Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
Agree, mostly...
John in NM
David inadvertently reminded me of the defining example of what Warren is talking about - St. James Bay Tools.
Other specialty makers... well, I really don't know. Warren's point may be aimed more at custom boutique makers than small production factories like LN or LV.
Bull
John in NM
I don't agree about the old Stanley irons. Hock stuff is better than any Stanley blade that came in a post 1940's plane I've owned - which is admittedly only six or so examples. Their irons were too soft and thus hard to sharpen because of the tenacious wire edge. Perhaps that was just my early problems with stones, but I never had any trouble sharpening Hock blades once I replaced the Stanleys.
I think most of the trouble is that you are not a mainstream user, so you just don't get that the manufacturers are supplying a market that is pretty happy with what they get even if it's not what you are after.
I think you're focusing waaaaay too much on a tree or two and missing the forest.
Unfortunately, I don't know George...
John in NM
So I cannot ascribe any weight to his opinion. I've seen you mention him often enough, but I've no idea who he is.
I think you missed my point. Lee Valley, Hock, whoever, is not making irons for you. They are all making irons for thousands of consumers who like what they get when they buy one. They are following pretty conventional manufacturing wisdom when it comes to steels, which is in a nutshell, to maximize hardness without degrading other properties. The reason for this is that they don't want to appeal to experts only, they don't want their customers to have to be fantastic with a stone, or worse yet, one particular type of stone. They don't want to make one iron for smoothing and a different one for a jack plane, but then those are the same size and will confuse neophyte customers.
What you keep describing as your ideal is something no one is going to make and attempt to sell. Such a product would appeal to a very limited segment of the market - you and a few others.
However, I realize I am being pretty hard on you, and that is a bit accidental. I don't for a moment want to stomp on your enthusiasm for trying different irons, for finding them lacking and trying to find something that fits exactly the niche you want it to fit. I'm afraid that you are going to have to make your own, however.
I'm also reminded of my own predilection for specific knife blades - hammer forged carbon steel. I don't like stainless, and I don't like blades ground from 1098 flat stock. The best blades I've used were 1098 (or whatever) heated up and smashed. No idea why, but they seem to hold an edge better. Could well be my imagination too, but I stick with it, in spite of knowing the preference is pretty unfounded and probably irrational.
Re: Bull
David Weaver
Stanley made a lot of pre 1940 irons. Hock flourished in the environment of 1970s type Stanley irons, which were the worst they made. Many of the earlier irons were probably in the 60 hardness range and wore well and evenly, mine still do. Time in the wood is comparable to the hock hcs irons that I've had. You have to know how to use the cap iron to get their full benefit, though due to thinness.
Don't worry about coming across harsh or not (from your other post).
Re: Unfortunately, I don't know George...
David Weaver
It's not your imagination with knife blades. For slicing type work, hard 1095 is better than almost anything.
As far as the irons go, I'm not looking for irons of varying hardness. That's an artifact of taking three drawers full of old irons and putting them where they work best. We can be honest about modern planes sold...The typical uses will be smoothing, and then we'll have chisels on the side. True jack and try plane work in any quantity is rare.
I use old irons in planes I build partially for the thrill of finding the best ones and largely for appearance. I couldn't use them if I built planes professionally unless I had hundreds unused of one brand.
I think lv did a pretty good job, but some folks presented the results as being well away from established performance and we have seen so far that the results are more like high normal.
I just don't want to be the guy Who establishes wear in plane irons in wood with a test and actual numbers and scope pictures because it takes so long, but the public deserves it. I suspect in wood, it will do a little better than a2.
In my opinion, the folks originally claiming that the steel sharpened easier than a2 and lasted twice as long in a plane were repeating something they read. Lots of the on the ground performance claims have chilled out some.
Re: Unfortunately, I don't know George...
David Weaver
George was the toolmaker at Williamsburg. Most definitely the finest maker I've ever met, and a very deep results oriented thinker. He also dabbled with the wondersteels and probably used a2 in a plane before anyone, including before holtey. He liked it compared to the relatively low carbon steel the blacksmiths were using and snuck hard irons to the coppers.
