Contributor
I'm sorry, I don't understand your post. You stated that "others will recognise the distinct advantages in persevering with much more traditional tool steels". Were you saying that tongue-in-cheek and mean that traditional tool steels would become fashionable, rather than that they would have some technical advantage?Originally Posted by Stewie Simpson
Mike
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.
Member
I'll echo Stewie, I don't want to upset the mods, or anyone else. I just happen to enjoy discussions
Phil, no worries! I really enjoyed the videos in that series. They gave a brief but exciting overview.
Mike, the craftsmen of the 18th century could not use shards of flint to make furniture of the standard I showed, even if they had a huge amount of time. They did however rely on well made tools with good steel.
The benefit of earlier times was perhaps people were more practical from an earlier age, started work in their mid teens, worked only with their hands. These days we do things differently.
True, things were more of an art in earlier times than an engineering science. Today we can make pretty consistent tools at a good price point using modern engineering skills. Stewie's quote from Kees underlines part of my concerns. For 99% of work the touted advantages mean close to nothing, It's only in recent times I've read about the issues of edge longevity of quality vintage tools as a barrier to good work.
I know nothing about carving but I'd assume that the fine sharp edge of plain carbon steel would be useful when creating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaUCOXBI4m8 . If I were in a position to learn that craft edge retention and modern wonder steels would be the least of my concerns.
However I will concede that there were situations were edge retention would be helpful. I might of dreamed this but did George make the coopers at Williamsburg A2 iron for their plane? Makes sense in that setting, but for fine surfaces, intricate work I find no advantage in modern wonder steels unless they are found in machine tooling.
Contributor
I've looked at the arris of a plain carbon steel blade and the arris of a PM-V11 blade under a magnifying glass and when freshly sharpened, the edge appears smooth and continuous on both. I can't see how one could create a finer finish than the other - at least not one that could be visible to the eye or to the feel of the hand. I've certainly never noticed any defects or roughness in the finish produced by PM-V11 blades.
I haven't tried to do a direct comparison, however. But the more modern blade meets all my requirements.
Mike
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.
Contributor
If you're saying that a woodworker does not need to use a modern iron to produce fine furniture, I'll definitely agree. I question the apparent position that plain carbon steel is superior to more modern formulations of steel.I'll echo Stewie, I don't want to upset the mods, or anyone else. I just happen to enjoy discussions
Phil, no worries! I really enjoyed the videos in that series. They gave a brief but exciting overview.
Mike, the craftsmen of the 18th century could not use shards of flint to make furniture of the standard I showed, even if they had a huge amount of time. They did however rely on well made tools with good steel.
The benefit of earlier times was perhaps people were more practical from an earlier age, started work in their mid teens, worked only with their hands. These days we do things differently.
True, things were more of an art in earlier times than an engineering science. Today we can make pretty consistent tools at a good price point using modern engineering skills. Stewie's quote from Kees underlines part of my concerns. For 99% of work the touted advantages mean close to nothing, It's only in recent times I've read about the issues of edge longevity of quality vintage tools as a barrier to good work.
I know nothing about carving but I'd assume that the fine sharp edge of plain carbon steel would be useful when creating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaUCOXBI4m8 . If I were in a position to learn that craft edge retention and modern wonder steels would be the least of my concerns.
However I will concede that there were situations were edge retention would be helpful. I might of dreamed this but did George make the coopers at Williamsburg A2 iron for their plane? Makes sense in that setting, but for fine surfaces, intricate work I find no advantage in modern wonder steels unless they are found in machine tooling.
If the difference is in the edge retention, why wouldn't you want to use the more modern formulations? The longer you can go between having to hone or sharpen the more woodworking you can get done.
My question is specifically to those who believe that plain carbon steel is better than modern steel formulations: Why do you believe that? What is it about plain carbon steel that you find superior to modern formulations?
Mike
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.
Member
In a nutshell it's for the same reason Brian said.
Contributor
I have not observed that result and see no technical reason why it should be true.
Mike
[I know that going from the original Stanley iron to a modern iron on an older Stanley plane improved the performance of the plane significantly (on multiple planes that I own). The advice I always give is that the replacement of the iron on an old Stanley plane with a modern iron is the biggest improvement you can make to the plane.]
Last edited by Mike Henderson; 01-01-2017 at 8:05 PM.
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.
Contributor
Everyone has an opinion. Here is mine. It goes without saying that I am not a metalurgist, and inspire others to correct me.
