James - Outstanding work! As an old engineer with almost 45 years in the machine tool industry (and over 25 years in R & D) I'm very impressed with your methodology and the completeness of your data. Interestingly, your data corelates well with my much smaller and more subjective tests. That's why all of my restored Bedrocks use PM-V11 blades along with Veritas chip breakers. (I recommend using Veritas' chip breaker in lieu of the Stanleys- try one and see.) I also use several Wood River planes with the original irons. For a note on the IBC's see my next post.
@@jasonsocquet8555 Since I'm a "hybrid" woodworker, I can't justify the cost of PM-V11 vs Wood River blades for the small gain in time between sharpenings. (There is a big gain vs Stanley's O1 steel.). If I was an all-handtool woodworker and I did a lot of planing I would consider switching to PM-V11 irons in my most used planes.
Unbelievable test James. I know everyone in the community really appreciates all of your hard work on this. I'm really surprised by the Wood River results and will be buying one of their replacement blades for my #3 Stanley this week. Cheers!
Obviously, you are just plane crazy (in a good way). Thanks for the deep dive and and all of the past videos. Give the best to the family especially our hero Sarah.
As you said, really surprising results. Thanks for taking on this huge project! Really refreshing to see numbers backing up certain brand reputations! :)
Your work answers EVERY question I had (or had not yet even thought of) on plane blades. Thanks for the diligence and the free sharing of the information (which is supposed to be the whole idea of TH-cam and the internet....).
Well done jim you have shown me something that i sort of knew about .here in the uk we have a great company called workshop heaven . Matthew gets all his planes from the same company that make wood river luban .matthews planes are quensheng and at the factory you set your own standard so his are very very high .i have four of his planes no 6 . No 5.1/2 no 4.1/2. No 62 .my friend has lei neilson and brought his planes to my shop for a side by side test we couldnt beleive that my planes worked as good as his mine may not be as polished but at way under half the price .thank you for your time and hard work on this .
Thank you! This is exactly the kind of analysis that helps us make informed decision about plane blades. Otherwise we are all just left to make assumptions about brands and quality.
Holy moly, James. Thank you, thank you, thank you for doing this! I’ve long had issues getting my #4 to work as well as my #5. I think I’m going to pick up a new Wood River blade and see how that goes.
Thanks for doing this! Nothing beats quantifiable data for evaluating performance. Especially when there are so many variable aspects to consider. I have an anecdotal comparison to add though, for a couple of irons not on your extensive list. One was a Footprint iron, I bought new this year from Home Hardware (in Canada). And the other was a Stanley which had come with a type 20 #5, made in Canada also, best guess circa 1950. That iron was nicked badly so I had acquired the footprint to get the plane usable quickly. Recently I finished restoring the original Stanley iron, and swapped it back into the #5. Both irons were comparable in hardness, and neither were particularly quick or easy to sharpen. The Stanley took a finer edge - shaving sharp all hairs severed vs. the Footprint which would shave some hairs, but that's all. This was with the same methods and jigs - 1000 grit diamond plate, 3000 grit sandpaper on glass, green compound on a strop. Even though the keenness was less, the edge retention of the footprint was quite decent. On the same plane, with the same setup the Footprint could get ~.001" shavings, and the Stanley will take .0005". The Footprint did not come flat it was bad enough and I ended up putting a back bevel on rather than spend the many hours it would take to get it flat. All that said it only cost ~$12 Canadian so the value wasn't too bad, probably not that different from the results obtained with the Caliastro.
Amazingly valuable work, James. As an engineer i put a lot af value on empirical data. The ability to put your/own ranking on each attributevis inaluable as well. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I will be using this data to guide my choices in replacement blades, tweaking the criteria rankings dependin on use. Hooray for us data geeks! Stu
A couple questions: 1) After 1000 hours of shaving, do you see wood shavings when you close your eyes? 2) How can hardness not correlate to edge retention? Assuming all the blades are at the same angle, what property of the metal could make a softer blade stay sharper longer than a harder one?
