Tapered vs Krenov/Hock vs Japansese Style irons

[Pedro Reyes]

At some point I would like to make a plane out of Beech, not a Krenov lamination but a traditional one.

I know Lee Valley sells some nice tapered irons, and that most (if not all) traditional planes had this style, using wedge mortises (sides) . The Krenov style, has straight blade/cap iron assemblies wedged using the cross pin, and honestly I ignore how the Japanese do it, I even think I heard once their irons are tapered fat at the top, thin at the business end.

In any case, Hock now offers longer blade/cap assemblies, so I thought, why not build a traditional plane using a double iron? Has anyone done this? Does anyone think it would not work because the blade/cap assembly is not really tapered? Can anyone provide insight as to what might change from what Whelan (or Perch & Lee) state in their books? Or any tips?

much appreciated.

/p

[Warren Mickley]

Double iron beech planes have at least a 250 year history. By 1790 or so double iron planes were the standard. At that time parallel or gaged irons were available at a premium. They were obviously more expensive to manufacture. I personally made my first double iron plane in 1975. They work well.

[Jim Matthews]

Steve Voigt built my mini-smoother that way.

It's a breeze to adjust, a bear to disassemble
because the fit between the cap iron and blade
create a vacuum seal.

Steve is a regular on the forum, and makes excellent planes in the traditional
style you and I admire.

[Jeff Heath]

I make traditional style planes, and I have used both the Veritas tapered single iron and the Hock 4 1/2" double iron. In my personal opinion, the planes perform equally well with either iron. It's a personal preference between single iron or double iron. With a tapered iron, as you tap the iron forward to advance it, you also loosen the wedge, so you have to remember to tap the wedge also with your plane hammer. If you set the iron for a thick shaving, and want to back it out, it's best to just loosen it, pull it out, and start over by advancing the iron and the wedge until satisfied with your depth set.

I'm making a strike block plane for use a shooting plane, and I'm using the Veritas tapered iron for it.

[Christopher Charles]

Hello Jeff,

Would love to see progress or at least completion pics of your strike block plane (pardon the highjack--perhaps you could do a build thread?).

Thanks!
C

[Pedro Reyes]

Thanks all for your feedback, quite valuable.

/p

[Steve Voigt]

Jim, thanks for the kind words.
Pedro, I have made double iron planes with both Hock irons and vintage tapered irons, the latter usually purchased on ebay. They both work very well. The lack of taper on the Hocks is not really an issue, for two reasons. First, even an untapered single iron can work fine in a traditional plane; tapered irons just work a little better. But more importantly, in a double iron, the "sandwich" of iron + chipbreaker is tapered, because of the bend in the chipbreaker. So you get the mechanical advantage of a taper even though the iron itself is not tapered.
I use the Hock 3 1/2" irons on small planes, like Jim's, that are intended for one-handed use. I radius the top, so that the blade nestles in the palm of the hand. But I wouldn't use one on a full size plane. The 4 1/2" should work on a full size plane, but it doesn't leave you with a ton of extra blade.
For the full size planes I've built, I've used vintage tapered irons. The upside is that they can often be had for super cheap. The downside is they can take a lot of labor to flatten, remove pits, and get the chipbreaker and iron to mate properly. If you go this route, try to get one in as good condition as possible. There's an outfit on ebay called "gandmtools" that sells NOS vintage irons. Even with shipping from England, it's still less than you'd pay for a Hock, and the irons are almost twice as long. But I've also done fine refurbishing used irons that I bought for $10 or less; it just takes more work.
It is harder to make a high-functioning double iron plane than it is to make a single iron plane. The main issue is getting the plane to feed properly. I advise keeping the wear bevel small. But, the rewards are greater. A well made double iron will outperform a single iron every time.
I have a blog, The Black Dog's Woodshop, with several plane builds on it. You may find it useful.

- Steve

[David Weaver]

At some point I would like to make a plane out of Beech, not a Krenov lamination but a traditional one.

I know Lee Valley sells some nice tapered irons, and that most (if not all) traditional planes had this style, using wedge mortises (sides) . The Krenov style, has straight blade/cap iron assemblies wedged using the cross pin, and honestly I ignore how the Japanese do it, I even think I heard once their irons are tapered fat at the top, thin at the business end.

In any case, Hock now offers longer blade/cap assemblies, so I thought, why not build a traditional plane using a double iron? Has anyone done this? Does anyone think it would not work because the blade/cap assembly is not really tapered? Can anyone provide insight as to what might change from what Whelan (or Perch & Lee) state in their books? Or any tips?

much appreciated.