The blacksmiths apparently had a difficult time forge welding something like 1095 and used 1070 or something instead, resulting in irons that don't wear well in white oak.
Here's the thing...
John in NM
Most of what I'm taking issue with is your reaction to people's reaction to marketing - not the product itself or even your direct reaction to its marketing. Fortunately, I didn't read most of those reactions early on 
I have a couple PMV11 blades, but I've yet to do much with them. Lately I'm using spokeshaves more than planes. I'm actually using a spindle sander more than anything, but spokeshaves and rasps are the bulk of my handtool work recently.
If you like A2, you'll find them..
David Weaver
...to be like a better version of it.
Still
Frank D. in Montreal
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by experience, but this thread has been about LV. When you say " I question whether they even have the experience to make hardness decisions," I'm not sure who would actually have the experience to make hardness decisions if LV doesn't. The huge manufacturers who ride on their past successes certainly seem to care less than a company like LV about being in tune with their community of users and fellow manufacturers. Especially now, community is much less defined by a geographical area than a group of people who take the necessary measures to stay connected (to meet, to communicate). I'm still trying to figure out which tool manufacturer would be better placed in terms of size (big enough, not too small) and desire to innovate not just tools but more efficient manufacturing processes which produce better quality at a given price. This is not bogus tool porn nor mindless mass marketing.
Re: Still
John Schtroumpf
I think Frank has something there. Lee Valley does collaborate and seek feedback on the hand tools it makes. So the tools do work for their customers. Their tools are more geared towards the amateur and hobbyist, because that is who their customers are for hand tools. While they do explore and look at historical tools, they are not making tools for Colonial Williamsburg. So they may miss a subtlety in a tool that was historically there and could benefit their users. But that doesn't mean they make bad tools.
How LV designs tools
Bill Tindall, E.Tn.
I had the privilege of spending a day with Mr. Lee at the LV facility in Ottawa. Much of the time was spent in R&D and manufacturing where I gained insight into how they design and manufacturer tools. Fact: There is not a sufficient supply of "old" tools to supply the woodworking market, be it beginner or experienced. Affordable newly made tools must come from somewhere. LV's business is for them to come from manufacturing in North America and not China.
Some of you have the notion that nothing developed after 1857 was an improvement in woodworking. Read no further, for the rest is not for you. My "horse in this race" is the woodworker that is open to change, be they beginner or experienced. Jeff Headley (if there is a more accomplished woodworker on this Forum let's see your work) told me that every time he taught a class he learned something new/useful. The opportunity for change is available to the willing.
Lee Valley has an extensive collection of old tools, possibly unmatched in the world. When they decide to manufacturer a new tool, say a widget, that does an old tool's function, they go to this collection and pull all widgets in the collection to study what are the essential features that make widgets work. Then they consider how they could be improved in function or manufacturer.
LV's forte is ergonomics. Is there anyone that thinks a vintage spoke shave or shoulder plane is more pleasant to use for putting product out the door than the LV offerings? With 3D printing they can mock up designs for hands-on evaluation. When they designed handles for bench planes they printed up several models and had the thousands of customers who shopped at their nearby store vote on the ergonomics of the choices, as an example of the capability they can bring to bear on a design.
But in the end it is manufacturing. Can the widget be made in North America at a price enough woodworkers will pay? I don't see $$$ boutique tools in professional shops or any of my friends amateur shops for that matter. LV doesn't choose to compete in this market for the volume is incompatible with efficient manufacturing.
The proposed widget design gets scrutinized by experienced machinists to see how it can be made on the most modern manufacturing machinery. The end result is by necessity a compromise of ergonomics, function, marketing and manufacturing guided by a wealth of experience.
Any doubt LV makes tools for professionals? I first encountered LV at the International Woodworkers Fair (IWF) in Atlanta. LV attends every year. This show is the trade show for professionals.
