Quality Hand Planes- which one?

carpainter

I've purchased both Lie Nielsen (edge trimmer) and a Clifton (No. 4 1/2 smoother) planes in the past and I'm now consider purchasing a No. 6 jointer, as a little Christmas present to myself. Does anyone have a No. 6 in either a Clifton or Lie Nielsen? I've also looked at Veritas but I'm having difficulty trying to make up my mind, it's a lot of dough for a plane that won't be used very often. Anybody have any thoughts on this or where the best deals are on planes from these makers- I've bought stuff like this from Fine Tools in Germany before now and found them competitive.

derekcohen

If you are thinking of a #6 as a jointer and considering the Clifton and LN, do give some thought to a LA Jack, particularly the LV version (it is slightly larger than the LN version, much like a #5 1/2 in size to a #5). This is an incredibly versatile plane - can be used as a short jointer, a panel plane and a great plane for a shooting board. It has an adjustable mouth and you can use just about any cutting angle (since it is bevel up you just use whatever bevel angle you like). It is capable of planing the most cranky grain.

Regards from Perth

Derek

carpainter

Cheers Derek, I've actually gone for the LN No. 7 in the end. Seems the No. 6 isn't considered a useful size, being neither a jack or a true jointer. I checked out a lot of the discussion regarding Clifton vs LN on www.ukworkshop.co.uk , which proved to be very informative. I think the general concensus is that Clifton planes, whilst performing well are not manufactured, machined or assembled to the same high standards evidenced in Tom LN's tools. I received my order of the No. 7 yesterday and I haven't had an opportunity to use the plane yet but a quick inspection did confirm this to be true- the iron casting is of excellent quality, with the mouth being very cleanly machined. I don't imagine this plane will require any fettling. It's a pity, the Clifton equivalent costs about €100 less, but the extra bucks spent on the LN tool does get you that extra level of quality. I'll most definetly consider the LV next time round (probably next year, my missus is understanding about my hobby but only to a point!)

derekcohen

I think that the #7 will be a good companion for your # 4 1/2. You have done well. The LN is a very nice plane. About the Cliftons - they are fine planes and it is only in comparison to the LN and LV that they suffer. Even here it is not so much the quality of the finish or the level of their performance, but rather that they are not as durable (as constructed of grey iron, not ductile iron). Actually, I prefer the look of the Clifton to the LN (says I with a bronze LN Anniversary #4 1/2 winging its way to my workshop as we speak).

Regards from Perth

Derek

carpainter

derekcohen wrote:

About the Cliftons - they are fine planes and it is only in comparison to the LN and LV that they suffer. Actually, I prefer the look of the Clifton to the LN (says I with a bronze LN Anniversary #4 1/2 winging its way to my workshop as we speak).



Derek

Best of luck with the No. 4 1/2. I aggree, the Clifton is a better looking plane, especially with the green paintwork and solid hefty feel and appearance.

MT

Hi Derek, I thought I'd logged into the wrong forum when I saw your name here. I'm Woden over at the Australian Woodwork forums (the one connected to ubeaut). What brings you to this corner of the internet?

Back onto the topic of hand planes, you recently advised me in a thread over there (sorry, can't link as I'm in a public library with right click disabled) that the record #078 isn't a plane for fine work and would need something like a shoulder plane for the final touches. Well, I've picked up an old record #073 shoulder plane with a sliding mouth - actually I got it for next to nothing as it had been broken but carefully welded(brased?) back together again and should work fine with a little fettling. The price on ebay was very low, no doubt because it's completely uncollectable due to its appearance. Anyway, I'm wondering is this enough to give rebates a good finish, even across the grain - it has an adjustable mouth? Or is a plane with a skew blade really needed to go across grain?

Carpainter, do you know of anywhere in Ireland that supplies zirconium oxide sand paper? I've been told that this is the best stuff for lapping on plate glass as it outlasts everything else.

derekcohen

Hi MT/Woden (how long have you suffered this split personality?)

