Early Access Video: Do Thick Blades Really Matter?
Added 2021-07-24 11:00:04 +0000 UTCFriends:
Many people will tell you that you simply MUST replace the irons in old Stanley planes. They go on forever about thick modern replacements and their smooth, chatter-free performance.
So.....are they right?
I'm your no BS tool reviewer, so I got a thick iron and ran it though the ringer. The results were....complicated. Join me as we work through it.
(There's a tiny audio mistake at about 10:45. I will be fixed on Monday).
Happy Saturday!
--Rex
PS: Stay tuned tomorrow for a MAJOR announcement about new things to come!
Comments
Thanks Rex for the good video! Quicker than I expected, came the need for replacement iron and chip breaker. I found a Record 06 in good shape, but it didn't have the original blade, former owner had used it with Stanley #5 iron. #5 goes for spares, Hock iron and chip breaker I just ordered.
Rane Olsen
2021-07-31 19:18:06 +0000 UTCI bet you can go closer that your current setting. Mostly I'm picking on that piece of white oak that you got some tear out on, the shaving is merely a diagnostic tool. I think the formerly Bad Ash Planes guy set his up with a 0.005" feeler gauge. I think that's overkill, but it at least it gives context. I shoot for "as close to the edge" as I can get. Occassionally, I'll get too close and my shaving has the shape of cooked bacon. If the wood is the right color, it looks like bacon. There is very little benefit at that setting and it just makes the plane harder to push, so I back it off just a hair. When I have this dialed in, grain direction doesn't matter in domestic hardwoods. With the grain or against it, no tear out.
Matt Radtke
2021-07-29 14:03:35 +0000 UTCI totally appreciate your careful wording and re-writing to be polite. If only the whole internet could be like you! On the chipbreaker thing, I've experimented A LOT with that and found a setting that I like. Mine is VERY, VERY close to the edge. Also, in my experience, the closer the chip-breaker, the more curl you get since it deflects the shaving and forces it into that curled shape. My single-iron planes produce a noticably straighter shaving.
Rex Krueger
2021-07-29 12:41:05 +0000 UTCThis will sound more antagonistic than I want. I've tried rewriting it 3 times and it always sounds worse than I intend it to. Sorry in advance... One detail I see often with your smoothers is that curled shaving. It is my opinion that your chipbreaker isn't set tight enough based on your shavings. I've completely converted to a tightly set chipbreaker for my smoothers and suspect that it would solve your tear out in that white oak with either blade and breaker combo. I mention the shaving only because set tight enough, you shouldn't get curl anymore, but something flat and whispy. Perhaps "broken." :-) I actually prefer vintage humped breakers for this. The first plane I was able to dial in was a post-war plane with the stock iron and breaker. Once I knew what was possible, I got better at dialing in my modern replacement breakers as well.
Matt Radtke
2021-07-28 21:21:49 +0000 UTCThis is (mostly) about the Grizzly smoother Rex reviewed some time ago (and compared with another, similar Indian-produced smoother) and the Hock chip breaker. It's also about being a novice sharpener. Background: I have a Stanley #5, probably from the 1950's, and a #4 that I bought roughly 8 years ago from Lowe's - contractor grade, but it says Stanley and Baily and made in England on the body. The old(ish) #5 has always worked well, but the Stanley #4 was nowhere near as nice. The sole was not flat, and it was corrugated with longitudinal grooves about 1/32" apart. So I invested something like 8 - 10 hours flattening the sole (it would have been quicker if I had started with 80-grit paper). Now that it's flat, it is much better, but I wanted to see if proper sharpening would make it better. The chip breaker needed flattening, but before I risked the chip breaker, I decided to buy the Grizzly smoother and experiment with that, rather than with the Stanley. The Grizzly chip breaker is not like the Stanley's. It seems machined and seemed to be of better construction than the "stamped" Stanley. But it clearly needed flattening - there was clearly light shining between the chip breaker and the blade on the Grizzly. But I (novice sharpener) ruined the chip breaker in an attempt to flatten it - I somehow managed to get a curved surface along the front edge, rather then a flat one, and it was clear that there wasn't enough "break" left in the longitudinal profile to achieve a flat leading edge that would support the planing blade and prevent chatter, or at least that was my diagnosis. So I bought the Hock chip breaker, it arrived last week, and the Grizzly is now immediately fixed- with the Hock breaker right out of the bag (it was a beautiful fit).
