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

[William Fretwell]

Thicker irons are a huge issue because sharpening them is a major issue when you would rather be using them. The newer alloys complicate things even more and really add to sharpening difficulty. Yes they are almost sharp for a long time, depending on the wood you are using. Yes all of this is affected by the wood you are working.
The good news is we have options:
Old steel: easy sharpen, very sharp, frequent honing.
A2 etc: thick steel, sharp for longer, very lengthy sharpening.
01 HSS: thick steel, very sharp.

The killer comes when that secondary bevel shortcut becomes the main bevel and you really have to restore the main bevel. The machine free shop cries out for a water cooled wheel so you can actually get back to working wood. Thinner blades are much easier.

I am going to try the thicker 'modern' blade in 01 HSS. The Japanese blades with their thick laminated construction and thin hard layer seem to have it right but western plane blades are not made that way....yet! The tapping out of Japanese blades is an added complication.

[Patrick Chase]

To be clear, some of the criticism of late-type Stanleys has to do with quality, and specifically execution of the various machining steps required to turn raw castings into a working plane. Inasmuch as that is the case it's possible to get a "good" late-type plane as seems to have been the case here.

w.r.t. casting thickness, I think you're on the right path when you speak of "precision". A thinner casting requires better tolerances in both the casting process itself and in subsequent machining operations. IMO a heavy casting is tolerable (though not desirable) for, say, a #4, but we're talking about a #7 here. Unless you have a freakish physique you probably don't want to be burdened with excess weight in a plane that's so massive to begin with.

I agree with your point about frog support. The smaller area is nominally a step down and clearly intended to minimize machining costs as less area == less machining. With that said my engineering intuition is that it doesn't impact performance in any appreciable way, *provided* it's actually machined flat (see above w.r.t. quality/variability though).

I think that the importance of blade thickness is seriously overblown, and don't agree that "thicker iron is better, plain and simple". If you know how to tune a Stanley you can get equivalent results either way. If the type-14 iron is laminated then I would value it well above the 17, though if they're both homogeneous then it's probably a wash.

[Derek Cohen]

Thicker irons are a huge issue because sharpening them is a major issue when you would rather be using them. The newer alloys complicate things even more and really add to sharpening difficulty. Yes they are almost sharp for a long time, depending on the wood you are using. Yes all of this is affected by the wood you are working.
The good news is we have options:
Old steel: easy sharpen, very sharp, frequent honing.
A2 etc: thick steel, sharp for longer, very lengthy sharpening.
01 HSS: thick steel, very sharp.

The killer comes when that secondary bevel shortcut becomes the main bevel and you really have to restore the main bevel. The machine free shop cries out for a water cooled wheel so you can actually get back to working wood. Thinner blades are much easier.

I am going to try the thicker 'modern' blade in 01 HSS. The Japanese blades with their thick laminated construction and thin hard layer seem to have it right but western plane blades are not made that way....yet! The tapping out of Japanese blades is an added complication.

William, I disagree with those that say the modern, thicker blades are difficult to sharpen. Almost all the bench plane blades I use are thick and either PM or A2 steel. They take me seconds to hone. It really is about the sharpening regime you use, for example, I hollow grind all blades and use media that is suited to these steels. On the other hand, those that wish to stick with full face bevels and oil stones are better off with thin Stanley blades.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[ken hatch]

William, I disagree with those that say the modern, thicker blades are difficult to sharpen. Almost all the bench plane blades I use are thick and either PM or A2 steel. They take me seconds to hone. It really is about the sharpening regime you use, for example, I hollow grind all blades and use media that is suited to these steels. On the other hand, those that wish to stick with full face bevels and oil stones are better off with thin Stanley blades.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek,

That was what I was trying to say, in my usual build a clock to tell the time way. You did a much better job in fewer words.

ken

[steven c newman]

I merely use the irons that came with the planes.......and go from there....and I tend to keep things rather simple with the sharpening.....seems to work for me.

[david charlesworth]

I would not touch a late 20th century, UK Stanley blade, with a barge pole.

