David Savage on bench planes
There are about 15 student benches in the workshop and if I look under each of them we would find either a Clifton plane or a Lie Nielsen plane. We have had Veritas planes in the workshop, they were fashionable at one time, but we have had real problems with them maintaining absolute flatness of the sole over a period of time. This may well have been a manufacturing problem that they've overcome but we haven't seen more recently manufactured planes in order to test them so we cannot recommend Veritas at the moment.
The other crucial element to consider is the blade. Lie Nielsen offers an A2 cryogenically treated blade. This, in my experience, is a blade which will hold an edge for a very long time. However it will not take as sharp an edge as I would like. I've spent over 30 years working with high carbon steel blades. In my experience they take a much sharper edge than is possible with the A2 steel. A high carbon steel edge is keener, more sharp, but it needs sharpening more often. The very best blades for planes, in my opinion, are manufactured by Clifton. These are forged welded high carbon steel blades that come close to the qualities of the very best Sheffield steel.
Clifton bench planes made in Sheffield are less expensive than the Lie Nielsen equivalent. I see students every year buying Lie Nielson simply because it is more expensive. They think by paying a little more they getting a better tool. I think they're mistaken. If I were buying bench planes now they would all be made by Clifton.
The opinions of David Savage are worthwhile listening too, when you have look at his bio.
David Savage has been a designer and maker of fine furniture for over 30 years. Born and raised in the 1950's, in Bridlington, Yorkshire, in England, David was surrounded by his parents' love of arts and crafts. He found good fortune favoured his application to the Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Art, at the University of Oxford, where his studies eventually led to a further three years post graduate study at the Royal Academy Schools in Picadilly London. Here he was fortunate to study under Edward Bawden and Peter Greenham.
Last edited by Stewie Simpson; 03-17-2017 at 8:16 PM.
To the OP, I extend these questions: Have you checked the squareness of a workpiece prepared with the new plane and your shooting board? Is your shooting board squareness subjected to the same standard as you applied to this new plane? If not, what good is a different plane going to make? You realize, I am sure, that the blade's squareness to the workpiece is really the only thing that matters. How you achieve and maintain that depends on your technique and how well made your shooting board is; as well as a reasonably well made plane.
I am not an expert in these matters, but it seems to me squareness is a critically, vital important part of a shooting square..They LV have an excellent reputation..Im sure they will adjust and make it right>>>
Jerry
David Savage's preference for a traditional high carbon steel are no different to my own approach, as posted recently on the Aussie Forum.
I wont be increasing the hardness of steel on my earlier manufactured chisels and plane irons. I have a personal preference for a tool steel that can be worked easily on the stone, that wont force me away from using natural honing stones , that wont make it more difficult to raise a burred edge, that when required can have its longevity of the edge improved upon by simply increasing its secondary bevel by up to 5 degrees.
Improving the longevity of the edge by applying a steeper bevel is nothing new. Most bench chisels are supplied a flat primary bevel angle of 25 degrees. It is then left to the user to increase that bevel angle via a secondary bevel to a nominal range of 28- 30 degrees, or 32 - 35 degrees for mortise chisels. Parring chisels being the exception with a primary bevel of 20 degrees.
Bevel down plane irons are no exception to this rule, generally supplied with the similar manufactured bevel angle of 25 degrees, requiring a steeper secondary bevel to improve the longevity of cutting edge.
Most of the work to apply that secondary bevel is done via the stone, invariably starting with a coarse stone, a medium stone, and ending with a finer grit stone. The requirement for a tool steel that can be easily worked on the stone, that will show tell tale signs of a burred edge being formed, have traditionally been a pre requisite within the type of tool steel required within woodworking. If we select a time period of post WW2, the suggestion that steel producers did not have the knowledge or know how to produce a more wear resistance tool steel than of 01 and W1 is rather questionable, given the fact that molten steel technology during that same time period was well advanced when compared to decades prior. More likely, those same steel producers were well in touch with the requirements of the professional woodworker, and were supplying them with a tool steel that best met their needs. Very few would disagree with the fact that 01 steel can still provide a slightly superior cutting edge to that being offered as an alternative on today's market.