I'll take this opportunity to answer the O-1 hardness question. Harden O-1 at Rc 62 and 30% of the toughness is lost which can lead to chipping which is regarded as something to be avoided by most. Think Hock blades are flawed? Apparently this deficiency is yet to be discovered at the Krenov school located nearby where they make stuff, or they failed to communicate to Ron or he ignored their complaints-take your choice. Think there is an unserved market for O-1 at Rc 62? Making plane blades is cheap and easy. Go for it.
Bill turned the wheel
David Weaver
I posted a chart of hardness testing results from a guy with a portable tester. All things considered, the results were relatively accurate, though not probably within the narrow range that a good manufacturer can hit.
Bill took offense to two measurements from manufacturers that he's had input on or learned about the process with.
That wasn't really the point of posting the results, but somehow it became the topic because that's all that was seen from that chart, whereas I see an overall trend with western and Japanese chisels.
Lv is a fine company, at least in my opinion. Not a flippant , "oh, they're fine", but a fine company that we all expect a lot from just because they are that. Some of the advice that they get within, after seeing the goofy video of Vic tesolin talking about figured wood and multiple frog angles and scrapers....that's not so good. I wonder if he actually believes what he says, or if he's just talking to the product line.
Nonetheless, I doubt anyone here has a legitimate story about talking to rob Lee and coming away with an unsavory feeling. I can't say the same for a lot of other proprietors.
Re: How LV designs tools
David Weaver
The picture of the performance of the hock blade is easy to see on beach's site vs eskilstuna irons and the knight iron. I have seen the same thing in person.
It is a real curiosity as to why several other irons outperform it when they're equally hard.
All Japanese irons that I've tried are as hard and some much harder. The only ones i've had trouble with in terms of keeping a fine edge are the ones that are highly alloyed, I suppose those will keep a mediocre edge for a long time, but you will fight them to get a good finish planed surface.
I understand the manufacturing and marketing processes and why the point toward v11 and a2, but I wish they instead yielded new ward irons and chisels that either matched ward or Japanese. The former isn't going to happen, and I doubt a ward chisel holds an edge quite as long as a v11 chisel if the tests are accurate for wood we use in the states. Somewhere, there must be the potential to match the performance of a white steel chisel.
There have been many improvements, even v11 is an improvement vs a2. A2 is obsolete where v11 is available, but its performance was a little oversold and it's time for someone to give it a meaningful test in real wood.
If I didn't have a day job and had a pension, I'd consider making hand finished chisels and irons. Thus far, I've used no more than a cordless drill , a whole bunch of hand tools and a dime store belt sander. That's a good way to yield 10 dollars an hour and metal splinters.
Even with a milling machine...
John in NM
You'll get the metal splinters
I may do the test...
David Weaver
I was wrong about not having any more of the hock carbon steel irons. I still have an old plane that belonged to a friend's dad. I refurbished it and he refused to take it back, so it sits. It probably deserves a better *looking* iron, so I may also make one for it.
I'll have to order a V11 iron so that the testing is done in the same plane.
And I guess one from LN as i only have an LN iron in a #4.
I'm not going to test a ward iron in an infill plane along with this for selfish reasons (in case it fares relatively equally vs. the other irons and shows a finer edge through the process). It's very hard to get good parallel and tapered iron sets already.
I expect the V11 iron to fare well, last slightly longer than A2 and show a finer edge quality during the wear process. As in, I expect it to "win".
I don't love doing this kind of testing - it will take thousands of strokes and I will have the results only from one iron of each, and will need to rotate irons every 100 strokes or so to negate any possibility of changing wood muddying the results.
Re: Even with a milling machine...
David Weaver
Learning to use power tools for fine work would probably set me back for years!
George had said to me years ago that if I want to continue making tools, I should have a lathe and a mill. I'm afraid that I'd run out of interest around the same time that I'd master using them.
They look relatively expensive to use from what i can see.
Re: Even with a milling machine...
John in NM
I have a mill that I use for woodworking mostly It was "free", meaning I had to drive to Tucson, rent a trailer, already have an engine hoist to pick it up, and then buy a bunch of parts from Grizzly to get it functioning again....
