What did I buy myself into!

[Josh Bowman]

I just got in an order of Hock blades. I got one for a Stanley 4, 7, and 112 scraper. I've spent over an hour trying to flatten the backs of the 4 and 112 (the 112 was way out and still not flat)! I called Hock and the owner answered. He was agreeable to swap blades if I wasn't happy, but agreed that flat is hard to achieve. I guess I misunderstood and thought I was paying (a total of 140 bucks) for precision. But I really don't see these being any more flat than the original blades. I finally got the #4's blade relatively flat and sharpened it up and put it to the test. It does seem more stable.......I don't know if it's that much ($$$) more. It's hard to tell. To encourage me, I took the #7 blade out of the package and pushed it a few times on the course DMT dimond stone and it's the same. What makes matter worse is the back edge has be back beveled (slightly) back about 1/4".
My question, how much do you have to spend to get some precision?....All I'm asking for, is to take the back of the blade down a stone and see it's hitting fairly even. Mr. Hock said he liked the ruler trick and it seems that is what was done to the 4 and 7 blades. He also said the specs he gives to the French company is 1 mil per inch flat on the edge. I feel the ruler trick is a shortcut for a bad blade, not a quality one.
Ok I feel better now.....I've vented.
Josh

[Richard Magbanua]

Well, as I understand it, flattening the blade really refers to to removing the fine marks left by factory grinding. Most will not bother to grind to a mirror polish because of the time involved and the chance that they'll get banged around anyways during distribution. The Hock blades and LN blades, from what I've seen, should be sharp enough to cut out of the box. However, they will work better after "flattening" and honing. The fine marks left after the factory grind look like ridges under a microscope. No matter how much of a mirror polish you put on the bevel-side of the blade, the ridges on the flat side will cause the edge to have a microscopic jaggedness to it. If you polish these out about an inch back from the tip, or less using the ruler trick, you should be all set for the life of the blade except for a little touch-up after resharpening or you have to grind out a nick. Now, I don't worry about a flat edge on my blades unless its the one I use for the shooting board. I put a camber, or slight curve on all of them.
I hope this helps, unless I'm mistaken about something.

Take care,
Richard

[David Gendron]

Wow, I'm surprised to read you disapointment, I bought quite a few Hock blade and allways been happy with them. That said, I noticed that the Krenov style blade are a little rougher than the other stanley replacement blades, but still not a big deal to flaten and polish!

[Jim Koepke]

Before I finished this, Richard Magbanua also posted a good reply.

You do not mention if these are HC blades or A2.

I have spent a lot of time on different blades trying to get the perfect back. I have not had as bad as luck as you with the Hock blades. They have usually done well for me.

I have found that the original Stanley blades can be made to shave wood just as well as the secondary blades on the market. The difference being how stiff the blade is and how this contributes to the blade chattering or "singing" in the cut.

I also have a lot of old blades with various degrees of pitting. They can still work well.

One thing I remember from a conversation when I met Ron Hock at a tool show in Oakland, California a few years ago is him saying that people do not buy his blades for the blades, they buy them for the surface they leave on the wood.

In my sharpening, I do not use the ruler trick. I am sure it works, but every time one of my blades is sharpened, the back side is honed if for nothing more than to get rid of a wire edge.

Many times, we can be our own worst enemy when trying to flatten the back of a blade. Not only does the sharpening media have to be perfectly flat, if one is using a dry media like a diamond stone, it needs to be constantly cleaned off so the removed metal doesn't build up under the blade and cause the blade to rock as it is being worked. If one is going side to side, this can be made worse by the physics of the bodies' motion.

My suggestion would be to attend to the bevel and get it as sharp as possible. Do not try to camber the blade. Only work the back enough to remove any wire edge. Put the blade into a plane and put it to work. If it can not make good shavings, then it is time to escalate the search for what could be wrong.

My method of checking for sharpness once the blade is in the plane is how thin of a shaving can be made. This will depend on the wood being used. My most used wood is pine. Usually, a well sharpened blade in any of my planes can make a shaving of .001" or less in any of my planes. if the shaving has a slice down through the length, then it likely has a nick. If it only comes out from part of the blade, then my stone is likely not flat.

There is a lot one can tell about the blade from a thin shaving.

