Hock or Veritas A2?

My 2 cents

Eric Hedberg

>Randy, I've seen a lot of discussions on this board about steel choices and in my mind have made the following conclusions. Any premium aftermarket blade will cut better and hold an edge better than the original. That the differences, real and perceived, between materials comes down to the wood you work with most often, your ability to get a fine edge, your motivation to keep the edge sharp, and the ability of the supporters in either camp to appeal to you. That being said, I would probably get the A2 blades. First, the name A2 sounds cooler than high carbon steel, second, because I've had good luck with them in my new planes, and third because they have good copy writers at Lee Valley and I'm a sucker for a good sell. Having formed those conclusions, I'd always wonder if it was true that high carbon steel produces a better edge. Eric (Who's about ready to make the jump to water stones and the cool ruler trick)

Re: Hock or Veritas A2?

Wendell @ Murphy, TX

>I was going to recommend getting which ever is cheaper. Then I checked out the LV website and saw that they are the same price. So much for that idea.

I have bought both types of replacement blades, but I haven't really used them enough to give a fair comparison between the two. The Hock blades take less time to sharpen. A2 is suppose to hold an edge longer but like I said, I haven't used my planes enough to tell the difference. I had an issue that the LV A2 iron I bought didn't have a wide enough slot to fit the lateral adjuster on the type 17 #4 I bought it for. I enlarged the slot with a hand grinder and it fit fine. The LV A2 iron I bought at the same time for a type 17 #5-1/2 fit just fine. My recommendation would be to buy on of each and see which one you like better. The blades would be interchangable between the planes. If the high carbon Hock blades really does sharpen to a better edge, I would put it the #4. The edge toughness of the A2 iron would be good in the #5 which you might be using more often for rougher work.

Wendell

What's in a name?

Jim Reed @Tallahassee

>Bottom line is that any aftermarket blade will beat a Stanley. Same is true of the blade shipped with your bandsaw or any other powertool. As for the steel, A2 has about the same carbon content as O1. Oil quenching is a batch process which is assembly line unfriendly. A2, however, adapts well to continuous processes and is thus the steel of choice for most modern manufacturers. Properly heat treated A2 and O1 probably perform alike. Differences depend more on hardness selected by the mfg rather than steel recipe.

Great Idea!

Randy in Langley

>Wendell,

What a great idea. I think that is exactly what I am going to do. I'll use the A2 for the #5 and the Hock for the #4. The worst that can happen is I decide one is bette than the other.

Thanks for the suggestion, I wish I had thought of it.

Re: What's in a name?

David Charlesworth

>I find that cryo A2 from Hock or L-N keep me working 2 to 3 times longer than any 01 steel.

The benefit is particularly noticable in abrasive timbers.

My first year students notice the difference almost straight away. Often when switching from the thick Clifton blades.

David Charlesworth

Same experience here

Wiley Horne--Glendora CA

>I have been comparing a Hock high carbon and a Hock A2 blade in the same infill plane for a couple of weeks now. Been through a few sharpenings with both. To me, the Hock high carbon is a very fine blade, and I'm happy with it, but the Hock A2 is a great blade. Also, even though Mr. Hock himself says that the O1 gets sharper, I don't find this to be the case; however, I am using diamond media for sharpening. Both blades are sharpened through 0.5 micron and lightly stropped, and both edges will slide through the edge of the morning paper like they don't even see it. That's as sharp as I need to get them.

My only LN A2 blade is a spokeshave blade. While that is a small sample to speak from, I do find that blade to be a wonderful edge holder, and plan to soon upgrade my LN5.5 to A2. It is sharpened on diamond also.

Wiley

This issue has been settled

bill tindall

>See Steve Elliot's web site where he has provided data that shows that any of the common steels used for tools can be sharpened to the same degree. The more wear resistant steels take more care to sharpen and the reward is more wear resistance in use.

Steve has also begun to assemble quantitative wear rate(edge retention) data for the various steels.

Just like LA planes can do everything HA's can:-)

Eric Hedberg

>

I have...

Christopher Fitch @ Memphis

>samples of pretty much all the high-end blades:

Cliftons, a Hock A2 cryo, Veritas, and Lie-Nielsens.

All are very nice... It's hard to pick one over the other.

Personally I like the Hock and the Cliftons a TINY bit better...but only barely.