/p

Find an NOS double iron set on ebay (from a beech wooden plane) and build your plane using it instead of a modern iron that looks tacky and amateurish in that style of plane.

I think I've used these sellers:
gandmtoolsales
sigee6t4

[Jeff Heath]

Find an NOS double iron set on ebay (from a beech wooden plane) and build your plane using it instead of a modern iron that looks tacky and amateurish in that style of plane.

So, what you're saying here is that if somebody builds traditional style planes, but they use a brand new, perfectly made, and high quality double iron from Ron Hock, or single tapered iron from Veritas, then that plane is "tacky and amateurish"??????

Wasn't it you just a few weeks ago steering a thread about old double irons where the quality was hit or miss? Some were too hard, and some wouldn't hold an edge for nothing???? I read that thread, and agreed with your assessment, because that has been my experience, too.

So, according to you, modern day planemakers are tacky and amateurish if they make a plane that works perfectly, fits well in the hand, feeds well, but use a high quality high carbon steel iron made consistently.... one after the next off the line from Ron Hock or Lee Valley. Or.......we should just go the hit or miss route buying up a bunch of NOS stock from antique dealers in England????????

Do you ever actually read some of the stuff that comes out of your keyboard before hitting the "enter" button???????????

It's this kind of thinking and spewing that results in the same 10 people talking to each other in this forum, and is why so many good, talented woodworkers from all around on other forums stay away from here.

Enjoy yourself and your sandbox.......

[David Weaver]

If someone made a plane in the style that old street tool makes, and put a square hock iron in it, I'd call it tacky, modernish, and amateurish looking. Yes. But a lot of what's being put out has compromises in how it looks because the makers either take shortcuts or just miss the boat in the little things that make the older english planes look really great. Larry is probably the only person making traditional planes who has the eyes right on the planes and does a good job with design, including how the iron looks. Larry didn't come to that by accident. Phil comes to mind as having nice design and nice crisp lines, too.

I have had (like I said) an auburn iron that wasn't very impressive - one (it may appear in some of my past posts as "ohio tool" because I incorrectly thought it was an ohio tool iron). The others vary in hardness, I feel like the ward is too hard for oilstones (though it's tolerable if someone absolutely wouldn't want to change), but a waterstone user would find no issue with it. It's easy to correct, and many times nicer looking than anything new. In its current state, it's probably about as hard or a tick harder than hock's stuff. So, anyway, out of about 20 double iron sets, I've had one that was very hard and one that was junk. that leaves 90% of them being perfectly fine for use right away, 95% if you don't mind really hard irons, and at an average cost of probably $15 (a completely NOS marples, nurse, etc, double iron set may be $40).

Here are some other examples of compromises in current planes (separate and aside even of function issues):
* unattractive handle designs or liberties taken on the horn of the tote that don't look good
* roundovers on long edges instead of chamfers, or sanding away of crispness on chamfers (perhaps for speed), heavy sanding around all curved surfaces
* wedges that lack in design (see an old english plane where the wedge was crisply made and chamfered all the way around, and there wasn't anything curved on it, etc)
* termination of roundovers or chamfers don't look right
* irons are modern irons with a look that doesn't match a plane
* wood is whatever is available (instead of beech or apple - getting large amounts of long apple is a pipe dream at this point, but beech wouldn't be for a maker with foresight)
* Modern fonts or laser engraving on metal parts instead of stamps with a font with serifs.

I don't automatically say anything that's OK that's made now is great just because it would make current makers feel good. I'm not aware of any current plane that is a match for the mathiesen try plane I posted in another thread. The cleanliness of the mortise, the style of the plane, the execution of the eyes, and the very lovely looking (if a bit hard for my taste) ward iron, and good quality beech are better than anything I can think of, short of larry's stuff (which I don't love because it's single iron), and possibly phil's.

Steve V is making some very nice planes, and I know he's got a lot of interest in the design and style of the older english planes - if he wants to make planes like those, it seems he's got the head and hands to do it. They were the best i've seen (the english planes). As george has pointed out before, most people who stray from the design of those older planes would be a lot better off if they'd just focus on making dead-on copies of them.

