Stanley No. 4 with PM-V11 Experience

[Bill McDougal]

My first post here and I'm pretty sure I'm jumping into the deep end with a "product review". But, I wanted to share my experience with a Veritas PM-V11 blade and chip breaker combo in my old Stanley No. 4 Type 11 smoothing plane.

Some background first. I'm new to the hand tool world, and in keeping with the "deep end" theme, the first thing I built was a new workbench kind of in the Paul Sellers method. I picked up my plane on eBay, had some old crappy chisels, got a set of DMT Dia-Sharps, watched some videos, and went at it. A bunch of weekends, sore muscles, frustration, and learnings later, I ended with a bench that I really enjoy. It's only pine, but solid, didn't cost a fortune, and I don't mind accidentally hitting it with a saw, etc... Perfect for where I'm at skill-wise right now.

During that build, I also learned what sharp was, what dull was, and became very familiar with chatter. I'm going to move into smaller projects this winter and decided it was time for an upgrade in surface smoothing. I'll most likely get a better plane down the road, but for now, I decided to just upgrade the iron and chip breaker and see how that could help.

Here are my first observations as a complete amateur, or "just a guy in the garage".

Out of the box:
- The back on the Veritas blade was nice and flat. Fit and finish was very nice and matched up with the chip breaker perfectly. As much as I had tried, I couldn't get that old Stanley blade as flat as this one. I came close, but nothing like the Veritas.
- I had to open the mouth of my No. 4 about .020", or 0.5mm, to fit the new Veritas blade.
- The Vertias blade wasn't sharp enough to shave hair, but still out-performed the old Stanley blade on long grain even when the Stanley was sharp enough to shave hair.
- The Veritas absolutely blew the doors off the Stanley blade when using the shooting board on end grain. This was a "wow" moment. No more fighting end grain.

I then ran the Veritas blade through the progressions on the DMT's and finished it up on a leather strop with Chromium Oxide. Probably spent 20 minutes. Nothing fancy.

After the sharpening:
What a difference in performance. Back to the shooting board first and it was actually fun to use. A nice shiny finish on end grain and I can make slow passes on the wood. On long grain pine, I was able to get thin shavings, but more importantly, I was able to focus on what I was doing with the wood instead of having to focus on the plane. In other words, I can now focus on flatness and making perpendicular surfaces instead of being concerned with the plane itself. On oak, the performance was equally good ending up with a shiny smooth surface. I attached a picture and attempted to show the light shining off the piece on the right which had been planed. I still get some chatter, but it is much less than before. My guess is that is a result of 100 year-old plane technology combined with less than a year of user experience. Rubbing the sole of the plane with candle wax helped.

I haven't used it enough to comment on longevity of sharpness, but my conclusion is that if you are not ready to pull the trigger on a high-end plane, at least upgrade the iron and chip breaker in your old plane to some modern technology. Hope this helps.

-Bill

[Mike Henderson]

Welcome, Bill. I absolutely agree with you - the biggest improvement you can make to an older Stanley plane is the replace the iron with a modern iron. And the PM-V11 is an excellent iron.

Mike

[Bill McDougal]

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

[Allen Jordan]

A LN or LV plane won't really be any better than a well-tuned old stanley with a good blade/breaker. They just take little to no fettling to make work out of the box (and look pretty).

[Bill McDougal]

Thanks Allen. That's good to know because I just won an auction on a Type 12 No. 5 Jack for less than $50. I'll go through flattening the sole on the Jack like I did on the No. 4 and grind a camber on the original blade of the Jack like more a scrub plane. My plan is to swap the Veritas setup between the 4 and 5 when needed. But, I think the Veritas will spend most of it's time in the No. 4 smoother.

[Gary Cunningham]

I have IBC Pinnacle sets on several of my old Stanley planes. They are miles ahead of the old irons.

[Derek Cohen]

A LN or LV plane won't really be any better than a well-tuned old stanley with a good blade/breaker. They just take little to no fettling to make work out of the box (and look pretty).