Most bladesmiths believe the most important aspect is actually the crystal size and shape of the steel. Each type of steel has very different characteristics with it s crystal structure. It would be fun to test that but to do so would require a destruction of the blade.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo Thanks. Is there a name for the effect crystal size has on metal? If it's not hardness, is it something like "toughness" or "strength"?
Well done James. For $20 I'd much rather get a new better blade than spend the hours bringing back an old blade. The woodriver blades seem like an outstanding value.
I admire the amount of work to perform. Thank you for the job! One (possibly) interesting remark from me: I use a wooden jointer with an old Sheffield iron and I've noticed that the steel doesn't like diamonds at all. Sharpened on softer abrasives, the lifespan of the edge increases dramatically. This phenomenon is known to some degree among the fellow sharpeners, and there are many theories why it happens. Most plausible one states that there is some sort of "work hardening" happening on the microscopic scale it the abrasive crystal lacks the sharp corners. The best results I've got so far were with the translucent Arkansas and no strop. Classic Japanese waterstones work also well, but not as well.
James - once again thank you for all your hard work on this. This is very informative. My first chisels are Narex Richter thanks to your previous test. Thank you also for the PayPal tip link on your website. I don't need a jar of shavings but wanted to contribute to your efforts on this project so that was the perfect way to do so! Rob Cosman will be very happy with your findings!
So it seems that high-end franken-plane (i.e. Lie Nielsen plane - for those who don't like Norris style adjuster - and PMV11 blade) has marginal benefit over standard Lie Nielsen or Veritas custom. Thanks James, I think that this work will live for decades to come.
Although, I have to mention that my frankenplane is performing very well - LN #4 with 55 degrees frog and PMV-11 blade work exceptionally well on hard grain, especially for a birthday present to myself
In my 20s to just a few years ago I thought my old plane was a "Millers Falls 605" because of the Millers falls logo on the blade and no other manufacturer's name. I had heard that I needed to try a Stanley Bedrock plane, little did I know I had been using one all along.
Thanks for doing the work for us. And, thanks for saving me the little bit of cash on buying the HF plane. The Calistro looks like a decent budget replacement iron choice for those of us on a tight fixed budget, or those of us making our own planes as a hobby. Kuddos, James.
Topic: narrower irons on a wider plane. Ok or not? Q. Since my plane's iron isn't common anymore, is it ok to use any narrower blade that would fit the plane? ... or should I strive for the widest possible iron that can fit? ... or should I make it fit? I got an old Stanley #5 1/2. It is clearly for 2 1/4" irons. It came with a 2 3/8" iron that barely fits, but kind of works (the iron lever cap is 2 1/4" is sort of narrow). 2.25" irons are obtainable, although expensive or limited (specially costly for me due to shipping overseas). I wonder if I wanted to fit a top scoring iron, or just a cheaper off-the shelf iron, should I go for the 2" or the 2 3/8"? (50 mm or 60 mm).
I turned a harbor freight #4 (not 33!) into a scrub but am disappointed by the durability of edge. I have hock blades & chip breakers on my #5 & #7 but I'm not putting that much into a scrub blade! I'll be trying the Caliastro. Thank you!
I am guessing that the PMV 11would mean powder metal 11% vanadium. That would be very similar to the Doug Thompson wood lathe tools. One unmentioned thing about that metal is that you can not get it hot enough when grinding for them to lose the temper. I still wonder why no one has used M42 high speed steel. Another popular wood lathe metal. Again, as with the vanadium tools, you can not get them hot enough on the grinder for them to lose their temper.
HHS is not popular with hand tools as it takes forever to sharpen on traditional stones. But there are a few that have tried it. They just never sell well.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo Well, that makes me wonder about the PMV11 then. If it is like the wood lathe tools, there should be the same issues. I do have diamond lapping plates for sharpening, but did get 2 of the Shapton glass backed stones. For sharpening my lathe tools, I use only the CBN wheels. I did make a chisel out of one blank of M42 I had, and it appears to be really nice. One great debate that seems to surface regularly is about which metals can be made the sharpest. It seems that all can get to that same sharpness level, but some take more effort. With diamond and CBN, not a problem. Carbide on CBN though, can be done, but you really lose a lot of life from your wheel.