The #073 is a fine shoulder plane. The LN is a copy of it. For cross grain planing a skew blade is preferred. It should leave a smooth finish. I expect a low angle shoulder plane to leave a rougher surface by comparison - somewhat mid way between a skew- and standard cutting angle.

With regard your #073, just make sure that all lines up - the side walls, the sole, the squareness. There is no reason that it should not be fine, but the heat generated in brazing can warp the cast iron. A fraction out-of-square can be lapped out.

Zirconium oxide sand paper is used by Nortons for their sanding belts. It is blue in colour. Get these, cut one open, and contact glue to float glass.

Regards from Perth

Derek

carpainter

I've used a 240 grit silicon carbide paper (I think) to do some work on my plane soles and find it quite good. I've bought this from a motor factors. some very fine grades (1200 and 2400) can be used to put a mirror like finish on your blade backs. i've also use T-cut as a mild abrasive to clean up older tools.

MT

Derek, don't worry I'm not crazy... er, I hope... I just registered on the other forum as woden as I happened to be thinking about the Woden vice I'd fitted on my bench. Strange as it may be, it was just a top-of-my-head sorta thing. My name's Michael not Woden, but my friends call me Matt as a nickname, so maybe name's aren't my strong point. Either that or I actually have a triple personality!:eek:

Thanks for the advice. The 73 seems to have been welded using a metal like brass - not sure if this is brasing? - but the job seems to be a good one as the two previously broken bits are still co-planner (if that's the right word) on all three sides. Well, a little lapping won't hurt!

I suppose a LN #140 is the ultimate when planing rebates across the grain and tenon faces but it's just a bit beyond my amateur's budget at the mo.

I'll have to be on the look out for one of those Norton belts. Thanks anyway, Derek.



Carpainter, I picked up some 2000 grade paper from a car bodyshop thinking this was the finest paper you could get. It was only a few days later that someone told me the grits actually go to 2500.:rolleyes: Do you sharpen your blades on stones or with the scary sharp method?

carpainter

MT wrote:

Carpainter, I picked up some 2000 grade paper from a car bodyshop thinking this was the finest paper you could get. It was only a few days later that someone told me the grits actually go to 2500.:rolleyes: Do you sharpen your blades on stones or with the scary sharp method?

I reckon your plane has been repaired by brazing. In relation to sharpening I now use the Veritas honing guide in conjunction with my Norton India oil stone for basic sharpening of the edge. Then I switch to wet and dry paper on plate glass, lubricated with plenty of water. (This approximates to the "Scary Sharp" method I assume?). This is pretty much what Ron Hock advises. I put a mirror like finish on my chisel and plane backs using this method. I use a succession of paper grades, up to 2400, all with water. Gives great results at little cost. Best of both worlds really- use the (relatively) cheap oil stone for rough shaping and sharpening, use water and paper (like water stones- but cheaper) for the final work. Advantage of paper over water stones is that you don't need to worry about wearing out a stone.

MT

Carpainter, sounds like a good system you've got there. How much do the Veritas mk II - it is the mk II you've got? - tend to go for in this part of the world? I've been thinking of buying one as from all acounts they seem to be the bees knees when it comes to consistently repeatable honing.

When you say rough shaping with the India stone does that mean you don't use a grinder to get the initial bevel? Isn't this time consuming if you have a deep nick or you find the edge is outta joint?

carpainter

MT wrote:

Carpainter, sounds like a good system you've got there. How much do the Veritas mk II - it is the mk II you've got? - tend to go for in this part of the world? I've been thinking of buying one as from all acounts they seem to be the bees knees when it comes to consistently repeatable honing.

When you say rough shaping with the India stone does that mean you don't use a grinder to get the initial bevel? Isn't this time consuming if you have a deep nick or you find the edge is outta joint?

I haven't resorted to a grinder to date, although I'm thinking of investing in one next year with some decent wheels which won't draw the temper of the tool steel. I think the honing system I have is the MKI version, bought on sale last year from Dieter Schmidt for about €30. Although I think Axminster are very good for price and service too. Incidentally I came across an interesting article on line about rehabilitating old sharpening stones- I have a few and plan to try this and see what quality the old stones were.