The blades of the 18th century began with inferior steel than that available today. As Joel pointed out, it was not until the 19th century that the basics improved enough to create greater consistency. Importantly, also, the blades surviving into the 21st century are unlikely to be representative of all blades from earlier times.
On that note Mike, Stewie's reference to vintage steel being better makes little sense since his favoured Marples chisels are mid-20th century, and the blades for his planes are early 20th century. This is not the same as the era mentioned by Warren.
One important characteristic in a cutting edge is the fineness of the grain. Simplically, there are two ways to achieve this: method of manufacture of the blade, and method of manufacture of the steel.
I assume that blades in the 18th century were manufactured in the same manner as the better Japanese blades are manufactured today - that is, by hammering. This process aligns and reduces the size of the grain, which creates the foundation for a finer edge. O1 steel has a fine grain and is more consistently so today than manufacturers in the 18th century could have dreamed of, and casting it (as opposed to hammering it) produces a very decent edge - unlike steels, such as A2, which have large grains, and grain which are not reduced by hammering. The PM steels come closer to the high carbon steels in that the grain structure is dialled in, like baking a cake. Hence, one can use a higher degree of abrasive-resisting content in the mix because the grains are reduced to the size of those in high carbon steels.
The second element of a good edge is how long it can hold the edge. O1 steel does not hold a good edge particularly long. On one hand this is relative, so if one is used to such steel, then the edge-holding is accepted. But it is not held long at all - relative to even A2. Something needs to be done to high carbon edges to increase longevity. There are two ways: The first is to harden the steel. This has been the way we associate Japanese blades - that is, laminating a hard cutting edge to a softer backing. It was not only the Japanese that did this, of course. It was also done in the 18th century in the West. However, I don't believe that the West hardened their steel as did the Japanese - not in my understanding. So perhaps this was done for economy in the West. If so, it supports the view that finer edges can last longer, and that a hammered high carbon edge endured beyond a non-hammered O1.
The second way to gain edge-holding longevity is by the introduction of abrasion-resistance into the steel, per se. This is the second string to the PM steels. Not only does one get fine grain, but also abrasion-resistant steel.
The question is whether these blades are equal, better or worse than the 18th century blades? I have no idea. Has anyone actually made a direct comparison? I have compared PM-V11 against laminated White Steel chopping in chisels. The White Steel shaded the PM steel, with both so far ahead of O1 and A2 that the latter were not even in the race. That test measured impact resistance. Tests of abrasion resistance are needed. I did do some but they did not include PM-V11. Is there another test that can measure the differences in tool blades? Do we address factors such as feedback and ease of sharpening? Comparisons are not straight forward as design features now have to be excluded. Or is Warren referring to design, per se?
Regards from Perth
Derek
Last edited by Derek Cohen; 01-01-2017 at 9:35 PM.
Contributor
Mike, the technical reason is the fine grain of high quality high carbon steels. As mentioned the finest edges will wear evenly producing a glossy finish for a long period of time.
I find this critical for softwoods such as yellow cedar, port orford cedar, OG Doug Fir and OG Western Red Cedar. The preference of fine white steel becomes very obvious when working tightly grained softwoods to obtain the glossy finish thst is so important for the performance of those woods.
These blades are best finished with natural stones, without that component I would expect you will find the blades lacking.
A blade that retains its edge for a very long time has its purpose, I use alloys for certain purpose in fact two of my favorite planes are alloyed steels, so it is not a matter of best, period, but best for a given use. I wouldn't expect anyone to put high carbon steel into a super surfacer the same way I would not expect an alloy steel to apply a mirror finish to fine softwoods on end without fastidious care.
Last edited by Brian Holcombe; 01-01-2017 at 10:42 PM.
Bumbling forward into the unknown.
Contributor
This is essentially what I wrote earlier on, so we are on the same page Brian. I mentioned preferring A2 over O1, which emphasises the important of edge-holding on the hard, abrasive timbers of Western Australia. I now prefer PM-V11 for the same reason, but with the added highly desirable feature of having a fine grain (similar to O1).A blade that retains its edge for a very long time has its purpose, I use alloys for certain purpose in fact two of my favorite planes are alloyed steels, so it is not a matter of best, period, but best for a given use. I wouldn't expect anyone to put high carbon steel into a super surfacer the same way I would not expect an alloy steel to apply a mirror finish to fine softwoods on end without fastidious care.
