The Veritas Custom Planes - more than a review

[Patrick Chase]

Okay, today I have time to look it up.

On early cap irons or chip breakers of the Stanley ilk is stamped "Bailey's patent Dec 24, 1867."

https://www.google.com/patents/US724...8fAZcQ6AEIFzAA




This came up in earlier discussions on chip breaker usage. It appears he is patenting the one, and only one, bend "near the bearing-edge of the capiron."

In effect, it may have been nothing new in the world of wooden planes. This was in relation to a metallic plane. Besides often patents are issued when there really is nothing new to patent. Another common Stanley patent we see is Apr' 18 '92. This was for the position of the large hole on a plane blade. It didn't hold up in court, but it didn't prevent it from being issued and costing someone a lawyer to get it tossed.

jtk

Wow, thanks for the digging.

I think the invention there is creating the bend by forming sheet metal as opposed to grinding it onto a solid cap iron. It isn't necessarily a positive feature for woodworkers (in my experience it's neutral), but it would have saved an awful lot of manufacturing cost back then. I suspect that the return of the solid cap iron is as much a function of cheap CNC as anything else - there's no longer as much money to be saved by bending sheet metal, and the manufacturers have figured out that people will pay for the perceived quality (emphasis on "perceived") of the solid part. This patent looks to me as though it would pass muster even under the current post-KSR regime (assuming he's not fudging too much about prior art), and often such "cost reduction" patents have huge impacts on competitiveness.

w.r.t. the bogus and subsequently invalidated patent: Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose (too lazy for accents, sorry). Everybody thinks the patent system is uniquely broken today (and in some respects it is) but this sort of thing has been going on for ages. Government intrusions into the market (in this case by granting exclusivity in exchange for disclosure) are seldom ideal or efficient. IMO the alternative is worse, though, and the drafters of the Constitution agreed, per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 - it's remarkable that this is one of very few such intrusions that was codified from day 1.

It's interesting that he specifically claims that the less-stiff, higher-preload cap iron is better for chatter than the traditional ones. That's true in theory because the force the chipbreaker applies to the blade varies much less as f(flexture), but I very much doubt that it's relevant in practice.

[Jim Koepke]

It's interesting that he specifically claims that the less-stiff, higher-preload cap iron is better for chatter than the traditional ones. That's true in theory because the force the chipbreaker applies to the blade varies much less as f(flexture), but I very much doubt that it's relevant in practice.

There are a lot of issues involved.

With more mass, there is less transference of vibration resulting in less chatter.

Bailey wanted to use thinner cutting irons and to use a lighter metal for the cap iron.

Whether the idea was workable or not, it was granted a patent. When the patent expired others made cap irons in a similar manner.

Stamping a hump was likely a much less expensive an operation at the time than machining the metal.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

I am reposting some of the information from before as it is added to related data.

There have been disagreements about the shape of the chipbreaker here. I favour the newer LN and LV chipbreakers over the thin Stanley pressed metal version. My criticism of the Stanley type is simply that the ones I have are easily flexed, and difficult to set accurately without moving. Others are now arguing that the rounded front is critical to set up (for example, Warren says so based on historical information). It is an interesting situation, and I am open to dissuasion, but at this time I dispute this being the case. I will offer some testing below. Perhaps someone else can do the same. Feel free to pick holes in what I have done - it is all in the interest of better understanding.


Two years ago I argued the case against the Stanley chipbreaker here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...ipbreaker.html Granted, this was not directed at the rounded front from an angle perspective, but from the ease of setting the chipbreaker.


The front angle of the Stanley is around 45 degrees. The new LN and LV chipbreakers are 30 degrees, which is too low to use as is, and a secondary bevel must be added. I added these at 50 degrees. The leading edge is about 1/16" (around 1mm) high. That has been a focus for discussion here as well.


Recently I compared a new LN chipbreaker which I rounded ala Stanley/vintage woodies with a straight/secondary bevel LV chipbreaker. Planes were the LN #3 (45 degree frog) and LV Custom #4 (42 degree frog). The wood is Fiddleback Marri, a very interlocked hardwood that would tearout just looking at it!


This is what I got from the LN (the straight shaving indicates that teh chipbreaker is effective) ...