Stu Elston
2021-07-26 17:01:36 +0000 UTCI do like eBay for that stuff and Patrick Leach (supertool.com) is another good source.
Rex Krueger
2021-07-26 11:24:32 +0000 UTCI'm sure it's a setup issue (and/or a workholding issue...). I'll post a thread about it when I have a little more data.
Kenneth Carlile
2021-07-26 11:24:31 +0000 UTCReally? That's very surprising. I've been nothing buy impressed with everything Veritas makes.
Rex Krueger
2021-07-26 11:23:22 +0000 UTCThanks for the comparison! Another small audio issue at 16:15, in case you didn't notice it :-)
Daniel Bohrer
2021-07-25 18:25:53 +0000 UTCTo my knowledge, the Hock and Stanley are the same steel type: O1. That should mean all other things being equal (back flatness, blade prep) then they should perform essentially the same with the Hock being slightly nicer on the hands but with extra weight. I'm not certain, but I think the reason the Hock plane blades are thicker is because Krenov wanted his plane blades thicker for his wooden laminated planes. This would be particularly helpful for a blade without a chipbreaker just such as Krenov designed. So it would make sense the Ron Hock would continue to use the same thickness for Stanley replacement blades. Why change the thickness, just keep using the exact same steel stock and be happy. Now a difference in the quality of the plane itself and how it holds the blade will probably make a significantly greater impact on performance. Something like the really cheap "Handyman" series will probably not perform as nicely as the ones shown here, sort of like the Amazon Basics model. Cheap is, well, cheap vs inexpensive which is high value.
Tom Manseau
2021-07-25 16:39:03 +0000 UTCGood review. I have the same impression regarding the Hock blades and breakers. I am curious about the cryo treatment. I like my contemporaneous Stanley 62's which benefit from very thick low angle blades. I think it is about the frequency of chattering. The heavy 62 blades are more rigid and will chatter at a much higher frequency and lower amplitude, compared to thinner blades. They seem to work better on reversing grain. Still getting a lot of use from my cabinet scrapers. The wood I choose does not make life easy. Anyway, I can't prove anything about chatter, but I believe it is a factor. Cheaper, less well designed and made also allow greater chattering. I think the quality of chip breakers is also important. Cheap plane = inferior chip breaker. They clog, and they don't cut as well.
Michael Ross
2021-07-25 02:24:49 +0000 UTCFantastic video as usual! I don't have a good vintage Stanley, but this video definitely makes me think I need to back up and figure out what's going on with my Veritas #4... I don 't get shavings anything like that!
Kenneth Carlile
2021-07-25 00:53:51 +0000 UTCThank you Rex for the test and evaluation of the thick iron from Hock. I have both a #5 and a #4-1/2 waiting to be restored and both will need new irons and the Hocks have always interested me. Question: Do you know of any sources for Stanley parts? I am missing the cap iron on the #4-1/2 (lost in the last move) and need to replace it. As always, take care, stay well and have a great week ahead.
Matt Evans-Koch
2021-07-24 21:10:38 +0000 UTCI do my best.
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 20:54:34 +0000 UTCCould you put that diagram up on the forum and tag me? I'd like to fit this Hock iron to my favorite Number 5 and I'm having that exact same problem.
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 20:53:56 +0000 UTCYou should email Patrick Leach. He has everything and will surely have a blade for you.