PMV 11 is a little slower to sharpen on traditional whetstones. But still works perfectly fine. If you have diamonds you really can't tell the difference in sharpening speed.
As an engineer and a woodworker, this is heavenly! We'll done sir! Two comments - first, there's a lot of labor involved here. What would you think about crowd sourcing the work? You could publish a test method and let others help you contribute data. Might be a good way to increase your sample size and get to the harder to find blades (not to mention, easier on your wallet!) Second comment/question - I picked up a woodcraft blade but it's so thick I can't get it to protrude through my older non-adjustable throat with the frog pulled all the way back. Any suggestions?
If the iron won't go through the mouth with the frog all the way back then the only answer is to file the front of the mouth forward. Sounds aggressive but it's fairly common with a lot of thick irons.
Haha, Caliastro for the surprise, I did not expect that one to do as well as it did. I figured for as cheap as it was for a plane and a spare iron, that it was going to be bad. But that it performed almost dead medium across the board and most everytime you changed what was important to you I was very surprised to see it show up as 4th or 5th recommend. Not bad for el cheapo. I bet your glad this test is over, so how are you planning on spending your vacation
Veritas blades are pre-flattened on the face side to a flatness tolerance of 0.0005" or better. To me, this is also important. I don't mind paying more to get a flat iron back. Also disappointed with IBC for its price.
Thanks so much for all this data! For what it's worth, I absolutely love my high-speed steel tipped iron the most. Mine is an old discontinued type that was made by Titan in Australia. Stanley made them in Australia too, but only Australia it seems. The HSS is brazed onto the business end of the iron with ordinary steel for the rest of the blade. It is a fair bit harder to sharpen, but lasts what feels like five times longer than my ordinary or laminated SW Stanley blades. They are still available here. I would love to see it tested using your methodology!
I'm planning on doing a follow-up test sometime in the future. I'd love to get my hands on one. But so far I've only been able to find them in Australia. Do you have a link to where I can buy them?
@@WoodByWrightHowTo These guys have them, but are in Australia www.thewoodworks.com.au/shop/spares/spares/plane-blades-hss-tipped/blade-plane-bench-hss-tipped-detail I will keep an eye out for a second hand one and send it your way!
Thank you for doing this it takes a lot of mystery out of blades. Now for my random thoughts. First off, I love the PM-V11 blades overall and highly recommend them. I am glad these tests confirmed my beliefs. Secondly, I agree on the Sheffield steel. I recently sold an infill plane that had a Marples blade from about 1890. Fun to sharpen and play with (I loved the thickness), but didn't perform better over modern blades. The one not tested I am curious about is on the Faithful planes sold in the UK. I own a Faithful #10 plane ($40 + $45 plane and blade shipping to the US - Amazon). I was thinking about getting a Hock blade for it since I am very skeptical of the quality of the blade on a $40 plane , but I don't use it often enough to really rate the current blade's performance. Maybe somebody who uses it more frequently can let me know. After seeing the Hock performance in this video, I am going to hold off a while longer and see what is out there for a #10 blade if my current one proves meddlesome. Finally, I am a little disappointed the Union did not rate higher. I am excited about the new X planes, and while still planning on purchasing one, I was hoping the blade would be a little higher quality. Thank you again for the effort you have put into this.
I'm looking to replace a blade for my Stanley #112, and realize I have just as many options. But, would testing scraper blades (#80, #12, #112....etc) be totally different, since you are working off a burr rather than the bevel? Without 600 hours of testing, what do you think the most important characteristics for the iron be? I would venture to guess this would also be important for steel used for card scrapers as well. I was geeking on this test thinking about my favorite smoothing plane, but honestly....I love my scrapers for glassy smooth surfaces.