Good luck and please keep us informed about your results.

jim

[harry strasil]

I have never wasted time flattening a blade or a chisel, I just hone the cutting edge and a bit on the back/front whatever you prefer to call it, and I especially look for and buy all the old tapered laid on blades/chisels I find as they hold an edge much better. FWIW.

I often wonder how our predecessors made such beautiful work without all the so called new improved LOL blades. Where they just better craftsmen or better sharpeners?

RANT!

And no cumbersome time consuming fancy jigs to hold them to hone with, is the new generation just possessed with owning every so called easier to use jig they can lay there hands on, so they can waste numerous hours trying to emulate what the old timers did with their hands and little time as they needed to put product out the door to make a living.

[Richard Magbanua]

I forgot to mention, you discussed taking the blade down the stone to check for evenness. My stones are usually flat only after they are flattened. After I start to sharpen them, that's it, they ain't flat no more. Don't worry about precision as in a flat/straight edge. Sharpness is the result of two planes (surfaces) meeting at the smallest point possible for your method of choice. Check the straightness/camber with a square, not the stone.

I bought my Hock blade because it was a bit thicker (?) and it didn't have all the nicks and pitting that the original blade had. Much improved since then. You could do as well with a vintage blade of course, I just chose to buy a new one and was happy I did.

[Michael Schwartz]

You paid money for quality steel, that has been properly hardened/tempered.

Tool steel is hard, flattening the back of a blade can take time. The hock Irons I have purchased have needed a little bit of work but were not bad to begin with.

Make sure your starting out with something coarse, I usually start lapping dry with 100 grit sand paper on flat surface. I then move up incrementally through grits alternating with each grit between a diagonal, and parallel scratch pattern so you can see clearly how well you have removed scratches from the previous grit.

Some tools like my Japanese chisels with hollow ground backs took no time at all. I spent quite a bit of time flattening out the backs on my 2 cherries bench chisels however. I think I spent about 5 hours combined from a few attempts lapping the sole on my Stanley #5 but it was well worth it.

[Paul Atkins]

I'm with Harry. Not really a rant though. (The amount of time I've spent on this forum I could have sharpened all my tools to the 'nth' degree too.) So I've got a few dull tools and lots of interesting information. Hmmm

[Jeff Heath]

I've had both Hock replacement blades and Lie Nielsen blades to replace irons in old Stanley planes. What I found is that the Hock blades need a little more work to flatten the backs, but are equally good once they are tuned properly.

It is a fact of woodworking life that tools need to be sharpened. In my years as a professional woodworker, especially teaching hand tool skills to new woodworkers, I have found that the most frustration comes during the learning curve of sharpening one's tools.

It is evident in this thread. Replies have ranged from fully polishing both the back and bevel of a cutting iron (which is correct, btw) to the "who cares, just stick it in the tool the way it comes and get busy planing" which probably leads to a tool that is not functioning to its fullest capability.

Flattening the back of a plane iron or a chisel does take some time. It is definitely a pain in the rear, but it is something that you are going to do ONCE to that iron or chisel. Once you've gotten a properly flattened and polished back, and a properly polished bevel, you now have, metallurgically speaking, an intersection of equally flat surfaces that meet at a very precise point........a sharp edge! From that point on, your re-sharpening efforts should take just a few moments to re-affirm the microbevel, and give the back just a few swipes to remove the burr.

If you're trying to improve your hand tool skills, or create them in the first place, you will find that you will accomplish much more with a properly tuned and sharpened tool.

[Ed Griner]

Josh,I would suggest to HOCK that the backs,be flattened on a surface grinder(HIS!)before being shipped.Some of my planes cost less than some after market blades. Good luck sharpening!
Ed

[Joel Goodman]

I have one Hock blade (carbon steel) and also found it a huge PITA to flatten -- in fact I still haven't got it flat to my satisfaction.
The LN and LV blades IMHO come a whole lot flatter. I also have a carbon steel Ray Isles blade from Joel at TWW which was advertised to have a sort of hollow in the back like a japanese chisel (but less pronounced) and it flattened very quickly for that reason. It's a bit thicker (almost 1/8th) so I had to open the plane mouth a touch but it's one sweet blade. http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/M...tegory_Code=TR The link explains the theory of the "warp".

