Tapered vs Krenov/Hock vs Japansese Style irons

[David Weaver]

Best is not to have too many planes....

Agreed - learn the plane, learn how it likes to be set, done. And I am a plane pig, but I recognize there is much more value in using a few planes that are very capable than a whole bunch of specialized planes.

The subtle differences in how all of the planes like to be set is something that doesn't even require conscious thought - just some repetition. Just as setting the cap iron in the first place, it's better done by experience and experimentation than it is by trying to create an apparatus or shim or some other such thing to set the iron.

[Pedro Reyes]

This is going to the "Printed Version" and I will stick it inside Whelan's or Lee's book.

@Winston A.

I ignore how the Japanese do it

I meant I don't know how they do it, not that I purposely discard them. I don't own any, I do have a Dozuki, a Ryoba and several Chisels, but not a single plane. Most people who try them swear by them, I don't need another addiction to tools ;-).

Thanks again to all.

/p

[David Weaver]

No worries, there are a lot of people who buy a couple of japanese planes and don't use them often. Count me in that group (I have more than a couple, actually). They would make more sense for someone working mostly with softwoods, but the mechanism by which they are maintained (full bevel sharpening) and the fact that they're less convenient (more time consuming) to set the double iron and then adjust depth while it's set makes less sense where something like a bailey plane is ideal (medium hardwoods, especially if they are figured and you are doing more than smoothing).

It's nice to have a cheap japanese plane as a jack plane, though - one where you're not afraid to grind a significant camber on the iron and use it as a break from pushing planes.

Despite the protests of the ardent supporters, you're not really missing anything if you don't use japanese planes, just as if you were fully tooled up with japanese planes, there's no great need to use western planes.

[Pedro Reyes]

Despite the protests of the ardent supporters, you're not really missing anything if you don't use japanese planes, just as if you were fully tooled up with japanese planes, there's no great need to use western planes.

I figured, thanks. I have nothing against them, but already too invested in western planes.

inb4 the 47 Ronin storm in here to edmucate the crap out of us.

/p

[David Weaver]

inb4 the 47 Ronin storm in here to edmucate the crap out of us.

/p

You'll always get the most vocal insistence from the individuals on the fringes of both types. It will include comments like "definitely, my way is better, others are hacks" or lots of things that involve the words "you need" , "you must", or "you have to".

I can't think of much I haven't tried, other than "store bought" infill planes. Of the tools made when professionals used tools, and the tools made now in the same way, I can't see a lot that blocks progress with any of them as a user other than familiarity. The subtleties that you get from familiarity are worth more than the differences vs. something else.

[Jim Matthews]

You need to balance what works best with cost.

Lots of good quality tapered Western iron rolling around.
I can't make heads or tails of what makes a good Japanese blade.
(The information is asymmetric - my resource for research is also selling the stuff.)

FWIW - I really like the steel Ron Hock supplies, it's easy to sharpen and there's nothing to work around with fresh blades.

[Jack Curtis]

No worries, there are a lot of people who buy a couple of japanese planes and don't use them often. Count me in that group (I have more than a couple, actually). They would make more sense for someone working mostly with softwoods, but the mechanism by which they are maintained (full bevel sharpening) and the fact that they're less convenient (more time consuming) to set the double iron and then adjust depth while it's set makes less sense where something like a bailey plane is ideal (medium hardwoods, especially if they are figured and you are doing more than smoothing)....

There's no need to routinely use a double iron in Japanese planes, only when you're getting piles of tearout. Otherwise, a single iron is fine, normal use, all you need.

[David Weaver]

Someone trying to use a japanese plane on lots of figured wood would find that they're getting piles of tearout unless they choose to take very thinner shavings - unless they use a double iron.

Thinner shavings has not ever been my preference - it's boredom by a thousand swipes of the plane. or death of time by a thousand swipes of the plane.

In the event that the wood is straight and you can always plane downhill on it somewhere, it's less critical.

[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

[Chris Griggs]

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.......

Hey don't insult the other 9 of us just because Dave is a Sponge Bob Cranky Pants....

[David Weaver]

Any time someone is actually precise about anything, there is always a "this is why nobody comes to this forum". It doesn't amount to a whole lot - it's been said on every forum that I've ever been on, and it's only really accurate when there are trolls at work (and there are none here that I'm aware of).

The best thing that ever happened to this forum, in my opinion, is George deciding he'd like to spend some time here after he retired and imparting some design wisdom on the rest of us. The *quality* of the discussion here, and the accuracy of it, over the last 3 or 4 years is better by a factor of 10 than the "everything's good!" type of discussion that preceded.

I am sponge bob cranky pants sometimes, but I try to provide measured accurate comments, and without being too specific about things that folks trot out here that they make -and some make for pay. I make some ugly stuff, too, and before george pointed us in the right direction in terms of style, I made a lot of ugly stuff and didn't really examine why it was lacking. If I was to make something for pay, I would feel obligated to do the kind of research that someone like George or Larry would do, and make things as well as they have.

At any rate, I don't think I do any beginners a disservice by mentioning that not everything that's new is better or even as good, just because it's new, or that not every turnkey tool is better in the end just because it's easier to use in the beginning.

[Steve Voigt]

I make some ugly stuff, too, and before george pointed us in the right direction in terms of style, I made a lot of ugly stuff and didn't really examine why it was lacking. If I was to make something for pay, I would feel obligated to do the kind of research that someone like George or Larry would do, and make things as well as they have.

It's an important distinction. If someone wants to make a plane purely to accomplish some specific, short-term task, then there is nothing wrong with making it out of buttcrack wood and using whatever iron or scrap of tool steel is convenient. Like the open-sided grooving planes that Dave posted a few weeks ago.*
On the other hand, if you're trying to make a plane that has a permanent place in your starting lineup, that's going to sit on your bench for the next 20 years, then the details start to matter. And that goes double if you're trying to charge money for a plane.


* though I think those were made of beech, not buttcrack.

[Chris Griggs]

I was just giving you and Jeff crap.

I don't have a strong opinion about this topic, but I do find the conversation interesting and educational, particularly the features of the plane you posted a pic of.

I do agree that the whole "this is why nobody comes to this forum" or "this is why this forum has a bad reputation" is a tired comment that I see on every forum. I read other forums, and I don't really see anything different or better.

I have some opinions on some of the other stuff you mentioned as well...like $800 Krenov planes being pushed as a good option/investment for someone just assembling a set of planes....but you already know my opinion on that...

As to the topic at hand, I personally would prefer to find a vintage tapered iron as well, for all functional and aesthetic reasons already stated.


...BTW...but just becasue I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, doesn't mean that I retract my Sponge Bob Cranky Pants comment