MT

Carpainter, when you're using the wet 'n' dry paper lubricated with water do you find that it swells somewhat resulting in the paper rising up infront of the edge? I've tried wet 'n' dry paper glued onto a granite surface to flatten the back of a chisel. However, when I then moved to a flat stone the edges (at the sides, as I'd been moving the blade sideways) appeared to have been rounded up. Maybe it was my technique or the spray adhesive I was using but this experience gave me reservations about the Scary Sharp method.

I've read that the paper will stay flatter if no water is used - have you ever tried this? Oh, and what spray adhesive do you use to stick the stuff down?

carpainter

I just wet the back of the paper and this holds the paer down onto the plate glass, I've never used spraymount. I haven't had any significant problems with edges being rounded over, although the paper can sometimes swell as you suggest. I don't like the idea of using spraymount to be honest, I'd imagine this could create high spots if not applied carefully.

MT

Your concern about the high spots from the spraymount was one I shared so I used a section of brush shaft as a 'rolling pin' on the paper to ensure the glue was squeezed evenly across the entire surface. However, I was using a granite slab and the little gaps between the grains of rock provided somewhere for the excess glue to escape into. I also sprayed on as little adhessive as possible in the middle of the paper and then spread it out evenly to the edges with one of those tooth-edged glue spreading cards.

When you're sharpening the bevel do you push the chisel as well as pulling it or just the latter, as some people recommend, to stop the paper lifting up ahead of the edge? I've also read that if you move the chisel in a side to side motion it reduces the chances of tearing the sandpaper.

carpainter

I generally use a figure of 8 or a circular motion with plane blades and a simple back and forth motion (as with bench stones) with the larger chisels (12mm or more). Tearing of the paper has not been a major problem. You should check out Ron Hock's tips on www.hocktools.com which is very informative. Probably the most important thing with any blade is to ensure the back of the blade (the last 1" or so nearest the cutting edge) is polished, almost to a mirror finish. If not the cutting edge will be serrated when examined under magnification. Even if I sharpen an edge on my Norton India stone I will flatten the back (polish really) using a fine wet and dry paper. For work away from the bench you can use the paer wrapped around a dowel of glued to a small block of MDF.

MT

When you say that you need to polish up the back to get a keen edge, do you do this before any work on the bevel? What I mean is if you're sharpening a chisel from scratch would you go through all the grits on the back after flattening before you'd do anything on the bevel? Doesn't this make extra work if you alternate from bevel to back on each grit to 'chase the burr' as you'd quickly loose that silky finish on the back on the coarser grits? Why not just let the process take its course as you'll eventually get to the finest grits on both surfaces? Have I picked you up wrong or something

Ps. what thickness is the glass you use for a substrate? Apparently, about 1/2 inch is recommended as anything less might flex under pressure but I wonder if this isn't a bit excessive.

Oh, and do you see the way you do the initial sharpening with an india oil stone do you think coarse paper like 100 grit would work as well?

carpainter

You would not believe the amount of material on the web dealing with the subject of sharpening alone! If starting from scratch I would flatten the chisel or blade back with a succession of wet and dry papers, finishing up with a 2000 grit paper for the mirror polish. Then I would grind the cutting edge and form the micro bevel, finish off with one or two passes (or whatever is required) to remove the wire edge, this I generally do on the wet and dry paper. I'm still perfecting my sharpening method, so whilst I used to rely solely on the India stone for sharpening, I'm now inclined to reach for the wet and dry paper, especially if I have a few tools that need attention. India stone is still the best for heavy grinding. I think that some of the coarser grit papers (like 100) are more inclined to scratch the blade surface and don't work as well as the equivalent oil stone- but that's just my opinion. My glass is about 9mm only- it's difficult to get 1/2", I found.

MT

Tell me about it, there's an unbelievable amount of stuff on sharpening out there. Enough to overwhelm any beginner and put them off edge tools altogether, IMO.

