Plane story
- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This morning I was truing up some stock to make a dovetail gauge and it seemed that my trusty Bailey #3 was in need of sharpening so I paused, got out the stones and strop and restored the edge. Then I re-installed the chip breaker and put the blade back in plane. I noticed however that iron/chip breaker wasn’t seating fully on top of the frog. After several attempts to re-assemble/re-adjust there was still daylight between the iron and frog. I have two blade/iron assemblies to this plane and this one I had equipped with a Hock chip breaker. At the time I bought it(5 years ago) I couldn’t afford to get both the premium iron and chip breaker that I had read was needed to get these old Stanleys to perform right so I got the chip breaker first reasoning that it would make the puny Stanley iron stiffer so it would work better until I could afford the matching iron. Well I never got around to buying a super duty iron as the plane always seemed to work alright and with a spare iron I could always switch and keep working, but I just knew that it would be better if I had the heavier iron. As it turns out, any stiffness gained by the thicker chip breaker may be lost by the fact that the iron assembly doesn’t seat on the frog. The point I’d like to make here is that Paul’s right about standard irons and standard planes working just fine. I put the Stanley chip breaker back on and everything fits and works fine, it just got me thinking a bit.
If I was a seasoned woodworker and had years of experience to back me up, I’d be inclined to surmise that as the hand woodworking hobby has grown in recent years, there’s also been an increase in the number and variety of artisan made super trick (and expensive) woodworking tools and we are constantly being told (by those in the know) that the discriminating craftsman must have. And I would end by saying that it looks like a classic example of the old saying that “some lures catch fish and some lures catch fishermen.” However, since I’m just another dummy who has yet to make anything of substance, I’ll just say how thankful I am for Paul and this site where the emphasis is on learning to actually make things and build skills instead of building a tool collection (of super trick tools). “It’s the Indian, not the arrow”.
Pretty confident you’re not the only one with a similar experience, Sid, and your reasoning is sound. And I for one will wholeheartedly second your thanks to Paul and his cohorts here.
The very first tool I bought was a filthy Marples M4 plane knowing nothing about hand tools to be honest. I stripped it, quickly cleaned it and fixed the handle and used it. I noticed the iron didn’t keep edge long which is simply marked “Stanley Made in England” iron. Internet research yielded the M4 as not common, not really collectible but highly valued tool and original irons difficult to find with limited information available. I found some information indicating that it needs a thick iron which seems rubbish but I had considered getting one. I located an original iron on e-bay which is in poor state and crucible cast, probably not worth it save having a complete an original unit.
I absolutely love the M4 but wonder if the edge will hold for long every time I use it which is getting more frequent as I evolve!
I could get a Record Tunsten Steel iron on e-bay reasonably or is worth getting a sales pitched A2 or 01 iron? What do you think?
I absolutely love the iron but wonder if the edge will hold for long
Regards,
John
John,
As I understand your question, you want to opinions as to which replacement iron you should buy as you are afraid of wearing out the original (Marples) which would be difficult to replace.
I would suggest a replacement iron from Ray Iles in O-1 for the following reasons; it should take a keener edge and hold it longer then a tungsten steel iron (probably high speed steel) due to it’s finer grain structure, it is (as I recall) ~.110″ thick which is thicker then the Stanley/Records and may more closely match the factory specs., and the price should be comparable to a Stanley/Record replacement in the UK. I don’t think A-2 gives enough more bang for the buck to justify the price. If you really feel you need an iron that will hold an edge for a long time, Iles also offers irons in D-2 which is harder then the hubs of hell and probably about as easy to sharpen.
Realistically, you are the best judge of your requirements and it may be that the Marples iron you are using will last longer then you think at the rate you’re using it. Hope this helps.Cheers
Perhaps thicker blades are more “forgiving” when the iron is not correctly bedded?
I bought one Hock o1 blade for my Stanley No. 7 many moons ago – because I read that it worked wonders. It works fine, but I am not sure if it is any better than the original wartime iron. I also find the square end of the Hock iron less comfortable to hold when honing.
Your probably correct Scott, a thicker iron would be able to dampen vibrations (chatter) better then a thin one if the bedding was bad but I’m wondering if a standard (thin) one might be more likely to bed properly then something thicker then the designer intended. That’s the premise that I began with. I would suggest that folks check their irons for proper bedding by holding their planes up to the light and checking for a gap in the way the iron seats on the frog. I suspect that this fit is not good on many planes.
cheers
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.