Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: A Tale of Two Planes...Direct Comparison Between Type 14 and Type 19

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    South central Kansas
    Posts
    290

    A Tale of Two Planes...Direct Comparison Between Type 14 and Type 19

    After reluctance to spend the big bucks on a No. 7 jointer plane (I made myself a rule that it had to be under $100), my irrational stubbornness paid off this time. A seller that I established a relationship with (highly recommended tactic, by the way) gave me a deal on a nearly-mint Type 19 for $75. Yes, I'll take it. A week later on craigslist I found another No. 7 for $60 and I bought it as well. I did say my price-related stubbornness was irrational. Anyway, I figured I'd do a direct comparison to get to the bottom of this whole "older SW-era planes are infinitely better" argument that I see on the internet. As I was getting into this hobby I saw a lot of talk about certain types being superior and I can imagine a lot of beginners get caught up in seeking specific types thinking they are better. So, time to put some idears to the test!

    IMG_4846.jpg IMG_4847.jpg
    Differences
    Apart from just aesthetic differences:

    -Keyhole on the 14 vs Kidney-style hole 19. The keyhole is easier to put on and take off but the Kidney-style is probably less prone to sliding. I do notice that with the keyhole-style if the screw is not tightened enough the lever cap will move slightly if you adjust the iron backward. Overall, not a big deal, though. If the iron's final adjustment is forward as it should be the lever cap will be forward all the way against the lever cap screw.

    -Tote and Knob. The finish on the Type 19 is hideous. It's thick, conceals the color and figure of the wood, and even has a couple drips. It was clearly not done by a patient professional. The tote on the 19 is also not shaped as well in my opinion. It's thicker and kind of clunky. The 14's tote is thinner with smoother curves, and it is noticeably more comfortable to me. Again, not a big deal, though, because the tote would be cleaned up and reshaped without much trouble.

    -Frog and Mating Surface. This is the big one. I'll let the pictures do most of the talking.
    Type 14:
    IMG_4854.jpgIMG_4856.jpg
    Type 19:
    IMG_4855.jpgIMG_4857.jpg

    The 14's frog has a lot more contact area both with the iron and with the plane body. I think this is what high-brau collectors would fuss about the most. Personally, I'm skeptical that it makes a tremendous difference. If the 19 has enough solid contact to not chatter or anything then it's good enough. The one thing I will say is this--see that little notch at the front of the frog? And the little hump at the very front of the frog mating surface on the plane body? On the 14 that notch and hump fit together and limit the lateral movement of the frog. On the 19 there is no contact between the frog's notch and the plane body's hump, so the frog can shift laterally by quite a bit. This makes the 19 more of a pain to adjust initially. Even with that, most of us don't touch the frog adjustment after we set it so it's a minor inconvenience.

    -Casting. The 19 has a noticeably thicker casting. Both planes have solidly flat soles. I didn't lap the 14's sole at all because it doesn't need it, and the 19's sole turned out to have slight high spots at the toe, heel, and right in front of the mouth so it probably didn't need to be lapped. Using 100 grit on glass I got it to the point where 80-90% of the sole was scratching and it didn't take much time.
    IMG_4851.jpg
    The thicker casting of the 19 did make it heavier but the difference is only noticeable to me because I was paying attention. Some people might prefer the heavier plane, others the lighter. Makes little difference to me.

    -Iron and Chipbreaker. The 19 had a thicker iron. 0.088" versus 0.073" for the 14. I also noticed that it felt harder when being sharpened. Maybe it just felt that way because it was thicker but it definitely seemed harder to scratch. The chipbreaker on the 19 also looks less refined without the clear curve that the 14's chipbreaker has. That said, both work well and required minimal honing to get a solid fit.
    IMG_4858.jpg


    Summing Things Up
    -Lever cap: Type 19's kidney-style hole is slightly more secure in my opinion but really negligible difference
    -Tote and knob: Type 14 is clearly superior, though this is also easy to fix
    -Frog and mating surface: Type 14 is a superior design with more contact and better adjustment. Whether or not that translates into superior performance I don't know
    -Casting: Can't decide here. I tend to associate a thinner casting (type 14) with more precise manufacturing. It feels more refined and I wonder if it will wear me out less being lighter. That said, I imagine some would prefer the thicker casting of the type 19.
    -Iron and chipbreaker: I give the edge to the type 19. Thicker iron is better, plain and simple. I could care less about the exact shape of the chipbreaker. Both work.