I'm probably not the sharpest chip off the block but I'm still a bit lost by what you've said. Do you not polish the bevel after you've ground it? From what you're saying it seems that you only polish the back to remove the wire edge formed through grinding on the india stone. As you've already polished up to 2000 on the back would you go back to this to remove the wire edge? I wouldn't have thought the fine grit would have been enough to strip off the wire burr.

Sorry about the inquisition, I'm still new to all this and whole sharpening thing seems a bit mysterious.


Ps. Do you grind a basic bevel and then to speed the process along only hone a small secondary bevel near the tip of the edge? That's mentioned on that link to Ron Hock's notes and I've read about it elsewhere as a fast way to sharpen when you're not doing the hollow ground thing. Questions, questions, questions... :rolleyes:

carpainter

Sorry MT, on re-reading my posts I see I may have been a little misleading. I'm using both the india stone and papers for sharpening this days. I use the coarse side of my combination Norton stone to grind the basic primary bevel, when required (shape gone, nicks etc). I then use the fine side to grind a secondary bevel, only a few strokes of the stone required. I will then use the finer wet and dry papers to hone and remove the wire edge. Once this is done this edge should last for a well and all that's required is the ocassional hone-up (so to spoke) to return the edge to the tool. I have an old leather belt which I use to "strop off" the wire edge too, must get some of that special soap/ wax for doing this properly. Axminster will be the ruination of me. If I'm starting with a brand new blade out of the box I will always polish the back of the blade to a mirror finish before attacking the edge itself. As has been so often said before by Ron Hock and others, find a method you like and stick with it, if it gets you results.

Check out this in the meantime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scary_sharp#Maintenance_of_a_Scary_Sharp_.28tm.29_edge

MT

I've tried 100 grade wet or dry paper on my granite slab and it cuts the bevel really well. I couldn't believe how quickly I was able to remove some nicks. So I've just purchased a cheapo honing jig on ebay to allow me to do consistent grinding.

I'm still a bit confused about this whole secondary bevel business. Why do you need more than one? Thing is I can hone freehand when using the wide surface of the primary bevel but find it impossible to maintain a consistent angle freehand when doing the very narrow secondary one. I wonder could you get away with just sharpening the primary bevel thus not having to bother setting up a jig.

Also, that link on wikipedia says you need to hone the primary bevel to 2000 grade and then do the whole thing over again for the secondary. But why? The cutting is only done with the secondary bevel so why would you bother to hone the primary at all other than coarsely grinding it to the right angle to begin with? I mean, people that hollow grind don't polish the bit of the bevel in the hollow as far as I'm aware.

This whole sharpening thing still seems like a dark art to my novices mind!

MT

Oh, I've just looked at that link again and realised that it actually says that after honing the pimary bevel up to 2000 you only create the secondary bevel with the 2000. You don't go all the way through the grits again. But even so why hone the primary bevel at all when the edge that cuts into the wood is the secondary bevel?

Also, as you continue to touch up won't the secondary bevel become longer and longer effectively giving the chisel a single bevel at a steeper angle?

carpainter

The advantages of creating and honing a second bevel are twofold: 1. there is less steel to grind away each time you wish to sharpen the edge, as you are only removing a little of the cutting edge on the microbevel each time (until it's time for a major regrind); 2. the microbevel is a stronger cutting edge because of the steeper angle and the fact that there is more "meat" behind it. This point is particularly so in the case of a plane cutter (or blade). The steeper cutting angle formed by the microbevel can be advantageous with more difficult grain. I can see no reason to hone the primary bevel, this does seem like a waste of time and resources, as you suggest.

MT

Those points make sense, carpainter. But the thing that still confuses me is why then do some people that hollow grind still hone a microbevel. Both the reasons for having to do it with a flat grind are surely redundant. The hollow takes care of the amount of steel that has to be removed each time and couldn't they just do the hollow grind at the steeper angle of what a microbevel would be at?