In my limited experience, I find that I can get the Clifton's the sharpest and they hold their edge pretty well. The LN's do good but they just don't hold their edge as long as I would expect. I can get Veritas pretty sharp but they lose their edge a bit quicker. Finally, the Hock A2 Cryo does not get quite as keen an edge, but I can beat it into the ground and it holds that edge for a long time. I use the Hock in my tuned Record 05 and I use that for most of my grunt work.

Yep...

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>your right, no issue will be settled as long as folks prefer anecdote and opinion over objective controlled evidence. Steve is putting forward the objective evidence for those who are open to it (which, BTW, does confirm what I've been saying for years and validates my own objective findings in this area).

Same goes for bevel angles. The evidence is out there, either to read or to obtain for yourself. One of the reasons I go to such trouble to explain my methodology is so folks can attempt to replicate or refute my findings if they wish to go to the trouble. Same thing applies to Steve's. Or better yet, develop your own superior methodolgy and see if refutes or validates previous findings.

This stuff can be settled, but only for those who are willing to look at things scientifically.

Hijack - facts and non-facts...

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>[I wrote this hours ago, long before Lyn posted and thought I should review it some more before posting. Things got away from me and I'm just coming back to post it... Funny enough most of what I wanted to say, Lyn already did...but here goes...]

I know you're joking, but I'll just say that there will always be those who are still willing to believe the earth is flat too. (And Area 51 is a landing spot the Gvmt put up for aliens. etc.)

I think Bill and Steve are right, at least from what I've been able to gather on the subject, and I also believe that LABU *is* superior to BD too.

Liking one over the other is fine, if you simply want to hold that as your own personal belief.

What irks me, obviously huh, is when people who want to hang onto tradition and their particular preference, claim without any factual basis for their conclusions that "Yes, the earth *is* flat Joe! It's a simple fact!" Uh-huh. Sure.

If someone's going to argue a position (at least with any credibility) it requires facts and observation - not just WAGs and large doses of opinion. Making an argument for a particular position requires some understanding of the facts and a willingness to debate those facts and observations.

I personally have to take my hat off to people like Lyn, Bill and Steve for their basic nuts-and-bolts approach to really looking at results and facts and presenting them. I've learned more from them that I can ever repay.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: Hijack - facts and non-facts...

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Greg, sometimes tradition is right, sometimes not; but until they start testing the tools and steels I've been using, there's no reason to throw all my tools away and start again, at least not until I get unhappy and can attribute that to the tools.

There's nothing inherently wrong with high or low angle bevel down planes; and I can prove it. I like the LN labu jack, suspect I'd like the LV version at least as much; but that doesn't mean it solves all woodworking problems.

Pam

Re: What's in a name?

paul womack

>In the interests of historical change, I will point out that DC used to be a enthusiastic proponent of Hock O-1 blades.

He has enough students (with enough different high end tools) go through his classes to be pretty well informed, let alone his own diligent experiments.

BugBear

Tempering

Jim Reed @Tallahassee

>Since the steel recipe is almost identical, then the hardening/tempering must make the difference. Perhaps the cryo A2 is harder???

... I also believe that LABU *is* superior to BD..

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>Superior in what fashion?

Are your LNs A2 Cryo?

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>

Re: Same experience here

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>Wiley,

What method and materials do you use for stropping (after the 0.5� honing)?

Don

"Facts are meaningless. ...........

Eric Hedberg

>You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."

- Homer Simpson

Correction and answer

Wiley Horne--Glendora CA

>Hi Don,

Let me first make a correction to my post above. I made reference to Ron Hock's "O1" blades. Mr. Hock himself consistently refers to these blades as "high carbon". They are lightly alloyed with 1/2 percent each of chromium and vanadium (I suppose in addition to a little manganese). I have seen O1 listed in standard references as having about 1/2 percent of chromium and tungsten (not vanadium). So I should have referred to Mr. Hock's high carbon blade as "high carbon", just as he does, and not 'O1'.

Now to your point. After the 1/2-micron diamond honing, I just clean the swarf off the blade on a leather-strop-on-wood-backing charged with a melange of 1/4, 1/2, and 3 micron diamond (the mix of fine grits is not significant as they just sink into the leather). So we are talking about 2 or 3 wipes on the bevel side, with the blade held at the honing angle. And 1 wipe on the back, with the blade held flat. I am careful with stropping, even a little stropping, because it's easy to round either the bevel or the back. And real gorilla stropping can take the edge off that you just put on with the stones.

Then I do the newsprint test as the final check. The blade should slide readily at a right angle into the edge of the morning paper, just held loosely. If the newsprint test is not quite right, I go back to the 1/2 micron plate, and work the back (not the bevel) and rewipe the blade. BTW, the final few strokes on the back are taken with the blade ever so slightly raised, to simulate Mr. Charlesworth's ruler trick. I have been persuaded on this point by Brent Beach's optical research on wear bevels.