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 20:52:47 +0000 UTCThanks for pointing it out, but we know. I mentioned in in the description.
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 20:52:07 +0000 UTCThere's a weird thing in the video where your voice says something that doesn't quite sound like it fits, panned to the left channel. It happens twice in different parts, both times while you're doing the comparison tests. First example is at 10:40 - Second is at 16:13 I don't think there's any others but you might want to put on some headphones and check. Both times it's left-panned.
Merlyn Morgan-Graham
2021-07-24 19:11:49 +0000 UTCI have a Bailey 5-1/2 that I could not find a replacement blade for. From my searches this plane was made somewhere around 1937 and it is in excellent shape but I wanted a spare blade. I do this so I do not have to stop to sharpen and can just swap blades. Because of the weird size of this plane I bought a wider Hock blade and ground it down equally on both sides to fit. However the screw is not long enough so I will have to find something to hold it all in place. I think my Veritas No4 has a Hock blade or at least an equivalent in it and it is a very nice plane to use and heavier than my Stanley.
Paul Boegel
2021-07-24 18:57:46 +0000 UTCthe lighter and thinner irons of metal-bodied planes. Anyway, awesome job!
Russell Gough
2021-07-24 18:18:29 +0000 UTCHi Rex. Wow, what an excellent presentation! A+ from this prof. :-) Very useful info and loved the old pics. Couldn’t help but wonder if there was a connection between the very thick and heavy irons of wooden planes and
Russell Gough
2021-07-24 18:17:05 +0000 UTCAs the follow up to my comment about talking with Ron - basically I thought that the mouth was way too tight with the thicker Hock iron in it, but I couldn’t move the frog back any more without the back of the mouth interfering with the iron extending out. He sent me a helpful diagram of a cross section of how it’s supposed to look with where the iron’s bevel ends up as you extend it, plus my No. 3 is my absolute smoother, so I don’t really have to ever have the mouth open super wide, therefore no filing necessary. He did a good job talking me back from the edge of a cliff.
Aaron Wasielewski
2021-07-24 17:10:55 +0000 UTCWhat I appreciate about this review you are saving me money by proving I don’t need to replace my blades but also giving an option should I ever need to! Brilliant! Thanks!
Gerald Eddy
2021-07-24 16:59:56 +0000 UTCI recently picked up a #4 Stanley and there was very little of the original blade left to sharpen. I purchased a Hock to replace the worn out blade. I really did not notice a difference in cutting quality between my #5 Stanley with the thin blade and the #4 with the new Hock blade. I will have to test the two together and see if they cut differently. I realize they are different size planes, but close enough to get an idea of cutting differences. Enjoyed the video and the history of why Stanley made their plane blades thinner.
Jeff Hill
2021-07-24 16:54:56 +0000 UTCAsk my wife. She's in charge.
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 16:53:39 +0000 UTCMy pleasure!
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 16:53:23 +0000 UTCI enjoy the history.
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 16:52:38 +0000 UTCThank you!
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 16:52:29 +0000 UTCReally? What did he tell you?
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 16:52:16 +0000 UTCMe neither, until I read it in a very rare book. I'm shocked it's not more widely known.
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 16:51:47 +0000 UTCAnd enjoyment matters. Most of us are in this for the fun.
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 16:51:16 +0000 UTCMy pleasure!
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 16:50:50 +0000 UTCStanley doesn't get quite enough credit for being the premium company of their era.
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 16:50:40 +0000 UTCI probably had the cap-iron set too close. Also, every plane jams once in a while. As long as it's rare, it's not a problem.
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 16:49:43 +0000 UTCLoved the video. I am curious. What was the problem with the Hock iron when it jambed on the Oak board? How did you fix that? Did you have any more problems with jambing with the Hock?