I just bought three Grizzlys on Black Friday sale (no.4 5 & 7). Ranking all categories as 1, other than speed to 300 & final sharpness at 10.... Wood Rivers are basically twice the blade for twice the price. For anything scoring beyond Wood River the law of diminishing returns kicks in. Doubling down again for the Veritas pre-flat might be worth, maybe.
This is really, really great work!! Some expected and some surprising results. Thank you for doing and sharing. Obviously a huge amount of work and thought went into this. As a next step, if you could get microstructure images/sections done, this might explain why blades with relatively equal hardness perform so differently.
Have you ever crossed paths with a laminated Stanley blade. I have a transitional #26, not type I, or 2, no frog adjustment, it has a laminated blade. Any Ideas ? Thanks for your video.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo thank you. when I found the transitional plane, the edge was chipped beyond belief. (I sharpen Japanese knives), The hard laminated steel builds up a carbide layer on the edge, making it extremely chippy until sharpened (it's also VERY difficult to sharpen until the carbide layer is gone). I wonder how many people used a plane once or twice, and set it off, as no good. (my plane was hardly used)
Congratulations! You did a great job with this test. I really appreciate all of the hard work that you put into this channel. Keep up the good work! Could you please make a video about big diameter wooden threads and threading boxes? I am having a hard time finding a tap and die set for big threads and I’m not sure how to go about making one.
Very odd I replaced my woodriver blade with a IBC matched chipbreaker and could immediately tell the difference in performance and sound plus the IBC stayed sharp a lot longer in my experience but great video either way very interesting results.
ya I would like to expand the sample size some day to account of one off irons. But I had a couple that I thought were better. I could "feel" the difference, but after testing I realized my "feel" was not empirical, but governed by the money I put into it. in the end the difference between the best and worst was not as much as the chart makes it out to be. it would take a person years of working with planes daily to feel the difference. I do not think I am to that point yet.
James - A note on the IBC's. For performance on Stanley planes IBC relies on the matched chip breaker. You might want to test one of the Cosman-designed IBC chip breaker plus iron sets from here: www.ibctools.ca/product/ibc-matched-bladechip-breaker-sets-that-fit-older-stanleyrecord-bench-planes/ . Or, better, grab one on clearance from Woodcraft. Otherwise you might want to try an IBC 0.140in thick standard blade in a Wood River plane. (If you need to borrow a Wood River plane let me know. I'm only an hour away in Delavan, WI.) I realize that you may not want to even think about doing another test anytime soon. But when Narex ( a vendor I really like) comes out with their production product you might want to repeat the IBC test when you look at the new Narex.
I know how long youve been doing this, how much time, effort and money youve put into it, and for that I commend you James, WELL DONE SIR!!! Alas, I am none the wiser when it comes to the numbers and graphs, it all kinda goes over my head tbh :/ 2 of my old Record planes need new irons and I was going to just replace all of my plane irons at the same time with Ray Isles irons, but now I just dont know, I think im more confused than before haha :P I dont want to fork out on PMV11 irons for 5 bench planes, theyre out of stock in nearly all of europe anyways, and cost 55-60 euro a pop too :/ Il wait it out while I think more on where I should spend, I only have 10mm left before the slot on 2 of my irons tho and 1 of em I dont think the steel is even hard that close to the slot :P Even tho I made no sense of the numbers and graphs..... its not your fault my mind is made of mush right now :P Thanks for all your work James.......You Legend!!!! :)
Just going off your rating and not changing the values it looks like hocks high carbon is better than their cryo...am I reading that correctly? I'm looking for a replacement for my Ohio tools 5 1/2 and it's a size that only hock seems to make anymore so I really needed this data to make sure it was worth spending on the hock. Thanks
Very very very impressive I have a little doubt i think i heard in one video that you only sharp a primary bevel without secondary bevel. You dont regrind bevel or start with a relative coarse plate?
