First and last Stanley handplane restoration

[Jim Koepke]

[edited]
Today self bought a type 12 Stanley #3.

*sigh*

My type 13 Stanley/Bailey #3 is one of my favorite planes.

jtk

[Nathan Johnson]

My type 13 Stanley/Bailey #3 is one of my favorite planes.

jtk

I have no doubt.
Mostly I was giving myself a hard time...and maybe letting OP know he may find his way back to a restoration down the road.

[lowell holmes]

I am puzzled, why did this old string pop back up?

[Jim Koepke]

I am puzzled, why did this old string pop back up?

Because Nathan decided to share his story of multiple planes restored followed by some introspection about his time being spent doing restorations as opposed to woodworking. This led to a swearing off of restorations. Then one day a sweet little plane singing a siren song about needing some TLC coaxed him back into the realm of plane restoration.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

I did some sharpening and I got back to work on my bench. And I said to myself, "self, this is good. Let's finish this bench, and if you do, you're getting a nice new #3 plane from LN or a sbus from Veritas. No fettling."
Self was content.
Self was happy.

Today self bought a type 12 Stanley #3.

*sigh*

I recently bought a #55, and have been steadily working at bringing all 52 irons up to what I consider an acceptable state. Some previous owner over the past century apparently knew all about the "ruler trick", though rulers were apparently a lot thicker back then :-). The good news is that it seems that they didn't use all that many of the irons.

One the one hand it's time spent not woodworking. On the other hand that sort of thing can be enjoyable and almost meditative in itself for some (me included). The question to ask is whether you fall into that group?

[steven c newman]

Or it is simply doing Maintenance Days on the tools needed to work in the shop. New, or used, they will all need a little "touch up" from time to time.

[James Pallas]

I recently bought a #55, and have been steadily working at bringing all 52 irons up to what I consider an acceptable state. Some previous owner over the past century apparently knew all about the "ruler trick", though rulers were apparently a lot thicker back then :-). The good news is that it seems that they didn't use all that many of the irons.

One the one hand it's time spent not woodworking. On the other hand that sort of thing can be enjoyable and almost meditative in itself for some (me included). The question to ask is whether you fall into that group?

Patrick you might check out Derek's write up about combo planes and back bevels. You may want to leave some of the irons with a small back bevel.
Jim

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick you might check out Derek's write up about combo planes and back bevels. You may want to leave some of the irons with a small back bevel.
Jim

I've seen it, and I'm not opposed to back bevels. I've said several times that I think that the bevel trick is valid in moderation (and posted pictures of one of my own ruler-tricked irons) and I understand how a controlled back-bevel could be useful to deal with tearout in a mouth-less, cap-iron-less plane like the 55.

The thing is that these specific blades are so badly dubbed (let's call it what it is) that it's not possible to apply any sort of controlled back bevel. IMO the iron has to be reasonably flat before you can start using advanced techniques like that with any degree of precision.

FWIW I use variable back-bevels (in which the tool has a significant back- or outside-bevel at the center tapering to almost none at the edges) with certain carving tools as described in Leonard Lee's sharpening book, so I'm more than familiar with this sort of thing.

[Jim Koepke]

Once time has been taken to get a sharp edge on a complex shaped blade, there really isn't much reason for a back bevel. It would also be difficult to make an accurate back bevel or to "ruler trick" a blade shape such as an ogee.

My philosophy on such is if it is flat leave it flat.

Besides most molding planes are already at a steeper angle than the 45º used by metal combination planes.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Once time has been taken to get a sharp edge on a complex shaped blade, there really isn't much reason for a back bevel. It would also be difficult to make an accurate back bevel or to "ruler trick" a blade shape such as an ogee.

My philosophy on such is if it is flat leave it flat.

Besides most molding planes are already at a steeper angle than the 45º used by metal combination planes.

jtk

We're talking about a #55 here. It's at 45 deg.

It's entirely possible to put a controlled back bevel on a complex profile, provided you use properly shaped slips and present them to the blade at a constant angle and direction. It's not intrinsically much more difficult than honing a consistent out-cannel bevel on a carving tool, for example.

The key thing to realize is that cutting is a very localized phenomenon, so the back bevel doesn't have to extend very far to have the desired effect of preventing tearout.

As I said above, I'm a firm believer that having a flat back is a necessary starting point to any such modifications though. It's pretty hard to present the slip at a consistent angle w.r.t. the back of the iron if you haven't ground the iron flat to begin with. Ditto with the conventional "ruler trick".

[Jim Koepke]

The key thing to realize is that cutting is a very localized phenomenon, so the back bevel doesn't have to extend very far to have the desired effect of preventing tearout.

There are eight million stories of sharpening in woodworking city.

For me a sharp blade taking a fine cut and careful selection of the wood used to make molding have the desired effect of preventing tear out.



jtk

[steven c newman]

IMG_1331 (640x480).jpg
Stanley No. 6c, Type 10 vs Black Walnut....YMMV

[Patrick Chase]

The key thing to realize is that cutting is a very localized phenomenon, so the back bevel doesn't have to extend very far to have the desired effect of preventing tearout.

There are eight million stories of sharpening in woodworking city.

The claim I made there shouldn't be remotely controversial.

Here's the same observation worded in a slightly different way: "A small, higher-angle micro-bevel on a bevel-up blade serves to increase the cutting angle and reduce tearout"

The wood can't tell the difference between:

1. A small "back bevel" that adds several degrees to the angle of the blade back at its leading edge in a BD plane.
2. A small "micro bevel" that does the same to a primary bevel in a BU plane.

If you absolutely must see pictures, Steve Elliott covered this a while back. His back-bevels were only 5 mils deep but still improved tearout in his tests.

For me a sharp blade taking a fine cut and careful selection of the wood used to make molding have the desired effect of preventing tear out.

Sure, and that's why I keep saying over and over that you must start with a properly honed iron that is flat immediately behind the edge before you get fancy. If the wood is straight-grained as you say then that will be sufficient and everything else is just needless complication and wasted time. Sometimes the wood is not so cooperative.

[lowell holmes]

I have always put a small micro-bevel on a plane iron.
When I was learning to sharpen plane irons, it was called a "micro-bevel".
I do it on bevel up or bevel down irons.

[Pat Barry]

The claim I made there shouldn't be remotely controversial.

Here's the same observation worded in a slightly different way: "A small, higher-angle micro-bevel on a bevel-up blade serves to increase the cutting angle and reduce tearout"

The wood can't tell the difference between:

1. A small "back bevel" that adds several degrees to the angle of the blade back at its leading edge in a BD plane.
2. A small "micro bevel" that does the same to a primary bevel in a BU plane.

If you absolutely must see pictures, Steve Elliott covered this a while back. His back-bevels were only 5 mils deep but still improved tearout in his tests.



Sure, and that's why I keep saying over and over that you must start with a properly honed iron that is flat immediately behind the edge before you get fancy. If the wood is straight-grained as you say then that will be sufficient and everything else is just needless complication and wasted time. Sometimes the wood is not so cooperative.

If the wood can't tell the difference with a small microbevel, then really you are saying that a higher cutting angle is the key thing, not the microbevel. Therefore, a higher angle blade is better to reduce tear out leading to the idea that a scraper is the ultimate. So, on the other hand we have lower angle devotees that love their BU planes and tout that this lower angle reduces tearout. Finally we have the 4 mil close set cap iron crowd saying this reduces tearout. Guess what, they are all probably right. Hence the never-ending discussions here. It's really all more a function of edge sharpness quality - without a very sharp and clean edge it's all moot.