David Kistner
2021-07-24 15:53:44 +0000 UTCThank you Rex. Another informative video to compliment my first coffee of the day. So being a newbie I learned a lot from seeing what you say are good shavings. I have all low angle planes from Lee Valley. The blades are really thick. I wonder if that makes low angle planes better since the blade is the chip breaker also.
John Hiemstra
2021-07-24 13:59:10 +0000 UTCThanks for another very informative video Rex, I think your analysis of Stanley's motivations in developing their planes is spot on. I now have a much greater appreciation of their planes.
Dick Wright
2021-07-24 13:56:07 +0000 UTCThis is very useful information. Thanks so much for doing this unbiased testing, and for the background info on the Stanley planes.
Robert A Carbo
2021-07-24 13:33:38 +0000 UTCI have a hock blade and recently added LN blades and breakers for my no3 and 7… I feel like it’s another step up in the fit and finish. The breaker in particular is unbelievably smooth fitting. I did have to file the mouth on my no7 to accommodate though. Small differences can really impact the experience in hand work, even if it’s just my enjoyment.
Tony DeFilippo
2021-07-24 13:26:59 +0000 UTCGreat breakdown, very fair and lines up to my experience. I hadn’t heard the early Stanley marketing pitch on the ease of honing
Tony DeFilippo
2021-07-24 13:22:39 +0000 UTCTotally agree with you! I have a Hock in my type 11 no. 3 since the original had some problems that was making it unenjoyable to use. I had no idea about the reasons behind iron thickness between older wooden plane irons and metallic Stanleys. So interesting, I’ve always thought to myself when looking at wooden planes, “man that is a thick iron, what gives?”. One of the nice things about Hock irons is if you have any questions at all about using them in your plane and you call or email them up, you are most likely to communicate directly with Ron Hock himself. I don’t really know how he does it with how accessible he makes himself. Very kind man, kept me from taking a file unnecessarily to the mouth of my No. 3.
Aaron Wasielewski
2021-07-24 13:13:26 +0000 UTCGreat job Rex!!! Everything you have shown is true, I replaced the irons in my 1910 Stanley #5 and #6 with the Hock blade and chip breaker because the blades were warped, and I agree the blade does engage better.
Ric Mondelli
2021-07-24 13:01:37 +0000 UTCLove the forensic breakdown on historic design/manufacturing processes. Thanks.
Kevin S Thomas
2021-07-24 12:56:12 +0000 UTCWell done Rex. My old restored irons cut well, and now I know where to go if I ever need to replace them. Great video!
Pete seddon
2021-07-24 12:51:47 +0000 UTCLooking forward to the major announcement
The Deaf Maker
2021-07-24 12:17:26 +0000 UTCGood catch! We'll get that sorted.
Rex Krueger
2021-07-24 12:11:34 +0000 UTCSeems like there were two audio problems: one where you said and another one just like it much earlier in the vid. Otherwise, great.
Charles Hampton
2021-07-24 12:02:16 +0000 UTCA really good discussion. I always appreciate the level headed nature of the discussion. And you are right, if it works leave it. I will say that earlier on, testing a modern plane it gave me a feel of what "sharp" really feels like, particularly since a lot of the antique planes tend to require sharpening & restoration. It can be tough as a newb in the beginning. Now does that mean that everyone should go out and buy new first? No and that's not the point.
Clive Vella
2021-07-24 12:02:12 +0000 UTCthat was a really thorough exploration of it. exactly the same results i found, too, though i keep hearing the same things, that everyone should get a [insert brand here] modern blade for stanleys. have tried the hawk, lie nielsen and veritas and they’re all fantastic cutters. but i found very little difference from a good quality original blade.
Avi Sato
2021-07-24 11:59:04 +0000 UTCAnother winner! thanks for your time spent doing this extreme testing.
Marc Barash
2021-07-24 11:50:07 +0000 UTC"(.... I will be fixed on Monday)" Fixed as in the sense that my dog is fixed?
Brian Taylor
2021-07-24 11:20:47 +0000 UTC