    Performance Test
    I cleaned up both planes and put a rather hasty 30* edge on each blade. Sharp enough to shave with but not a perfect mirror polish. I did get around to tuning the Type 19 which included lapping the sole, frog, and frog mating surface with 100 grit sandpaper on glass. The Type 14 had the frog lapped a little but that's it. I'm impatient, sue me. The quarry is quarter-sawn red oak.

    Both planes were about equal in terms of ease of adjustment. Both could be adjusted to take nice, thin shavings without much trouble. The 19, having been lapped with 100 grit, was noticeably harder to push but I suppose that is my doing. I also found myself preferring the lighter weight of the 14. The heavier weight of the 19 might be nice for powering through thick shavings or harder wood but this isn't a jack plane so I feel that the benefit is negated. The 19's tote was less comfortable and became annoying. I would definitely do some shaping and finish it with something not so thick and plastic-y. Finishing rosewood in such a way is a crime. I did not notice either iron getting dull more quickly. As for the frog/mating surface issue? Neither plane chattered so I would say that the type 19's design isn't a disadvantage in use. Maybe with some tougher wood but I can't confirm that. Though I do have some osage waiting to be planed...

    So, in conclusion: Yes, the SW-era plane does appear to be made better and given the choice I'd choose one over a newer plane. But the difference in performance is minimal so I wouldn't shy away from a newer plane. I'd take a type 19 in good condition over a SW-era plane in bad condition any day, and I wouldn't pay much more for an older plane. Moral of the story: make your decision based on price and condition of the plane. If you're a collector with a sentimental desire for certain types then enjoy your hobby and take pride in your piece of history. But if you're a pure user only concerned with performance? Buy your planes based on price and condition, not type.
    Last edited by Matthew Hutchinson477; 11-22-2017 at 10:12 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    South central Kansas
    Posts
    290
    Edited picture of the totes:
    fullsizeoutput_68d.jpg
    Last edited by Matthew Hutchinson477; 11-22-2017 at 10:08 AM.

  3. #3
    Nicely done comparative review of the planes, Matthew. For the long-timers here not much news but it does not hurt to review. I like the way you stayed away from black/white conclusions that many reviewers are prone to. Many for them have prejudices that they are trying to support with their reviews, but I did not sense that in yours. In my experience, I still am glad to own planes of either type. There clearly were more labor operations in production of the pre-war planes, and most other hand tools, for that matter. There can be duds in tools of any vintage, or gems. When you think of how little you pay for vintage tools compared to modern production versions, their value skyrockets. Modern planes deliver ultimate performance to those who are able to afford them, but the user's good technique is essential regardless of what tool you are using.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Hutchinson477 View Post
    Summing Things Up
    I give the edge to the type 19. Thicker iron is better, plain and simple. I could care less about the exact shape of the chipbreaker. Both work.
    .
    Matthew,

    Ain't necessarily so.

    While the later planes can be made to work as well as the earlier planes and unless you are bidding against collectors the price of each is close and the work required to get to a useable plane is also close the question becomes why start with a base that isn't as well made and refined as the other. Same work, same price, and you end up with a better plane, seems a no brainer to me. Once all the early planes are gone and the prices go much higher is another story. Of course I haven't been in the plane market for some time so I could be blowing smoke and as always with anything wood....YMMV.

    ken

  5. #5
    Matthew,

    100 grit finish is going to create significant friction!

    My routine would be to follow with, 150g, 240g till it is blunt. 0000 wire wool and chrome polish (such as Autosol), rubbed hard will reduce friction even more.

    Whenever I do this with students I am reminded of the great Jim Kingshott, who used to go to 600grit. I don't have that much patience.

    Best wishes,
    David Charlesworth

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    twomiles from the "peak of Ohio
    Posts
    12,120
    100 grit is just fine...trick is merely to rub the sole of the plane with a plain old candle, before use. Might want to hold on a bit tighter, as the candle wax will make things very slick.....

    I have types 7 up to and including Type 20/21.....all are users.

    Good review.....

    Now, we need one for the Millers Falls and Sargent plane types....

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    I can imagine a lot of beginners get caught up in seeking specific types thinking they are better.
    Some folks also like the consistency of a single type or a few types that overlap. My plane till has type 4 through type 17. This might drive some folks crazy dealing with the early depth adjusters being threaded opposite of the later types.