No doubt the reason for so much variability of preferences and opinion among woodworkers must come down to two factors: the types of woods used, and the methods of sharpening that are involved with maintaining edges. One cannot expect that someone who works with softer, and docile woods to have the same needs as one who works with firewood, or only occasionally does so. Plus, anyone who attempts to hone full faces of PM steel on an oil stone will come to view these blades as impossibly difficult to maintain, and that the edges do not get particularly sharp. One cannot always marry the old ways with the new world.
None of this should have any bearing on craftsmanship. Putting it another way, a craftsman does not blame his/her tools. As long as the tool is working the way it is needed to work, I do not complain. On the other hand, I do prefer to use better tools, for all the reasons mentioned before.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Member
Wow it amazes me the lengths you have gone through and all the information you have come up with. So nice to live in an age where someone does all this work and shares the results for free. Thank you. I always wondered what PM-V11 is and when you say formerly known as, did Lee Valley change the name they are using or are users generally just using the other name?
Thanks again!
Contributor
Has anyone actually purchased the Carpenter steel in small qualities for personal use? I suspect that this is not possible.
The second feature, again based on steel composition, that would be a help from identifying a steel, is what happens when it is ground at a wheel - can the steel be burned (like O1) or is it relatively impervious (like M2)? If the former, how does one heat treat it? Consider, for example, A2 steel - this is not something that one can deal with in the home shop.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Member
I have not, Kees has.
You can get CTS-XHP bar stock from retailers that sell to knife makers. http://sb-specialty-metals.com/product/cts-xhp-sd/, http://usaknifemaker.com/cts-xhp-188...ngth-note.html.
LV advertises that PM-V11 is tempered to Rc 62.5, so your heating question boils down to: "How hot can you get it before you make it softer than that?"
Here's the tempering table for CTS-XHP. It's a bit complicated because of the number of variables (hardening temperature, air-cooling vs oil-quench, post-HT refrigeration) but the short answer is that you don't want to get it very hot at all. If they refrigerate after treatment (and hopefully they do, for the sake of all of their customers with bench grinders) then Rc 62.5 corresponds to tempering at ~400F, which would correspond to a light yellow or straw color.
It's similar to O1 when tempered to the same hardness, though most people use O1 softer than Rc 62.5, so a PM-V11 blade will start to lose hardness at slightly lower temperature than a typical O1 blade. For example LV tempers their O1 blades to ~Rc59, which corresponds to ~500F IIRC. It's nowhere near as heat-tolerant as an HSS like M2.
As you say, this is a great example of a reason why it's good to know what steel you're dealing with.
Last edited by Patrick Chase; 01-02-2017 at 1:08 AM.
Contributor
Thanks Patrick.
Incidentally, Kees stated that he purchased PM-V11 blades, not Carpenter.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Member
Ah, you're absolutely right. I went back and looked at his post in the closed thread. He posted where to get it (one of the same 2 links I gave, probably because it's the first result for "CTS-XHP bar stock" from my employer's search engine) but didn't say he'd actually purchased it.
Last edited by Patrick Chase; 01-02-2017 at 1:45 AM.
[OP]
Member
Indeed Patrick, I repeated that about 3 times in this thread
Price really is in favor of O1 steel. PMV-11 is about 2 -3 times as expensive. Also it takes more time and abrassive material to shape it, and the heat treating schedul is more involved, all adding to the costs.
Sometimes a less wear resistant steel is in favor of a fine finish. When roughing you'd like to go as long as possible between sharpening. The finish after jack plane work isn't very important. But when smoothing something as well as you can, it is better to stay in a mental mode of touching up your edge as often as possible. Every steel type looses it's initial edge after sharpening rather quickly, PMV-11 isn't immune to that. It is able to keep a medium quality edge for a long time. O1 is very easy to sharpen and because the sharpeness doesn't last as long, you are more in the mood to accept that. Carvers know this very well and they keep a strop near their work all the time to quickly touch up the edge repeatedly.
And then, with all modern engineering, it is easy to forget that the old cast steel makes a very capable tool for hand tool woodworking. It lasts reasonably long, it is very easy to sharpen especially in the laminated tools of yesteryear and delivers very sharp edges that wear in a nice an mellow manner without chipping even when it has been hardened to a high degree. For powertools, metal working and stuff like that, there are certainly better choices. It is also easy to forget how the tool making masters were able to deliver constant high quality without modern engineering knowledge. There were some damned good artists aound in the 18th, early 19th century. Ward for chisels and plane blades, Kenyon for handsaws, Addis for carving tools to name a few.
Posting Permissions
