Old plane irons..

[Michael Gibbons]

What type of steel or iron was used in early ( 18th century) planes? Seems that if the material wasn't as high tech as our new stuff, they'd be sharpening alot more often.

[Bob Noles]

Isn't the power of marketing amazing

[Randal Stevenson]

A BIG part of the reason for more resharpening was more USE. A prime example is the story of Sister Babbit (spelling?). In the 19th century, she invented the circular saw blade. That and electricity (pre that, it was cabinetmakers shops powered by waterwheels and such) was probably the biggest reason our planes blades aren't a lot smaller. (tailed tools)

Blacksmiths and metalurgy was still pretty good back then (look at some of the Japanese swords, chisels, etc, OLD techniques)

[Stephen Shepherd]

The early blades were made largely of wrought iron (hence the name plane iron) with a veneer of steel forge welded to the back side.

The reason they did this some say is economy, I however feel that it was they could harden these much harder than if they were made of solid steel.

These are easy to sharpen because most of the metal is soft iron and only the thin veneer of steel.

I am not sure that any modern plane blade can not be hardened to that extent without being brittle and subject to breaking.

Stephen

[Mike Henderson]

For most of mankind's history good steel was hard to make and expensive. Most ferrous metal was iron, called wrought iron because it was hammered as part of the refining process. The difference between steel and wrought iron is that wrought iron has very little carbon while steel has enough to allow it to harden with a heat treatment. Wrought iron cannot be hardened with heat treatment

The first major step toward making steel in a systematic manner was the cementation process, known as "blister steel", developed about 1600. Look it up on Wikipedia for more information. Blister steel was not very uniform and a better process, known as the crucible process, was developed by Benjamin Huntsman in about 1740. Much later (late 1800's), Bessemer developed the process known by his name, and while it allowed mass production of steel it did not produce very good steel. Shortly after Bessemer's process, the basic open hearth process was developed which produced better steel but not generally good enough for tool use.

So most of the steel used on 18th and 19th century tools was made by the crucible process, and usually called "cast steel" because the steel was liquified (melted) in the crucible.

The process of making crucible steel was long and expensive so the crucible steel was expensive. Because of this, things like plane blades were not made completely of crucible steel. The crucible steel was used for the edge and was "laid on" or forged welded to the rest of the blade, which was made from less expensive wrought iron.

Stephen Shepherd and I have communicated about this issue and have different points of view. He believes that the blades were laminated for performance reasons - that the laminated blade allowed the maker to harden the steel more than could be done with an unlaminated blade, similar to the way Japanese chisels are made today.

I don't agree with his position. First, the edge steel in antique western laminated blades is only moderately harder than a modern western chisel or plane blade. If it was as hard as a Japanese blade or chisel, the edge would chip and fracture just like Japanese blades do.

Second, the crucible steel was expensive and our ancestors were business people who needed to be cost effective. Making a laminated tool required more labor but it saved on the cost of materials. As long as the maker could produce a laminated tool at lower cost than an unlaminated tool, they made laminated tools. As soon as good steel got cheap enough, the makers transitioned to non-laminated tools.

Finally, if lamination provided an advantage in western tools, we'd have people making laminated tools today. LN, for example, would likely produce a laminated chisel since they can charge a premium price for their products.

We don't appreciate how difficult it was for our ancestors to make good iron and steel. They had no way of analyzing the melt to determine what was in it, and depended upon experience and using the exact same ore, flux, and (as far as possible) process. But it was a hit or miss process. As late as the mid 1800 the US amory was complaining to steel makers that they were not getting steel that was consistent from shipment to shipment, and thus were having difficulty using it in weapons.

My own belief is that we are the beneficiaries of "survival of the fittest" - that our ancestors scrapped the worse tools and only passed the best down to us. The idea that our ancestors produced better tools than we're able to, with the benefit of 200 years of science, engineering and testing, just doesn't make any sense.

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

My own belief is that we are the beneficiaries of "survival of the fittest" - that our ancestors scrapped the worse tools and only passed the best down to us. The idea that our ancestors produced better tools than we're able to, with the benefit of 200 years of science, engineering and testing, just doesn't make any sense.

Mike

I think the lesser quality tools also were lost to being sharpened all the time and worn away.

As craftsmen had to make money with their tools, spending time to sharpen them was not a paying job. The makers of lesser tools were likely not able to sell as many of the tools as the quality tool makers. So we also have survival based on numbers and quality.