At any rate, I don't consider the english irons "hit or miss". I do consider them to vary some in hardness, but that's not really much of a problem. the only real problem with them would be a newbie spending $15 on a double iron set with pitting that they have no chance of removing the pits from, thus the suggestion to spend a few extra bucks and get one that's fresh and NOS-looking. Newbies might confuse consistency in hardness for irons from iron to iron for quality or utility (I did, I considered any iron that yielded quickly to an arkansas stone to be something that was probably not wear resistant enough). In reality, if the iron is within a usable range of hardness (something like 57-62) it will be fine. Above 62 doesn't really return a reward in durability equal to the extra effort to sharpen on anything other than diamonds.

Fortunately for most of the current makers, most buyers are beginners who really have no idea about planes because they haven't used many and they certainly haven't made any noteworthy planes. Most planes are tried out a little and then spend their life on a rack. It appears to me that it's more important for a current maker to be nice than it is for them to be good at design or execution, and most buyers will have no knowledge that the plane they buy for several hundred bucks has nothing on the matheisen plane that I got for about $80, or the jt brown plane that I got quite some time ago unused for either $25 or $40.

Anyway, I'm not going to carry water for mix and match modern planes and especially not for multi hundred (and sometimes thousand dollar) krenov planes. Other people can spend their money how they like, I hope they don't regret it if they ever go down the rabbit hole of actually learning about planes and using them very seriously for more than smoothing (which is really the only place where modern irons have some advantage - wear resistance so you can take the maximum number of 1 thousandth shavings before resharpening - for heavier work, the ease in sharpening and grinding of the vintage irons outclasses the modern irons).

It's one thing to make good new planes that work well and are "good" with some bumbles in terms of design elements, and another thing entirely to make a plane that is a match for a vintage english plane both in function and design. It almost takes a personality type like Larry or George to do it, and fortunately for the real fanatics of both ends of the deal, Larry chose to make planes, and unfortunately for the fanatics, George doesn't love making the same thing over and over.

[David Weaver]

Pardon me - the try plane is a griffiths of norwich, and a closed handle jack plane that I have is a matheisen. Comments about design elements still apply. Pictures attached (note the proportion of the eyes ans their even thinness along the side of the plane, and the fit of the wedge to what is probably a plane at least 100 years old. How precise do you think it was when it was new?). I was off, it was a little less than $80, also, I had to go back and look. It's new enough to start to have some compromises in design (some things about the wedge, the handle is good but not great - still tasteful, though, and the chamfers are not as crisp as they would've been on a plane 100 years older), but not many.

The mathiesen plane that had me confused came courtesy of fine tool journal's tool sales in similar condition to this one - for $32. It makes the argument for new planes hard to justify, unless one just has no tolerance for looking for a good older one or no idea what to look for.

$_57.jpg $_572.jpg$_573.jpg$_574.jpg

[Steve Voigt]

Pardon me - the try plane is a griffiths of norwich…

It's a very nice looking plane. As you say, the fit of the wedge prongs to the abutments is pretty amazing for a plane that was probably made 150 years ago. Another nice feature is how the sharp line that begins the taper of the abutments lines up perfectly with the top of the wear bevel.

Two questions:
- How far from the bottom do the abutments terminate? From the pic, it looks like they go quite far down, but I can't tell for sure.
- How big is the wear bevel, and any idea what the approx. angle of the wear is? I was interested in Kees' remark that the Seaton double irons have an 87° wear angle. I really need to get my hands on that book.

[David Weaver]

Steve, that was the plane I originally offered to picture because I thought it had some extra work below the abutments, but found it's just cleanly done.

I'll check the angles and find out what they are. The mouth is tight on it for a double iron plane, but it doesn't get in its own way. The picture of the bottom doesn't do it justice, because the iron is partially retracted. Just how tight the mouth is while not interfering with feeding is a testament to how much the maker felt it was important to make it that way, even though they were fighting costs on some of the other aspects around the outside of the plane.

$_5745.jpg

[Pedro Reyes]

For the record, I was not discouraged, I appreciate the insight and value everyone's opinion on the matter. And while I am not shooting for an authentic look over function, much less please anyone, I will give that a shot (using an old traditional blade), because why not? Why not make it look nice without sacrificing function, I do have an old (German) blade that came off a wooden plane (freebie).

I hope I don't offend anyone, but usually only about a page to a page and a half is good on most threads, before it goes down an arguing path.

peace

/p

[Kees Heiden]

That looks like a really fine mouth for a wooden plane! I never stumble on stuff like that. Do you have some measurement, or maybe even pictures from the mouth and abutment area of that plane?