Our West Australian (and Australian) woods generally contain a high level of silica. This makes them particularly abrasive and hard on steel. I've experimented quite a bit with different steels, both in plane and bench chisel blades. A recent experience will highlight the attraction of some of the more "exotic" steels vs the more classic ones:

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 couple of these. They dull after a dozen strokes in a LN #3. By contrast, A2 will last about 3 or 4 times this, and PM-V11 will outlast that by another 50 percent. Steel does make a difference .... but whether it is necessary will depend on the wood one work.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Frederick Skelly]

Welcome Bill!
Thanks for the review. I havent tried PMV11 yet but I replaced the original iron in my MF#9 with an LV in A2. Much better.

Never tried that blade for shooting though - am heading out to the garage to try right now.

[Bill McDougal]

Derek,

Thanks for the confirmation of dulling "after a couple of dozen strokes". Up north we have "pine" in the big box stores which is from New Zealand. It is soft, but beats up my Stanley blades something awful. By the way, I have never made it to Perth, but have been to Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide. I really enjoy Australia and hope to return someday soon.

-Bill

[Bill McDougal]

Thank you Frederick. The shooting board was my favorite part. Now I can go after end grain with slow deliberate strokes. With the Stanley blade, I had to "make a run at it" and hope the plane didn't bounce off of the wood.

[Bill McDougal]

Gary,

Those are thicker than the Veritas irons aren't they? If so, did you have any issues fitting them to older planes?

[Stewie Simpson]

Derek,

Thanks for the confirmation of dulling "after a couple of dozen strokes". Up north we have "pine" in the big box stores which is from New Zealand. It is soft, but beats up my Stanley blades something awful. By the way, I have never made it to Perth, but have been to Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide. I really enjoy Australia and hope to return someday soon.

-Bill

Bill; if the Stanley blades aren't coping with soft Tasmanian Pine, most likely the fault isn't with the steel. Some seek the assurance offered within exotic steels without fully understanding their is a lot of scope available within traditional steels to increase the longevity of the cutting edge. Taking the steel to a higher level of grit honing is 1 option. You also have the option to add a slight increase to the secondary bevel. It should be remembered that the traditional 25/30 rule is only there as a basic guideline, open to change dependant on the type of wood being worked. The old craftsmen were well aware of this. But the modern scribes tend to stick to its fundamentals like bees to honey, and then whinge and whine, when the cutting edge fails to hold up to more abrasive timbers, and that the only answer is to turn to exotic steels.

Stewie;

[Bill McDougal]

Ahhh! I was waiting for that reply. It is most likely user error/inexperience. However, if I can correct that (or shorten the learning curve) for a few $$, I'll take it.

[steven c newman]

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?

[Patrick Chase]

Bill; if the Stanley blades aren't coping with soft Tasmanian Pine, most likely the fault isn't with the steel. Some seek the assurance offered within exotic steels without fully understanding their is a lot of scope available within traditional steels to increase the longevity of the cutting edge.

I think that this is actually a very good way of stating it - A quality traditional HCS in the hands of a good craftsman will always outperform even the best exotic steel in the hands of a neophyte. It's the archer not the arrow, etc.

With that said, modern metallurgy *does* give us some options our forefathers didn't have, and IMO there's nothing wrong with taking full advantage of those. There's room for more than one approach, and it doesn't detract from the value or significance of your skills if somebody new to the hobby takes advantage of technology to speed up the learning curve a bit.

Playing devil's advocate a bit, why would I fiddle with bevel/clearance angles to optimize my blade for each wood if I can get an exotic alloy blade that Just Works (tm) at 25/30? I personally mess with angles a LOT (which is why I maintain that spreadsheet 'o' blades that you and others have had a good laugh about in the past) because I'm into that sort of thing, but I can see the contrary perspective as well. Some people just don't want to worry about that stuff.