Apart from the Sacrilege

[Derek Cohen]

There is less finesse in setting it than you're implying, and I don't find one or the other type any easier (faster or more precise) to set. It is the benefit of experience, I guess, but presumably every woodworker will get to the point that they have "experience" as that's what most are lacking, not ease of tool use.

Lee Valley may have known how to set the cap iron when they sold their planes and designed their new cap iron, but I'd imagine LN did not, and their design likely has less to do with actually setting the cap iron for use than for some other reason. Why do I think that? Because for years, they made planes where the cap iron couldn't even be set close to the edge and they never once suggested using the cap iron for mitigating tearout.

David, One should not have to finesse the chipbreaker to set it. The Stanley requires more finesse to set up than the Veritas or LN (in my experience).

Further, the Veritas and LN chipbreakers are very similar in set up. The only difference is that the LN is longer, and the short Veritas is actually easier to set up as a result. (Not to forget that it has a better chipbreaker screw!! )

I was not there, so it's too easy to critique. Probably I would have made a mess in front of a public. Anyway, 0.4 mm isn't quite close enough. I don't know if you measured it, and how you measured it? If it doesn't work well enough, push it a little closer.

Kees, I did not measure the distance. I placed it as close as I could that looked to be .3 -.4 ... I am just calling it .4 ... that should be enough, especially with a 60 degree leading edge. I could feel the chip changing. The shavings straightened out. So the chipbreaker was "working" - it just was not doing enough.

Don't take this a a knock about chipbreakers in general. I am a supporter. But I also try to be impartial with such situations - these are just the results of one test that was as level a playing field as I could make.

You set the cap iron too close and your comparison isn't relevant, then.

Too close now ... it was too far with Kees ...

It is relevant to recognise that I did my best, and I have quite a bit of experience in this regard. And it did not work the way I expected it would. But the other planes did. That should say something.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Derek, I don't doubt that you've set a lot of cap irons, but I doubt they have been set properly in most cases given the results you've presented over the last two years.

I think you set it too close. If you didn't measure and you're guessing, I'd assume your guess at the distance is overestimated (I have not ever measured or found reason to measure the cap iron distance, it would be a threat to the edge of the iron).

Anyway, if the plane is difficult to push and the chip straightens out and the surface is bad, it's set too close for whatever the thickness of the shaving.

If you're not making a final pass (for the best surface), it doesn't matter too much if the chip straightens as long as the plane isn't too hard to push.

If you're making a final pass, you generally don't want the chip to straighten, esp. if it has any significant amount of thickness.

What the results should say is that you should probably use other types of planes. It hasn't been my experience that that should be a general rules for others, though, especially if others are doing more than just final smoothing. The divide between these other planes at 55-62 degrees vs. a common pitch plane with a cap iron is enormous when taking coarser shavings.

[Kees Heiden]

I see only one solution. Cut the board in half and send one part to David, and one part to me.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi David

I think you set it too close. If you didn't measure and you're guessing, I'd assume your guess at the distance is overestimated (I have not ever measured or found reason to measure the cap iron distance, it would be a threat to the edge of the iron).

Do you measure the distance you set the distance you set the chipbreaker? I used to do so in the beginning - you may recall this from some of my reports a few years ago - but now I am, like you, able to do this pretty accurately by eye.

The divide between these other planes at 55-62 degrees vs. a common pitch plane with a cap iron is enormous when taking coarser shavings.

I think that both Terry Gordon and I would would happy show you the coarse shaving we made today with high cutting angles. "Enormous" is one of the exaggerations that have been abounding lately.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

I see only one solution. Cut the board in half and send one part to David, and one part to me.

Kees, I'd love to do so. I looked into this with Charles when he was around. Shipping costs from Australia are prohibitive. Still, you never know.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jonas Baker]

*you can interchange LN and LV in my response as well.

I've owned many vintage stanley's as well as many LN planes (and I've used many Lee Valley Planes), and I also use wooden planes. I've actually grown to prefer wooden planes for many uses, for aesthetic reasons, but that's another discussion. When I need to do precision work, I much prefer using LN. I've never used an old stanley plane that was as flat or as finely machined as a LN (or LV). I know a lot of people believe having a flat plane is overrated, and for coarse work, you certainly don't need a flat plane, but for finer work and smoothing, the flatness is an asset to me.

One example of a place where a flat plane comes in handy for me is when joining long boards, or in my case joining guitar tops and backs, where the fit must be perfect. I'm sure you could do this with an older plane that's either been flattened, or even one that's not perfectly flat, but it is much more precise and easily repeatable for me with a plane that is both flat and milled flat on the sides as well.

