still had their original primary bevel.

LN, I didn't know LV ever had them till just mentioned it.

I know I for one use my hand planes everyday and my saws for that matter even though I have machinery I limit their use to the point to where I might as well not have them. Let me clarify on this, my table saw not in use wasting valuable space real estate but my scroll saw, bandsaw for resawing only and lathe does get used as I consider this anything made either on the scroll saw or lathe hand made because it's me doing all the shaping just because a current is going through it doesn't mean it's machine made because we know clearly that isn't the case.

Would I ever consider buying another premium plane the answer is no, I don't see the point in it where one can finely tune an old pre war stanley but that's where the catch is for the beginners and where I got caught lack of knowledge. Ron Herman said the first thing I do when I get an apprentice is to teach him how to sharpen a handsaw, so knowing how to get these tools ready to work wood again should be everybodies primary objective. You have a life time to work wood invest a few months into learning these primary objectives and for the price of one LN or LV or any of the tool makers hand plane you can buy several oldies. There's one point I would like to add sometimes it's not feasible buying an old one due to high costs like the low angle jack rabbet plane. The antique market wants $850 for one but Lie Nielson is about the $245 mark and in Australia add another $100 on that. So these tool makers are important to have around even though they claim they have made improvements on the old Stanley Baileys which I fail to see where the improvements are besides the iron and cast iron being thicker. They also claim that the new and improved cap irons will eliminate chatter on their thicker irons I know this isn't the case since I have had chatter more than once or twice and as Paul Sellers showed in thin irons it's sometimes how you approach the cut and that's exactly what happened to me.

After having said all that I really wouldn't like to see any tool maker close shop they may be expensive but they do bring back to production tools that are no longer being produced by Stanley, record etc. and it's a living they have a right to make and are a passion too, we are no different to them, we also charge a lot for custom made even though I personally don't but it is what it is and we all depend on each to make a buck if lucky two.

There are many different potential topics here, each of which is capable of much debate as we all have the right to an opinion.

The thread began with a request for information about better waterstones as the assumption was that a sharper edge would control tearout when planing boards with reversing grain. What has emerged is the understanding that sharpness, per se, is not the factor here. The issue is how to plane a board to avoid tearout.

With wood that has reversing grain, which is more common among the hardwoods of Australia than other countries such as the USA and UK, there has been greater awareness (in recent years) of which planes are better suited to such woods. High angle planes, such as the HNT Gordon range, came to the fore and have a terrific reputation. I was using these planes at least a decade ago. Before this I had modified Stanley planes to higher frog angles or used a back bevel to effectively do the same thing. Around the time the first BU planes began production at LV, I acquired a Stanley #62 (the forerunner of the LV LA Jack and the LN #62). This was an amazing, albeit fragile, plane. It gave me an insight into what could be done with a BU plane with a blade in a high angle setting. It was because of the review I did on that plane that Rob Lee contacted me to check out the new LA Jack, and I was so impressed that I immediately purchased the LA Smoother (same as the LN #164). With a high cutting angle, this reigned supreme. This started a long involvement with LV testing planes, and this has recently included the new BD Custom range. Let it be understood that the BU planes offer the easiest way to taming interlocked grain.

The era of the chipbreaker has returned (it was always around, just not publicised in recent years). Actually, I think "era" is too strong a word since there is a steeper learning curve, although it is worth persevering to do it. Also, not many woodworkers around the world actually will need to work with the "exotics" and "middle-of-the-road" performances will suffice. The average Stanley or LN with common angle frog (45 degrees) and chipbreaker pulled back is going to do the job, as long as the blade is sharp and they stick to woods with predictable straight grain. Why are the LN and LV planes preferred over the common Stanley then? Because they are better planes. The blades are better. It is not just the thickness (which does dampen vibration) but they are flatter and, when tested on abrasive woods, the edges do last longer. All this is proven. David, you look at this area from a cost perspective, and that is only one point-of-view. Further, the LN and LV planes are better built, not just from ductile iron, but also precision of parts and adjustments. One person may not value this area highly enough to pay the extra, but it nevertheless remains true. I am not trying to argue a case why everyone, or anyone, should purchase a "premium plane" (this designation is a value determination), just calling attention to the pros and cons of all.