My 8 foot beech bench top, 16" wide, used to take at least 3 freshly sharpened blades when taking a finishing shaving. Work that I can now do with one Hock blade.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth

[steven c newman]

IMG_2470 (640x480).jpg
British Stanley #4c....
IMG_2472 (640x480).jpg
Like I said, I use the irons the planes came with......
IMG_2473 (640x480).jpg
Have no idea just how some have their planes set up.....mine are set up as users....
IMG_2471 (640x480).jpg
This one has been in use since I rehabbed it.....on Walnut, Cherry, Curly Maple, Poplar and pine......still going quite strong.
IMG_0902 (640x480).jpg
Must be in the set ups......

[William Fretwell]

Yes Derek if you hollow grind the blades with a machine then sharpening is far simpler. The frustrating thing is having to buy a large machine just so you can get your $300 of 'stones' to work in your lifetime. If you spend enough money anything is simpler. That jump to a grinder is one I made when I saw a 10" water cooled wheel for $200. Overheating blades with a grinder is an added complication I wanted to avoid. I resented having to get one.

Modern thicker blades are ABSOLUTLY more difficult to sharpen. Modern alloys are ABSOLUTLY more difficult to sharpen but you do it less often (there is one exception).

The exception has no steel. Cast cobalt with a high percentage of dendritic cobalt carbide. Cuts high tech rope better than anything else on the planet; for a long time. Two passes on a medium water stone each side and your edge is restored. Useless for wood however as it's not 'sharp'.

The advice given to beginners on this site frequently advises a low angle plane or two without telling them about the rabbit hole they are about to jump down.

[Jim Koepke]

The advice given to beginners on this site frequently advises a low angle plane or two without telling them about the rabbit hole they are about to jump down.

One man's rabbit hole (rebate hole) is another man's slippery slope.

jtk

[Stewie Simpson]

Yes Derek if you hollow grind the blades with a machine then sharpening is far simpler. The frustrating thing is having to buy a large machine just so you can get your $300 of 'stones' to work in your lifetime. If you spend enough money anything is simpler. That jump to a grinder is one I made when I saw a 10" water cooled wheel for $200. Overheating blades with a grinder is an added complication I wanted to avoid. I resented having to get one.

Modern thicker blades are ABSOLUTLY more difficult to sharpen. Modern alloys are ABSOLUTLY more difficult to sharpen but you do it less often (there is one exception).

The exception has no steel. Cast cobalt with a high percentage of dendritic cobalt carbide. Cuts high tech rope better than anything else on the planet; for a long time. Two passes on a medium water stone each side and your edge is restored. Useless for wood however as it's not 'sharp'.

The advice given to beginners on this site frequently advises a low angle plane or two without telling them about the rabbit hole they are about to jump down.

William; you have every right to question some of the advise being offered on this forum site.

Stewie;

[Todd Stock]

DMT DuoSharp C/XC to strip the edge and 8000 Norton to polish and back off. Takes a minute to do an edge in O1, A2, or PM-V. Where the thin iron shines is time to regrind, but that thickness also means time between grindings is reduced. With a CBN wheel, grinding goes quickly in a flash, but on a powerless job site, I can see the attraction, although if I travel, the DMT can handle the regrind.

Thin O1 irons made a lot of sense given oil stone/early man-made stone sharpening tech and job sites without any electrical service. I still have all my old oil stones and my hand-cranked grinder stored in preparation for the zombie apocalypse.

What? It COULD happen.

[Jerry Olexa]

Thanks Mathew..Interesting...agree with your conclusions

[Carl Baker]

Since this is a type study of No 7s, no point in a new thread. Anyone have an idea of this one? Looks like a 16 with a replacement lever cap? Agree / disagree? I know it made short work of sizing a door slab the other day; even in its current condition... buried in the bottom of a box of tools that I picked up for a song...

[Jim Koepke]

The lever cap appears to be from an earlier type. The image isn't clear enough to see if there is a frog adjustment screw under the depth adjuster. For some reason the frog adjustment set up went missing during WWII. Maybe the guys who worked in that department got drafted.

jtk

[Carl Baker]

It does have a frog adjustment. Everything I think points to a 16 except the lever cap is wrong and the casting is the older style (which as I read closer was not uncommon for early type 16s).