So in terms of precision and flattness, they are "better" if that is what you prefer. Anyway, besides all of this, this precision machining and flatness leaves me with the feeling that the planes are more solid and "better" to me than the old ones. My version of better may be different from yours.

That being said, I love a tool that shows the wear of years of hard use, but still works well. And for me, getting an old stanley or an old wooden plane takes a bit of work to get them to work as well as they can.

Best,

Jonas

[David Weaver]

Hi David



Do you measure the distance you set the distance you set the chipbreaker? I used to do so in the beginning - you may recall this from some of my reports a few years ago - but now I am, like you, able to do this pretty accurately by eye.



I think that both Terry Gordon and I would would happy show you the coarse shaving we made today with high cutting angles. "Enormous" is one of the exaggerations that have been abounding lately.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Substantial, enormous, material. All of them are relative. There is a very large difference between the surface from a common pitch plane and a high angle plane, one that only becomes minimal in very very hard woods.

[Shawn Pixley]

With all of these recent threads, I cannot help but see a Hong Kong film analogy. "My kung fu is better than your kung fu."

[Sean Hughto]

Forget "better". Lets just focus on empirical truths about relative merits and the implications of those truths for making great furniture.

[David Weaver]

One example of a place where a flat plane comes in handy for me is when joining long boards, or in my case joining guitar tops and backs, where the fit must be perfect. I'm sure you could do this with an older plane that's either been flattened, or even one that's not perfectly flat, but it is much more precise and easily repeatable for me with a plane that is both flat and milled flat on the sides as well.

With a reasonably square vintage 7, I doubt you'd be able to tell a guitar joined by on vs. the other. You're right about the jointers, I have always lapped every jointer I've gotten. Doing so on a long glass shelf just makes them ever so slightly convex so that getting a long straight edge is easy.

I've had some stanley jointers that have been very far out of flat, including concave, which isn't a situation that can be left as is, but it's easily fixed with a $20 glass shelf and a few bucks worth of 80 grit psa.

I also had a LN 8 that was exactly at spec (1.5 thousandths) concave, which was incredibly annoying on a 4 foot long board, because it would have to take several passes on a board before it would take a through shaving, and then the effect was doubled when match jointing two boards. But then there is a dilemma with the LN, do you lap it? It makes it a lot less marketable - it's still in spec. I sold it.

LN does get you where you want to be without modification 9 times out of 10, though.

[Brian Holcombe]

That last part is the trick for me, I have so little interest in modifying tools right off the bat since I feel like I may regret the modification later on. I sharpen the blade and go to work.

[Frank Martin]

I started the hobby 12 years ago and have very little time for woodworking. So, in general I always prefer to invest more in the ready to use / better performing tool out of the box than refurbishing old tools to maximize work on wood rather than the tools. When I first started I purchased some new Records planes and also got some old Stanleys from ebay. Could never get them to working properly, which I am sure was limited by my knowledge and skills. When I purchased new LV planes and their power sharpening system, I was amazed how well the planes started working. So, I say there is room for both new and old. I also really appreciate what LV, LN and other small makers has done for the hobby and don't mind supporting them in the process.

[Kees Heiden]

Kees, I'd love to do so. I looked into this with Charles when he was around. Shipping costs from Australia are prohibitive. Still, you never know.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Yes that wold be rediculous. Next month there is a meeting at the workshop from a guy who specialises in "special" kinds of wood. I'll see what he has, just for fun. Until now the most extrordinary stuff I have planed was jatoba, teak and lignum vitae.

[jamie shard]

I really enjoy these conversations, but it is maddening that they are actually solvable and yet we are not reaching a conclusion. I want to put forward the idea again that a test board gets cut into a few pieces, it gets mailed to a few people, and they show their results via video... and then we can really see the distance to chip breaker, the nature of the chip, the sound, and the surface in raking light. Why not really document this and really share experiences?

I'm willing to put in $20 to make this happen. I can't be the only one. I spend that much on woodworking videos anyway.

[Jim Matthews]

That last part is the trick for me, I have so little interest in modifying tools right off the bat since I feel like I may regret the modification later on. I sharpen the blade and go to work.

A perfectly valid approach for those of us the value time more than money.
The contention is that the novice has no point of comparison, other than what a tool seller might say.

The difference in quality between the top makers and less expensive versions is analogous
to the difference between a scratch golfer and those playing professionally.

It is my contention that novices get the best results from the finest tools
and the most skilled practitioners can manage passable results with any old thing.

It was said that Charlie Parker could get people to listen to him playing a garden hose...