I own several Stanley planes. They now work as well as the LN and LV planes in taming interlocked grain. I have a favourite UK-made #3 and a USA-made #604. Interestingly, both are fitted with LV PMV-11 blades and chipbreakers. These are preferred in my workshop over the original Stanley versions. So your mileage may vary. It was during the testing of these blades and chipbreakers that I came to prefer the LV (especially) and LN over the Stanley. I have not had a problem using any of my LN chip breakers. What I find good about the Stanley is that the leading angle is already on the money. It still needs smoothing, but it is almost ready-to-go. The LN and LV leading edges are too low and need to be raised from 30- to about 45 degrees. All of the undersides of all of these chip breakers need to be checked for flatness. In the case of the Stanley, the bend now works to its advantage as there is less danger of losing registration area. This is more of an issue with the LN. The LV is pretty safe. What I dislike about the Stanley is that the flex makes it vulnerable to creep as it is set.

The LV Custom BD planes demonstrate what is possible with modern style chipbreakers. Read my review.

At the end of the day there are many ways to skin a cat. What a modern professional woodworker will do that is different to an olde world woodworker is anyones guess: I suspect more knew about setting the chipbreaker than in recent times. The world of handtools, in any event, remains largely the domain of the amateur, where speed is not the ultimate concern, and pleasure in a good tool is part of the equation.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Your statement is true I cannot alter it in anyway but I would like to point out that costs do play an integral part in a woodies life. I don't how much 60cents was worth back in the day when our great, great grandaddies were around for a plane so I cannot compare whether or not it was expensive for them as it is for us but all of this is becoming a moot point when timber prices in Australia compared to the US is overly expensive and continues to rise without just cause other than greed. However premium planes are expensive and not within everyones reach still I feel it's very important whether one can afford one or not to learn how to correctly tune the old relics. I saw IanW use his finely tuned Record even though the blade wasn't sharp it still pured and that's why I believe these old relics once done up are just as good as any premium on the market.

Just how Derek has managed to taake shavings against the grain bewilders me and if I'm ever down your way old boy I shall pay you a visit.

Salko, you are welcome any time to join me in my workshop. And then a beer.

The solution to the tearout issue was to hone a 50° bevel on my low angle jack, so far no tearout and where it wants to tear is tiny whiskers that can be scraped but it's very hard to push even with jobo oil on it so I'm expecting larger biceps soon enough. I've fallen in love with this timber all over again.

Try a squiggle or two of candle wax along the sole of the plane. That may change your experience of the LA Jack with a high cutting angle in a very positive way!

Regards from Perth

Derek

Cheers Derek hopefuly one day soon

It's strange how the oil didn't help but on other woods works really well, yes I did apply the wax and works quite well but my muscles are sore what a great work out loved every minute of it.

I'll agree that the new irons have better specs. I've set them aside, though, because in the flow of work they don't save me any time, and walking over to one (or two stones) and immediately rolling up a good wire edge is far better with the flow.

Stanley early century irons are modern process, there's really no reason they couldn't have been harder or some other type of alloy. I don't think most professional woodworkers had any interest in that kind of stuff. It's an amateur market "improvement". Stanley could've easily released upmarket irons if they wanted to, silicon carbide and aluminum oxide stones were common - and that includes large bench stone versions of razors hones that would've been similar to current resin bound stones - they were aluminum oxide in a matrix. They just never sold well. The silicon carbide stones sold a bunch, but few of them appear to have been used much.

That said, you can drop a premium plane and probably not break anything but the wood on it, and I don't believe that's the case on a stanley. As for whether or not the rest of the improvements actually matter in work with stuff commonly used in this country, no. Do they in peoples' heads? probably. If someone made an iron in a western plane that was 65 hardness, then that would be the next have to have thing. There is a detriment, too, and that is that perfectly finished steel that is dead flat brings in far more friction than something that is close to flat. A hand lapped plane is preferable to work with compared to a machine ground plane when fatigue enters into it.

How many people use their planes until they're fatigued? I don't know, probably not many. A plane that's perfectly flat is biased for the beginner to hit a mark or start a cut. A plane that is slightly convex (by a matter of several thousandths) along its length is biased for a skilled user, it will have less friction in use and it will not have the tendency to grip end grain on the end of a long panel, etc, and skip (that work is better done by a smoother, anyway).