But it makes one heck of a router, which is why I went through all that rigamarole for a "free" mill
Re: Steve Knight’s irons
E Phillip Smith
Back in the day Bruce Norton and I made a bunch of CPM 3V plane irons for you. How are they working out?
After we made those we made 4 CPM M4 plane irons hardened to RC 64 I think. That is the only iron that stays in my LN 4.5 and Clifton No. 5. Essentially all of my plaining.
CPM-3V Elliott irons
Wiley Horne
Hi Phil,
I apologize for the late get-back. I just went to sharpen one of your irons...and remembered. I trust and hope you are all well back there in the beautiful hills, with the rhododendron and dogwood—I very nearly took a job with TVA ever so many years ago, and still remember the drive from Charlotte, in May, with my wife. Each mountain elevation was in a different spring season!
That was quite a blade-making adventure, involving you, Bruce, Bill T. and Steve Elliott. Amazing you went on to M4. Hey, there’s still 10V.
The 3V irons live on! For me, there is one in an LN 5-1/2, and 3 or 4 in Konrad Sauer’s planes. The LN 5-1/2 is used with a tight chipbreaker, the others with tight mouth and chipbreaker retracted. I sharpen with fixed diamond. Loose diamond is fine, but I wind up with black swarf ground into my hands. The DMT 8000g diamond plate is magic with this steel.
I can’t comment on edge life because I’m an early sharpener. Like to sharpen. Phil, to tell you the exact truth, I don’t care that much about which steel. I like them all—vintage high-carbon in molding planes, W1 (1095) in an LN4, O-1 in a bunch of planes, more O-1 than anything else, and even the much-abused A-2. Japanese white and blue steel is really good, but I’m about to get rid of those planes, as my eyes are not good enough to get the chipbreaker right on them.
If I can sharpen it quickly, I like it. It all finds its place, as David Weaver says.
The exception to this is any plane with a curved blade, like molding planes, jacks, and fore planes—nothing harder than O-1 on them, and straight high carbon like vintage steel or 1095 is ideal for them. IMO, because I want them to sharpen easily and quickly.
Phil, I have great memories of the 3V adventure, the irons are still being used most every day, and as I say, that DMT 8000g diamond stone is really good on them.
Wiley
to
From Brent Beach's tests...
david weaver
..the 3V looks to have been a good choice (based on the edge wear progression pictures on Beach's page). I came along too late to get one (but making one is always an option, and would be if I was looking for turbo steel).
Some of the others like the chinese HSS, the hobart australia blades, etc. also did really well.
I think steve knight may have missed an opportunity to make stanley type irons with the process that was being used for his, but it would've taken some marketing.
LV's efforts (I'd call the steel a lot like a potentially improved friodur 440C based on how it feels on the stones, though I don't know if friodur ever admitted they were making cryo treated 440C) also have made a nice fine iron.
Like the term - "early sharpener". Very seinfeld-esque. Close-talker, regifter, early sharpener....
It does seem like we've lost a little bit of the zest that was around 10-15 years ago when more people were tinkering.
Standing on the point of a pin.
Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)
I still have 3V and M4 blades for the Veritas BU smoother, from testing PM-V11. I also have 3V and M4 in a chisel, gave away a 10V as it was impossible to sharpen well, and M4 in a Stanley #604. Unless one is testing for endurance, they all work well and I would be quite happy to have just one if that was all that was available. Oh, all right .. I have a vintage Clifton iron in a Stanley #3 (it fits!), and it is wonderful for the 20 strokes it makes before needing resharpening 
It begs the point that we tend to make a song-and-dance about "the best", but much of the time I bet that most of us will just grab what is sharp, and make it work.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Re: Standing on the point of a pin.
david weaver
I'd thought about saying something similar - the only irons that have really put me off in working have been the ones that are actually defective.
* shepherd's A2 iron in a kit that i had. Again, matched what beach saw. I was hoping that I'd get lucky, but the iron sharpened like a very hard iron and went to notched style within a few strokes leaving very pronounced lines
* an eskilstuna berg tapered iron - which I admittedly bought based on the edge fineness shown on brent's page. the iron that I purchased is flawed - it doesn't release big bits out of the edge, it just fails to ever hold the very uniform edge at all and instantly feels like a dull iron within a few strokes. It's not overly hard, either. That was a bummer.