[Dan Racette]

Richard pointed out that you flatten "one inch back". From what I was taught, and believe me I'm no expert, that's alot. to achieve a "flat back to front bevel angle" you really only need a sliver truly flat. Also what is your flat reference?

I use a machinist's granite surface plate with PSA paper to do my back flattening, not a stone. I understand that it's not a necessity, but it takes out some variables. If you are using waterstones, they need to be reflattened often.

You might also need to consider Jr.'s comment's validity as well. I do a lot of effort to flatten a lot of my backs, but I admit that I have a few tools that I take right to the honing stages after very little effort. But for the sake of the "flatness paradigm" I would say that you'd need to consider a few variables before I'd ask for a new blade. (That's not to say a new one isn't warranted).

D

[Josh Bowman]

Folks,
I am blessed and humbled to have all you comments. Now that I've had a few hours to think about it, I'll insure you have the facts. All of my blades start with the DMT diamond extra course or course. I try to keep it on a very flat surface and use water to lube it. I then use a set of king water stones that are flattened after each section with the DMT stone. The Hocks are all Hi Carbon steel.
When I put the #4 blade to the DMT stone, it showed a low place on one side. Swapping the blade to the other side of the stone did not change that. After wearing my arms out, it had mostly consistent scratches on the back (the one side still showed some deep mill marks though). I then took the blade up to 8000 grit then to a piece of very flat cherry with diamond paste on it. The result was a back you could see yourself in, except for the one side which is a little dull. The process was repeated at 25 degrees on the other side. The test I use is to clamp a piece of pine in a vise and see if the new edge will shave the end grain. The hock did a good job at this test and good at planing a piece cherry..... then it started making lines in the wood surface. So remembering an earlier post, I looked close at the edge and found nicks.....that did not encourage me much to the tempering of the blade, but I did like how the blade "felt" in the old Stanley #4, very stable.
Encouraged some I pulled out the 112 blade and started to flatten the back of it. 10 strokes on the DMT stone and it only showed about 1/8 to 1/4" on the edges......the middle was untouched! That's when I called Ron Hock. To his credit he was willing to swap blades, but said it's hard to get a 112 flat, in addition he said his blades are only spec'ed to 1 thousands per inch. Well a thousandth is a lot of steal to rub off. But I continued for about 30 to 40 minutes until the blade only lacked about 3/4" of concave area and my arms were about dead. Trying to muster a positive attitude about my new $140 investment, I grabbed the #7 blade and found that the lower edge about 1" did not even touch the stone! Now I'm only trying to flatten as little as I can. But it's hard to hold only an inch of long steel on a stone. That's when I had it. I'm trying to think why I want to keep them. They are only a little better than the original blades. They do have more beef, but remember the nick that formed? All the beef in the world will not help a badly tempered blade.
The bottom line has to do with quality. I would expect that a blade that is bought at a premium price would only have to have the tooling marks rubbed out, but to remove steel to get rid of a concave blade or one that has been back beveled is not what I expected. It looks like a slip in quality control between France and here to me.
Thank you all so much for your experiance. It has been a real help.
Josh

[Josh Bowman]

Richard pointed out that you flatten "one inch back". From what I was taught, and believe me I'm no expert, that's alot. to achieve a "flat back to front bevel angle" you really only need a sliver truly flat. Also what is your flat reference?D

I wish I could flatten only a small amount. But I have to do 1-2 inches to keep the blade flat on the stones. Trying to hold that thick of blades tip less than 1/2" on the stone is nearly impossible. Mybe I need to give in to the ruler trick, but the DMT stone is about 3" wide, the 800/4000 water stone is about 2 1/2" wide and the 1200/6000 is 2" wide.....I don't know how to keep from creating several different angle back bevels.
I to use a granite stone with psa at times, but find it not much better for me. I do agree flattening these things so much is a bit of an obsession. The results are what I should be driven by. But you always want to see if you can get just a little flatter, wider and thinner shaven of wood.
Josh

[Dan Racette]

If you flatten more than a quarter inch or so, sometimes if the area that's farther away is farther "out" that the area that's "closer" you might not be able to get the blade to "register" to the stone. I also think it's important to keep very equal pressure, emphasize very, equal pressure across the contact surface. I've had to redo the plane blades, especially the HCS. (or are you using a piece of wood).

D