What I'm getting at is that most of the items that are marketed as an improvement may help a beginner, but some of them are a detriment to a skilled user - albeit not a huge detriment, but one that's there. You cannot sell a vintage spec plane in the catalog wars, though. Beginners dollars rule.

This isn't specifically a cost issue, though, either. If I were in woodworking only for cost, I'd not have 50 saws or a collection of somewhere near 100 sharpening stones. God knows how many chisels I have, I don't. In the end, I'd advocate people buy what they want (in terms of tools) regardless of cost, because if a premium plane is too expensive purely on a cost analysis, what is one going to do when they have to buy good quality stock for a project several times a year?

Originally Posted by section1

LN, I didn't know LV ever had them till just mentioned it.

I know I for one use my hand planes everyday and my saws for that matter even though I have machinery I limit their use to the point to where I might as well not have them. Let me clarify on this, my table saw not in use wasting valuable space real estate but my scroll saw, bandsaw for resawing only and lathe does get used as I consider this anything made either on the scroll saw or lathe hand made because it's me doing all the shaping just because a current is going through it doesn't mean it's machine made because we know clearly that isn't the case.

Would I ever consider buying another premium plane the answer is no, I don't see the point in it where one can finely tune an old pre war stanley but that's where the catch is for the beginners and where I got caught lack of knowledge. Ron Herman said the first thing I do when I get an apprentice is to teach him how to sharpen a handsaw, so knowing how to get these tools ready to work wood again should be everybodies primary objective. You have a life time to work wood invest a few months into learning these primary objectives and for the price of one LN or LV or any of the tool makers hand plane you can buy several oldies. There's one point I would like to add sometimes it's not feasible buying an old one due to high costs like the low angle jack rabbet plane. The antique market wants $850 for one but Lie Nielson is about the $245 mark and in Australia add another $100 on that. So these tool makers are important to have around even though they claim they have made improvements on the old Stanley Baileys which I fail to see where the improvements are besides the iron and cast iron being thicker. They also claim that the new and improved cap irons will eliminate chatter on their thicker irons I know this isn't the case since I have had chatter more than once or twice and as Paul Sellers showed in thin irons it's sometimes how you approach the cut and that's exactly what happened to me.

After having said all that I really wouldn't like to see any tool maker close shop they may be expensive but they do bring back to production tools that are no longer being produced by Stanley, record etc. and it's a living they have a right to make and are a passion too, we are no different to them, we also charge a lot for custom made even though I personally don't but it is what it is and we all depend on each to make a buck if lucky two.

I don't have any wish for any of the makers to cease to exist, either. The function of providing a beginning user with a working plane is an important one, I think, especially if the user is essentially working in a vacuum. and to anyone else who wants to use one of the modern make planes (they certainly are far squarer on average for shooting).

We've got the pick of the vintages over here, I guess. The vintage stanley planes come in low angle about the same price as the LV bevel up planes, but I'd buy the latter given the choice without question (at one point, I did). I don't use bevel up planes now, and haven't had a second thought about not using them. I still have some block planes, but it's uncommon to get one out and use it since a smoother is always at hand and it does just fine with things most people use a block plane for.

There's a significant infeasibility issue, too, with old planes, and that is the person who is working in a vacuum and who first gets a vintage plane that has been abused - they don't have a great chance of getting a great working plane.

As far as the chatter goes with stanley planes, it disappears once they are set up correctly. I think LN would tell me they could prove that their chipbreaker is improved by demonstrating chatter with a stanley plane and none with theirs. I could spend very little time showing them how to get their stanley plane to literally stand them on end due to the shaving being too thick - before it would chatter, but I doubt they have much interest in that.

Originally Posted by D.W.

As far as the chatter goes with stanley planes, it disappears once they are set up correctly. I think LN would tell me they could prove that their chipbreaker is improved by demonstrating chatter with a stanley plane and none with theirs. I could spend very little time showing them how to get their stanley plane to literally stand them on end due to the shaving being too thick - before it would chatter, but I doubt they have much interest in that.

Can you elaborate on this as I'm not following may be because I just woke up and my brain isn't fully awake yet.