Everything else has been fine. I used to think that irons like the clifton were unusable in abrasive woods, but learned to work with stuff like that by big/little smoothing. Thick shavings with the cap set to do everything except one or two final passes with a thin shaving. Strangely enough, that turns out to be a much faster way of smoothing really anything, even though, of course, it works even better with a higher quality iron. It's not doable without a cap iron, though (there is just no way to get four or five thousandths of shaving through a single iron plane that is capable of avoiding surface damage).
I think I've probably said half a dozen times on here that soft irons have taught me more than hard ones. that's what I meant by that.
The round top 70s stanley irons will teach a user a lot if they use the cap iron and force themselves to resist the urge to go right back to better irons floating around the shop.
Finish smoothing notwithstanding (no sanding or scraping, or anything more than burnishing with shavings following the plane)- in that case, edge uniformity becomes very important. Very few people actually do it despite many saying they do.
I do it when I can, which causes me to have an errant view (admittedly) about plane iron qualities important to most folks. Tiny little lines are no match even for 400 grit sandpaper.
When I was learning on my travels of capirondom, I made the large cocobolo coffin smoother from a rough billet (shown in pictures in the corian thread) using only a stanley 4 and the stock iron, except to sand the facets off of the plane after planing the contour on it. I have to admit that it really didn't cost any appreciable time in making the plane and i intentionally did big/little process for all of it and sharpened the #4 one time at the end only to take finish shavings on the top face of the plane, and on the sole.
I could not show how valuable any of this is in words to anyone - someone would have to be in my shop and a clock, but everything about stanley irons and planes (why they're not as hard as the steel would permit, etc) instantly came into focus and the chinese HSS planes that I purchased to take many thin shavings off of cocobolo in my original planemaking phase were really unnecessary and they reside in the shelves now, waiting only for something caked with dry glue.
Tying back around to your original point - I got off of my gimmick wagon on the aussie forum after going through what I just mentioned above and said "I guess none of this really matters if you're not doing all of you work with a plane, and you're just trimming joints and removing planer chatter - the time penalty isn't really great".
And to my surprise, the response was "so, now you're saying what we're doing isn't real woodworking?!"
(more like, it's easy to see as people went to using power tools to solve problems why there really wasn't that much impetus for most people to try to figure out why the extra cost was spent putting a cap iron on a plane in the first place, or whether or not any of larry's assertions on his single iron manifesto - about the flaws of wooden double iron planes - were right. They weren't, but who would care?)
Signed-
The bulldog
Re: Even with a milling machine...
Brian Holcombe
A milling machine can be a very interesting tool, I think you’d enjoy it in many ways. I certainly do from time to time, sometimes setting up for a milling cut is a nice break from hand work and vice versa.
With milling, of course, comes the science of metrology and oh, what a dangerous interest that can become.
agreed
Bruce, a MN Galoot
I’ve had a little experience with a Bridgeport knee mill and follow several machinist youtubers. The time they spend in measurement and setup is really significant.
the setup and measurement..
david weaver
...is the part that I really hate. That's what drove me away from power tools, measuring and fighting large tools to get the measured accuracy.
But I could get on with something like that if it was doing rough work and I was hand finishing something.
As I'm pondering making some chisels out of half round files, smashed with a hammer, I'm considering my options for dimensioning metal. They are pretty much vixen files draw filing and down from there (you can do a lot with vixen files, but it will take a couple of hours to dimension a chisel and have it read to be finish filed).
I remember when I said I wanted to taper blades, Larry Williams told me that it would take a minimum of $3,000 to do it. I tapered (along with a hollow, something that would be very difficult to do) the 1/4" blade in shootenstein, I believe about 5 hundredths worth. it took a while, about an hour, but I can do the rough work on the end of a belt sander in less than an hour. No boast for production, but practical and cheap. about $1 of sanding belt and some warm fingertips.
I am sort of afraid of getting a small mill and actually liking it, too.