Is it possible do you think to hone a microbevel freehand or is the area so small that a honing jig is a must? It's just that if I could learn to do it freehand - I'll be using a jig for the foreseeable future to begin with - it'd be so much handier for doing regular touchups. I have an uncle that sharpens freehand after using a bench grinder and it makes for very quick touchups as he has nothing to set up. But as he uses a hollow grind I don't think he hones a microbevel so he can keep the chisel at the same angle freehand. Don't know if you could do this with a microbevel

Finally, what do you think of the Veritas Mrk2 honing jig. It seems to have more bells and whistles than the mrk1 but at about £30 (44 Euros) from Rutlands is it worth the cost?

carpainter

Hi MT
It would be bad practice to rely on a single hollow grind to get your cutting edge, the thin edge produced would be weak and would be inclined to lose it's temper when grinding. for this reason along it makes sense to hone a secondary (micro) bevel. The advantage of hollow grinding is that you have to remove even less metal to obtain the micro bevel each time, that is until you are ready to regrind the primary bevel from scratch again. Before i bought the Mark I I relied solely on hand honing, which i Thought was ok until I tried the honing guide. It depends on the type of work you plan to do. Purists who value their tools as much as the work the tools they produce, will probably say a honing guide is best. It produces repeatable, accurate sharpening profiles and angles and I think it's probably more efficient in terms of preventing you from inadvertently ruining a good blade or edge through bad honing. How often have you seen an old chisel that's lost it's original blade geometry through repeated poor grinding and honing? On the other hand I imagine a site carpenter who's doing basic carpentry and limited second fix work (a lot of doors are pre-hung and prefitted with ironmongery nowadays) will be doing his blade touch-ups by hand. This same carpenter is more likely to have a Stanley Dynagrip chisel in his toolbox that a Two Cherries, so you know: hose for courses. I like sharp edge and I find that honing with a jig is a reliable way for me to get the edge quality i like. I do have two grades of chisel and plane in my workshop- (slightly) cheaper tools for rough work, work away from the bench and more quality tools for bench work. I might touch up a cheaper edge on an oil stone by hand but i'll take time with my more expensive tools.

BTW I can't say I'll be upgrading to the Mark II system my Mark I will do for many years yet.

MT

But Carpainter what if you hollow ground at the slightly steeper angle that the micro bevel would be at? Would that then save you needing to create a micro bevel as the primary bevel would be as thick at the tip as a secondary on a chisel ground at a shallower angle. That's a bit of a mouthful but think of it this way - instead of 25 dgree hollow ground and 2 degree steeper microbevel, why not go straight to a 27 hollow ground? That way you're still only honing the same small area that you'd hone with a microbevel (because of the hollow) but not having to go to the second stage of a secondary bevel.

Your point about the honing guide is interesting. I would have always thought it was the other way round. That newbies like me would have to rely on a guide to get a good edge but very experienced master craftsmen would easily do the same thing freehand. I mean, aren't honing guides a fairly recent invention? They didn't have them in Chippendale's day and look at the furniture he produced, or did they

I was planning on using the honing guide for now while teaching myself to sharpen freehand but do you think I should give up on the latter and always use the guide? Thanks for bearing with me.

carpainter

I was quite happy with my hand sharpening and honing technique, especially as I had picked up some good advice through magazines, books and the net about the correct techniques and the "science" behind it. However I picked up the Mark I Veritas honing guide online for a discounted price and I think this is the prefereable way to hone, especially with good quality blades. Honing guides are around a while, at least 30 years (Eclipse used to do them years ago); they've just got more accurate and adaptablewith time. I'm sure the craftsmen of old would have used them on their fine sash chisels and the like, if they'd had a choice. As for your comment about a single hollow grind- you still run the risk of overheating the thin cutting edge by relying on a single bevel, single grind. Some people say the microbevel also acts as a chip breaker (like the cap iron on your planes cutter) and helps to control breakout when using the chisel for paring etc. When using a second, microbevel you get 2 or 3 honings (maybe more with a hollow grind) between grinding the primary bevel, this has to be better?