Quality gave a tool the ability to be sharpened less, so less likely to be worn down to dust. Which then earned it respect so it was not allowed to turn to rust.

jim

[Stephen Shepherd]

I don't believe that the Japanese could make the quality of steel that came out of Europe and America in the nineteenth century. And I am not sure that cast or crucible steel is available today to make the comparison.

But the old laminated Western irons are harder than modern blades, I have no issue with stuff being used up both good and bad, that did happen. I have had old planes sharpened up to the hole in the blade. And many old irons were scraped for the war effort.

Laminated blades were available after solid steel blades were on the market and continued for decades until the early 20th century when they quit making laid blades.

Stephen

[Mike Henderson]

Let me address your points one at a time.

When I make comparison to Japanese chisels, I'm referring to modern Japanese chisels made from modern steel. I can easily assure you that modern Japanese made steel is far superior to steel that came out of Europe and the United States in the 18th and 19th Century.

We have quite a bit of cast steel (crucible steel) available to us today in the form of laminated tools - any tool with the words "Cast steel" on it.

The quality of crucible steel was not really matched until the development of the electric furnace in the early 20th century (first US electric furnace in 1907). But crucible steel was not immediately replaced by electric arc furnace steel and continued to be used for quite a long time.

The quantity of crucible steel declined starting about 1920 (if I recall correctly) and the last crucible furnace closed in the 1960's.

It was probably not until the 1930's that good tool steel really got down in price. Prior to that there could have been a cost advantage in laminating a tool, as was done with those thin Stanley Bailey irons. This would especially be true because the forge welding was done by machine so the extra manufacturing cost was probably not that high - material costs would have been the primary driver.

BTW, for those interested in history, here's an article from the NY times of about 1905 about steel production (may require free logon to NY Times site).

Mike

[Stephen Shepherd]

As for the first point, I was comparing old and new and that probably wasn't fair, you are comparing new to old and I don't know but the quality of traditional steels i.e. E v W is appreciable. I don't know if I addressed that point.

I realize that there is a lot of cast steel around but I don't want to waste an old tool to make a new one. Some are solid cast steel and usually marked, I think they were proud. Some only have laid on blades, the remainer of the tool being wrought iron.

I also think the grain feature of wrought iron contributes to the overall characteristics of the blade not only with manufacturing but also in use. I think it can dampen more than other metals and the grain is alway oriented along the axis of the tool.

I only use tools with steel blades and most of those are laminated cast steel blades, I do have some tool steel laminated in wrought iron (new made). The new ones are fine and they were hardened and tempered. I am going to have the blacksmith harden them in brine and not draw the temper, because they are not as hard as the old tools.

People keep saying modern steel is better, I am not convinced.

Stephen

[Mike Henderson]

If old steel was better, we'd have people collecting it to make modern precision tools and equipment.

Give the scientists and engineers a break. Do you really think we've learned nothing in the last 200-300 years?

Mike

[Stephen Shepherd]

Give the scientists and engineers a break. Do you really think we've learned nothing in the last 200-300 years?

Apparently violin makers haven't learned nothing either. No I give scientists and engineers a break they do have tools with softer steel holding harder carbide 'welded/brazed' to their working end. Now what does that remind me of?

Stephen

[Mike Henderson]

Don't confuse science and art. Metallurgy is a science and has made great strides in the last 200 to 300 years.

Mike

[Stephen Shepherd]

Because that would include the time period under discussion. Since they quit laminating blades 90 odd years ago and not producing good steel, you are right.

What strides have been made, carbide was around in 1865, Stainless steel, 1917 (doesn't hold much of an edge), I am sure there are others?

I know that some people would argue with you about metallurgy not being an art, Damascus, the iron work of Samuel Yellin, metallic pigments in oil paints used by the Masters, silver on photographic plates.

300 years ago they were the same thing called Alchemy.

Stephen

[harry strasil]

I have to agree with Stehpen on the old laminated (laid on) edges on planes and chisels, they are far superior to modern ones, they tend to hold an edge longer.

That time was the pinnacle of hand tool making and they had it down to a science meaning, they had very usable tools that filled the needs of craftsmen who actually used the tools to make a living, and in my opinion there is little one can do to improve on something that is about as perfect as it can get.

[Mike Henderson]

I have to agree with Stehpen on the old laminated (laid on) edges on planes and chisels, they are far superior to modern ones, they tend to hold an edge longer.

That time was the pinnacle of hand tool making and they had it down to a science meaning, they had very usable tools that filled the needs of craftsmen who actually used the tools to make a living, and in my opinion there is little one can do to improve on something that is about as perfect as it can get.

As I've said before, if you believe that we, as toolmakers, have not progressed beyond the 18th century, I don't know what else to say. It defies logic.

Mike