Wiley

Re: ... I also believe that LABU *is* superior to

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>For planes of equal quality, fit and finish, the bevel up plane will perform a wider array of tasks, with better performance at a better price.

For example, end grain on soft(er)-wood, straight face grain and wild and woolly nasty stuff. In these situations, the low bedding angle plane with a bevel up design (ala, LV/LN 62/164) will perform much better than the bevel down planes, say from LN or LV.

Further, I expect it's easier to make a bevel up plane as you have fewer machining surfaces to worry about without the frog. (I'm generalizing a bit, I suppose one could make an iron bevel down plane without a frog.)

This is probably going to make the BU plane cheaper, or better made, or just more profit in the vendors pocket.

The blade gets better support, lower down on the iron too. Less chatter in my limited exp.

[I'll digress here to "reply" to Pam too...]

As Pam noted, there's no need to throw away the tools one already has. Indeed, I wasn't willing to get the LV Jack until my LN was gone and that cash went to the LV. But, note that I readily admitted when I got a chance to use the LV that it was, IMHO, vastly superior to the LN. (I ignored the bias toward what I had and liked for a objective review of the two tools, if I can be so boastful...)

My point isn't to say; "your tools are all junk, you must switch..." It's more that I would like to discuss and even debate the merits of one item vs. another, and I'd like to talk about technical issues, rather than practical ones, per'se. (What tool you currently have vs. what would you get if you were doing it again...)

The fact that one likes their current tools, or prefers that old Stanley transitional doesn't eclipse the discussion of what methods are technically superior - at least at the current time.

So, if one wants to discuss those issues, one kind of has to leave the discussions about "what I like" and "what I have" out of it and discuss the details, observations and facts, not just opinions like "well Stanly never sold many 164's so the design must be crap." They might be, or might not. But vaccous discussions about bogus "facts," etc won't help anyone learn anything.

Lastly, I understand that "facts" can be interpreted in different ways, and that others may and will reach different conclusions - but at least we can discuss the merits of things, and leave purely personal preference, personal attack and jihad for the "one right way" out of it and have a spirited, honorable and reasonable debate. (Or at least I hope that's possible...)

Cheers,

Greg

Re: ... I also believe that LABU *is* superior to

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>Greg Sllop states and I snipped.....

"What irks me, obviously huh, is when people who want to hang onto tradition and their particular preference, claim without any factual basis for their conclusions that "Yes, the earth *is* flat Joe! It's a simple fact!" Uh-huh. Sure"

and also

"I think Bill and Steve are right, at least from what I've been able to gather on the subject, and I also believe that LABU *is* superior to BD too."

"For planes of equal quality, fit and finish, the bevel up plane will perform a wider array of tasks, with better performance at a better price"

Greg, can you please share with us the list of bevel down smoothers that you have tested and the results of your tests. I would also appreciate if you could share your testing proceedures/methods. How did you arrive at your factual conclusions..

Re: ... I also believe that LABU *is* superior to

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>Jonathan

You'll have to pardon me if I have difficulty believing that you're interested in an intellectually honest discussion - thus I'm simply going to end my participation in this thread here.

You've done the classic "When did you stop beating your wife?" routine. You've constructed a phantom of my opinion and attempt defeat me by beating a crude and twisted caricature of my thoughts and observations. But you have shown yourself the master of straw-man arguments, so I�m not terribly surprised...

Point is, I've never claimed to be an expert on smoothers. What I have talked about and at pretty great length, as you obviously know, is how LABU is of high utility, mainly because it's easy to change the total cut angle.

For that reason alone, and for the resulting ability to handle a very wide range of conditions exceedingly well, LABU is going to be better than a comparable bevel down plane, at least as I understand the facts and given my experience with multiple cut angles.

I've posted about the results from bevel angles at 37�, 47� 50� 53� 55� 57� 60� 63� 65� and the results such angles had on the ability to leave a perfect surface on the most difficult wood I've hand-planed yet, QS Sycamore sapwood. (I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out how this applies to LABU vs BD designs debate.)

But I'm pretty sure you'll find some convenient way to distort my views and attempt to crank it all up again. Enjoy yourself. I won't be at the party.

Cheers,

Greg

Thanks, Greg.

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>

Re: Correction and answer

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>Thanks, Wiley. Do I presume correctly that your leather strop is smooth-side-up?