    If my collection ever gets sold off some collector buyers will be upset. My preference is for the short front knob. Even on my planes that came with a tall knob. Type 14 and later have a ring that makes it a bit more difficult to change it to the low knob. Many of my early planes have a large depth adjuster wheel (type 12 & later).

    Many of the later planes are great users. The problems that come my way have more often been in poor workmanship that seems to have come about after WW II.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  8. #8
    I found the Ron Hock irons to be worth the investment in terms of maximizing the iron thickness without having to file the mouth (unless you use David's excellent demo of relieving the mouth opening). I'm referring to the O-1 irons. They certainly sharpen up nicely. I'm a paraffin man also. Frank Klaus and apparently, David, like shiny bottoms! And who can blame them?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Is the red party cup a deeper statement of some sort? Every time I see one of those I have flashbacks... (of the "dimly-remembered" variety of course :-)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    South central Kansas
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by ken hatch View Post
    Matthew,

    Ain't necessarily so.

    ken
    Care to elaborate re: thicker irons not always being better? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just haven't heard anyone give preference to a thinner plane iron before.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    South central Kansas
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chase View Post
    Is the red party cup a deeper statement of some sort? Every time I see one of those I have flashbacks... (of the "dimly-remembered" variety of course :-)
    My shop is like a mullet: business up front, party in the back.

    In all seriousness, I just happened to have some laying around. Now, the fact that I have red solo cups laying around may be a statement of some sort. I am still in my 20's after all.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    South central Kansas
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by david charlesworth View Post
    Matthew,

    100 grit finish is going to create significant friction!

    My routine would be to follow with, 150g, 240g till it is blunt. 0000 wire wool and chrome polish (such as Autosol), rubbed hard will reduce friction even more.

    Whenever I do this with students I am reminded of the great Jim Kingshott, who used to go to 600grit. I don't have that much patience.

    Best wishes,
    David Charlesworth
    Normally I go up to 220 but I wanted to see if I could if the extra effort was worth it. Honestly I'm surprised by how much more friction there is with the plane that I stopped at 100 with, and in hindsight going higher is definitely worth it. Maybe I'll have to try something like 400 or 600 with a block plane. Could be worth it.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    South central Kansas
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by steven c newman View Post
    100 grit is just fine...trick is merely to rub the sole of the plane with a plain old candle, before use. Might want to hold on a bit tighter, as the candle wax will make things very slick.....

    I have types 7 up to and including Type 20/21.....all are users.

    Good review.....

    Now, we need one for the Millers Falls and Sargent plane types....
    Yaaa I didn't use any wax or anything on these. Wanted to see how they felt with nothing other than one being lapped and the other not. With wax 100 grit might be enough but after this little experiment I'm gonna go through the extra effort to go up 220 or 320.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Hutchinson477 View Post
    Care to elaborate re: thicker irons not always being better? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just haven't heard anyone give preference to a thinner plane iron before.
    Matthew,

    Sure, I'm one that for most jobs prefer simple steel and thin irons in my metal planes. I communicate with a number of others that feel the same. If you want "names" Richard Maguire and Paul Sellers are two well know workers that mostly work with thin irons. Thick cutters made of, as Richard Maguire calls it, "posh" steel requires a different sharpening kit to work efficiently. With thick irons of A2 a grinder and water stones are needed. While thin HC steel iron can be sharpened with almost any kit.

    What I think when I see Bedrock style planes and thick A2 cutters is someone has done a heck of a sales job. Full disclosure the sales job worked on me, I have a number of LN planes and cutters for all my metal planes from Hock and LV. The LN planes are very well made, perform well, are too damn heavy and sure are pretty. Did I mention that they sure are pretty but when there is work to be done I will usually reach for one of the woodies or a early Stanley with the OEM cap iron and a thin cutter.

    As always with anything wood....YMMV.

    ken

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Williamston, MI
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Hutchinson477 View Post
    Care to elaborate re: thicker irons not always being better? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just haven't heard anyone give preference to a thinner plane iron before.
    The thicker iron protrudes about 1/32" further into the opening of the mouth which isn't usually a problem. However, it was a slight problem on one of my Bedrock planes as the iron wouldn't fully retract before the adjuster screw bottomed out. I solved the problem by shortening the distance between the front edge of the chip breaker and yoke slot. I also took a little off the front of the mouth to make it slightly larger.

    Another thing I've found when trying to compare older irons is that sometimes previous owners have overheated them on the grinder and they don't hold an edge as well as a new iron regardless of thickness.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •