Stanley No. 4 with PM-V11 Experience

[Patrick Chase]

Sometimes, when you put one of the "New & Improved irons in a plane...thicker is better thinking.....only to find out the tab at the end of the depth adjustor yoke will NOT even touch the slot way up in the chipbreaker. That tab has to go through the thick as all get out iron to reach the slot in the chipbreaker. I guess then one adjusts those new irons with a hammer's whack or three?

The Hock or Veritas replacement irons (0.095" and 0.100" thick respectively) aren't known to cause that particular problem. We're talking about a 15-20 mil difference in yoke engagement here.

Trying to put a 1/8" thick L-N or made-for-Veritas-planes iron in could ruin your day, though.

[Warren Mickley]

Thank you Mike. Of course, what I want to know now is how good an equivalent LN or LV plane is in comparison!

I have been to about seven LN hand tool events and tried their planes at every one. If you are not getting better results with the Stanley with original iron than the LN, something is very wrong.

[peter Joseph]

I have close to a full set of Stanley's, most with replacement irons, and will say that while they function quite well, they are not Lie Nielsen's and will never be. Only you can decide if the disparity in cost is worth it, but I can't devise an argument towards not picking up a bronze #4 at some point.

[Mike Holbrook]

I have a collection of Stanley planes, LA Veritas planes and a couple of the newer Custom LV planes. I also have a Blum plane and a few other wood planes I made from Steve Knight parts and a couple made by Steve himself.

I think a good deal depends on what you are use to. Any of these systems can produce very good results, which is why they all have advocates. The Norris adjusters, used in Veritas planes, are much quicker to make adjustments, in my experience, particularly when compared to Stanleys. That is, smaller movements of the adjustments make more change at the blade. There is often slack/dead space that must be taken up before adjustments start to move things with the Stanley system. If you are use to this and have a good feel for the adjustment pressures and positions, you may have very few problems with it, if not it can be frustrating. If you get acquainted with the tap/tap system on wood or even metal planes it can be just as fast or faster. The tap/tap system probably requires the most complex skill set though.

There are a few additional features unique to Veritas planes. There are set screws that can be adjusted to hold the blade in an exact spot. These planes also typically have adjustable mouths with set screws that can limit their travel. The handles on Veritas panes are different than either Stanley or LN planes. The new Custom Veritas planes offer several different handle options, one of which is more similar to Stanley planes and one more like the old Veritas handles. The front knobs and frog angles are also customizable. Another feature that may or may not be desirable is the weight of the planes. The Veritas planes tend to have lower centers of gravity and more weight.

[Michael L. Martin]

Nice work on the bench Bill! Looks like an excellent start to the workshop.

[Mark Gibney]

If Bill's original Stanley blade is dulling very quickly could it have been over heated at a grinder by a previous owner and have lost it's temper?


This is always a potential issue when buying older tools, I've read, but not something I know enough about to do more than pose the question.

[Robin Frierson]

"The older Clifton blades, which are hammered high carbon steel, are prized for the excellent edge they are able to achieve due to their refined grain."

I have a few Clifton planes( 4 1/2, 6, 7 and 410) and also found they were the sharpest irons I had but they didnt last as long. I kept one Clifton iron in a bedrock 4 1/2 for smoothing but replaced the rest with A2 LN irons with the exception of the little 410. I also like the the two piece Clifton chipbreakers.

I havent tried the new metal irons...For me working with mostly domestic hardwoods A2 last long enough.

[Mike Brady]

Gary, did you have any issues fitting them to older planes?

Bill, he did mention that he opened the mouth of the plane to accommodate the PM-V11 iron. This keeps me from trying one, for the reasons stated by Steve Newman: A too-thick iron often leads to adjustment difficulties because the adjuster tab does not fully engage the slot in the chip breaker. I don't think its a problem with every Stanley plane, but I'm not ready to experiment with my planes to find out. Why not just manufacture the irons in the original thickness?

[Derek Cohen]

I have fitted PM-V11 blades to a UK-made (circa 1960) Stanley #3 and Type 11 Stanley #4 1/2, #604 and #605. No problem fitting any of these. No modifications needed.

Keep in mind, if you are using the chipbreaker to control tearout, the mouth need to be slightly open.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Ray Selinger]

As I'm shaping and sharpening old blades for 5 planes, I think LV blade and cap iron are a Great Idea. It's pretty labourous, repairing the bevel from the previous owners attempts, flattening and polishing the bevel side, some are bent and the factory's grind can be pretty coarse, (this will cut down on chatter and ease adjustment) then of course doing that first proper sharpening. After all that you achieve something that almost as good, or in the case of PM-VII , half as good.

[Patrick Chase]

I think a good deal depends on what you are use to. Any of these systems can produce very good results, which is why they all have advocates.

A good deal depends on your sharpening system.

It's no coincidence that people who use natural stones (Arks or JNats) strongly prefer eutectoid low-alloy steels as found in classic Stanley blades or White steel, because those steels are basically the upper limit of what their stones can hone to ideal sharpness. I think that Brian Holcombe in particular does a very good job of acknowledging and explaining this interaction, and his posts are worth a read (and you really can't argue with his results).

[Patrick Chase]

"The older Clifton blades, which are hammered high carbon steel, are prized for the excellent edge they are able to achieve due to their refined grain."

I have a few Clifton planes( 4 1/2, 6, 7 and 410) and also found they were the sharpest irons I had but they didnt last as long.

That's a fundamental tradeoff in metallurgy. The Cliftons and the old Stanleys are low-alloy Carbon steels. They have refined grain structures as Derek says because they have low carbide content. That's also what enables you to hone them on natural stones. Low carbide content leads to relatively poor wear life as both you and Derek described.

That's why powdered metallurgy a la PM-V11 is such a big deal : It enables relatively fine grain structure (though still not as fine as HCS) in a high-alloy/high-carbide steel.

[Reinis Kanders]

I have recently been using both type of blades, PMV11 replacement and original stanley in my old No.4. Both do their job, stanley is way quicker to touch up on a washita stone, I got PMV11 blade just for the kicks, there is really no other need for it with the typical NA wood I work with.

[Patrick Chase]

I have recently been using both type of blades, PMV11 replacement and original stanley in my old No.4. Both do their job, stanley is way quicker to touch up on a washita stone, I got PMV11 blade just for the kicks, there is really no other need for it with the typical NA wood I work with.

I've honed PM-V11 on Norton hard white and Dan's translucent Arks. You can get decent results that way (which is something you can't really say about A2) but it's slow going as you say.

If I limited myself to Arks exclusively and didn't work exotics then I'd probably prefer HCS too. As one might expect, 19th century tool steels turn out to be well matched to 19th century honing techniques/media.

[Warren Mickley]

A good deal depends on your sharpening system.

It's no coincidence that people who use natural stones (Arks or JNats) strongly prefer eutectoid low-alloy steels as found in classic Stanley blades or White steel, because those steels are basically the upper limit of what their stones can hone to ideal sharpness. I think that Brian Holcombe in particular does a very good job of acknowledging and explaining this interaction, and his posts are worth a read (and you really can't argue with his results).

We use vintage irons because of superior performance. I have never seen a high alloy plane iron that yields a surface in the same ballpark as the surfaces from vintage irons. I would usually sharpen an iron before it got as poor as a freshly sharpened alloy iron.