The shape of the chipbreaker ..





And its positioning (about 0.2 - 0.3mm back) ..





Here is the LV. It should be at a slight disadvantage since the bed is slightly lower. Nevertheless, the shaving is the same ...





The shape of the chipbreaker ..





The positioning of the chipbreaker ..





Conclusion: same as


Regards from Perth


Derek

[don wilwol]

I've come to similar conclusions. I beleive the Stanley chip breaker was meant to save manfuacturing cost. I personally doubt it was really thought of as an improvement in use. Bailey wanted a good working plane, but he needed to be able to make it profitably as well. Setting the chip breaker is important (I did some test shown here, http://lumberjocks.com/donwilwol/blog/30376) and cleaning and polishing it makes a big difference as well.

When I make a chip breaker, it will have a similar design. As Derek states, its easier to set, and just seems to work better. I didn't see Derek's test untill now, but as I was developing (deveolping may be a strong word, more like playing around) the chip breaker that worked best was the one I continued to make. I've probably only made a half dozen or so, but for me they work better than the typical vintage.


I see the question a lot, should I buy a replacemnt blade, and I always suggest the chip breaker first. If you have to spend your money, and the original blade is in good shape, you will see more performance gain replacing the chip breaker.


A chip breaker is meant to be designed to make the blade stiffer. But that function also holds it firmly to the bed. Have a good solid bed is an advantage as well. The thicker blades also helps counter any bed issues.


mpxg361.jpg

[Brian Holcombe]

I round the bevels on mine, except on the Kanna, which has a flat bevel and steep micro bevel (I don't measure, but it's probably 70-80 degrees.

The planes that David Weaver made for me have the long sweeping curve on the breaker, they're the easiest to setup and get a great chip from, with the widest range.

[Patrick Chase]

I am reposting some of the information from before as it is added to related data.

There have been disagreements about the shape of the chipbreaker here. I favour the newer LN and LV chipbreakers over the thin Stanley pressed metal version. My criticism of the Stanley type is simply that the ones I have are easily flexed, and difficult to set accurately without moving. Others are now arguing that the rounded front is critical to set up (for example, Warren says so based on historical information). It is an interesting situation, and I am open to dissuasion, but at this time I dispute this being the case. I will offer some testing below. Perhaps someone else can do the same. Feel free to pick holes in what I have done - it is all in the interest of better understanding.


Two years ago I argued the case against the Stanley chipbreaker here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...ipbreaker.html Granted, this was not directed at the rounded front from an angle perspective, but from the ease of setting the chipbreaker.


The front angle of the Stanley is around 45 degrees. The new LN and LV chipbreakers are 30 degrees, which is too low to use as is, and a secondary bevel must be added. I added these at 50 degrees. The leading edge is about 1/16" (around 1mm) high. That has been a focus for discussion here as well.


Recently I compared a new LN chipbreaker which I rounded ala Stanley/vintage woodies with a straight/secondary bevel LV chipbreaker. Planes were the LN #3 (45 degree frog) and LV Custom #4 (42 degree frog). The wood is Fiddleback Marri, a very interlocked hardwood that would tearout just looking at it!


This is what I got from the LN (the straight shaving indicates that teh chipbreaker is effective) ...





The shape of the chipbreaker ..





And its positioning (about 0.2 - 0.3mm back) ..





Here is the LV. It should be at a slight disadvantage since the bed is slightly lower. Nevertheless, the shaving is the same ...





The shape of the chipbreaker ..





The positioning of the chipbreaker ..





Conclusion: same as


Regards from Perth


Dere?p-='k

Yeah, there's no question that you can get a good tearout-free shaving without jamming under many (and even most) circumstances using a "faceted" chipbreaker. I see the same thing, and I also didn't know about the "rounding argument" until this thread (though I believe I was getting some of the same benefits by keeping the micro-bevel as small as possible - A faceted chipbreaker with a tall leading edge can be a jamming disaster in my experience)

I believe the argument for rounding is that it allows you to use a closer-set chipbreaker than would otherwise be possible without jamming. Of course if you can set to 0.2 mm as here and not jam then it's arguably a moot point. We'd need to find a case where the faceted iron jams, and see if a rounded one improves matters.