I have little knowledge on pm steel, but can add some comment from what I have read regarding A2 steel. Online tests comparing the longevity of the cutting edge to 01 steel do favor A2. One should bear in mind a some important factors. 1st , that A2 steel requires a higher 32-35 degree secondary bevel to form an edge that's not prone to premature failure. 2nd, results by the tool manufacturers make no mention if the secondary bevel angle on the 01 steel was worked to a similar 32-35 degree secondary bevel to allow a fair comparison. 3rd, being a more wear resistant steel A2 will need additional time to be honed compared to 01 steel. 4th, water stones are recommended by the tool manufacturer to work A2 steel. 5th. 01 steel can be honed on either water or oil stones.
Actually, the squareness of the side to the sole is important...in that if the manufacturer says it is square (subject to whatever tolerance stated) then it matters that such specification is held up to when the new plane arrives. Of course, such promise of squareness doesn't guarantee the result of the work as you pointed out, which depends on skills.
Simon
I agree that David Savage is a very skilled and talented woodworker. I have switched to A2 and PMV-11 (since the latter was released) and have not seen any difference in my work or sharpening effort. Does O1 iron give me a keener edge? May be, but that gives me no reason to ditch the A2 as I work mostly with hardwood and endgrain work. Sharp enough is my motto as I am a woodworker, not a sharpener. Don't go crazy about sharpness!
Simon
Bumbling forward into the unknown.
I have owned probably around 20 different Veritas planes over the last dozen years or so. Still own likely around 10. No problems with any one of them.
Responses to this thread prove LV's well deserved customer loyalty. They make excellent products backed by excellent customer service. Not sure what else we can ask for, other than perhaps some local LV stores close to where we live.
Last edited by Bruce Page; 03-17-2017 at 11:46 PM.
About David Savage ...
I have this love-hate relationship with David. What I love about David is that he is thought-provoking. He makes "interesting" furniture - the progressive style is a bit too extreme for my taste, but he works for a market that is high end and will pay top dollar for unique pieces. He has a definite signature (styling) to his work, which makes it easily identifiable as a David Savage design. This is important in his world. Many other bespoke designer-makers cultivate this. I like his taste in cars (Morgan) and I think he lives in a beautiful part of the world (his Rowdan Farm Workshops are in North Devon, UK). I also like that he mixes power with hand tools, and this is done in a sensitive and sensible way - it is about building a design with appropriate methods, not the slavish adherence to some religious dogma. I would do a furniture design/building course with him in a flash (if I could afford it - his courses are seriously expensive).
But David is also terribly up himself. Hey, if you don't make a noise, then you will not be heard. And he needs to be heard to gain a name that sells furniture and attracts students to his school. So he is opinionated - is he ever opinionated! I get his emailed newsletter, which is almost weekly. At present it is rolling over old newsletters. He has to be heard even if there is nothing new to say. He made a name as a rebel and individualist - he rebels against many things that I agree with him, such as the integrity of a design and construction methods. However, he does it in a way that puts my teeth on edge - there is no soft-soaping anything. He is blunt. When one has read him for years (or less if you are insightful or sensible), you are no longer taken in by his rhetoric, and recognise that it is all showmanship. The problem is that he has published about hand tools, and the noise he makes here is taken by some as gospel. It is nothing of the sort - it is all showmanship. He will say that he is an independent reviewer, but his bias shines through: he is enamoured by the "old world", by which he means Sheffield in its heyday. He grudgingly gives recognition to the new manufacturers, and will find fault with their designs, steel and manufacturing ... because it is important to demonstrate that he is independent, individual, a rebel with a cause. There will always be a kernel of wisdom and truth in what he has to say (he is experienced and knowledgeable), but one has to dig through the dung to get it. As I said I like and respect David, but I am cautious when I read him.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Last edited by Frederick Skelly; 03-18-2017 at 6:32 AM.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
“If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”
Hasin - Did you by any chance quantified the out-of-squaredness with feeler gauges?
I just received mine (probably from the same batch as yours) and mine too is also out of square (a slightly acute just like yours). I tested with my machinist square and feeler gauges and noted that the widest gap is <0.006" (the thinnest gauge I have couldn't slip under). Is comparable to yours? I don't know what the expected tolerance is... (both manufacturing and practical use)