I'm no fundi, but AI113 cell in your spreadsheet seems to be incorrect in the spreadsheet version downloaded March 18 2023. Other than that, this is incredible, and thanks to it, I went and resharpened all my irons (ok, I have only 7) to 35deg. And I'll be passing this along. Many thanks for the excellence.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo I had believed it was to be an average of 110AG, 111AH, and 112AI - just like the rest of the averages you show. It seems this is intentional. Why not the average of the 3? Tx
really please with how the WR performed. ... since now ive been dubbed 'knight of the woodriver" im kind of a woodriver guy. was very surprized by ibc. really makes me think you got a bad blade, at least i hope so. i dont consider price to be a high mark at all. i believe in the cry once philosophy. im glad that i can continue on with my blades and feel like i have good quality. thanks a ton james
First off, incredible work! I'm a data guy so this really speaks to me! Amazing, amazing work! If you want to look into reporting tools, try Tableau, its a phenomenal tool for displaying graphs and charts that work well with spreadsheets, tables etc as your data sources One minor point - You may want to check the spelling of "tests" in your description. Question, it seems thickness is important for wood bodied planes, however based on your new steel vs old steel comment, what do you think would be the best irons and important categories for a wood bodied plane? (I'm hoping to build my first wood bodied plane soon)
In my experience thickness does not play an incredibly large part in wooden body planes. It's nice but not really necessary. That is as long as the bed is solidly flat and mates well with the iron. If the bed has imperfections in it then a thicker iron will have a little bit less vibration in it.
Wow, super work, thank you. I found it interesting how the performance quickly leveled out. Is it fair to say that taking a blade to extreme sharpness may not be always required? Kinda like a great ice cream, after three licks the wow factor fades to good.
Even though many of the tested plane irons are not available in Germany, I would like to thank you for this test and the immense work behind it. Apart from the fact that only one iron of each type was tested, the table allows a lot of conclusions to be drawn. HSS steel plane irons are also available in Germany. The companies Kunz and Dictum sell such plane irons. Would it be possible to test these as well? Since I assume most here don't know the brand, Dictum planes are supposed to run off the same production lines in China as Woodriver planes. Now I'm waiting for the video in which Rob Cosman shows a comparison of plane irons with predetermined output, in which he makes the case for why you should buy IBC plane irons, as he did when comparing Narex Richter with Woodriver chisels recently. Needless to say, many of his arguments against the Narex Richter chisels in this test would also speak against the IBC chisels he favors. But this is how good businessmen and politicians argue today. They don't tell untruths, they only present arguments who support their own point of view and leave out all that speak against it.
I would love to test some of your irons. I'm planning on doing another series of tests probably later this year. If you have some that I could try I would be glad to do it. I'm also planning on testing a few others as well as retesting some of the outliers like IBC. It'll be interesting to see.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo I will get a number 4 HSS iron from Dictum for you. As soon as I got it I will contact you so that I can send it to you, but I have to admit that it could take some weeks until I get it.
The big thing is people believe it will lesson chatter. From most of my testing I have found that to be a myth. But enough people believe it and so there is a demand for it.
Jim, did Hock ever contact you about your less-than-stellar results? Everywhere (else) that I look, I see Hock recommended and can't understand why they rated so low in your tests. I'm at the point of replacing the original blade in my old Stanley #3. I called the local Wood Craft and while they have Wood River blade in stock for me, they also are trying to steer me toward Hock, saying that several of the store employees prefer them over Wood River.
To be honest they didn't rank very low at all. The difference between the top and all but the few lowest is very minuscule. And most people would not notice the difference. But no. I have not been contacted by any of the makers other than one that was sent to me by the maker.
Do you have any impression of the flatness of the backs of these blades? I know LN's and Veritas (maybe Hocks?) are supposed to be real flat, but how cheap can I go before I start to have to spend hours flattening the leading inch of the back?
I don't check flatness on them. It honestly doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. As long as it's smooth across the front and the compression of the chip breaker frog and liver cap provide a good fit. The rest doesn't matter.
I looked through all of the comments before writing this one in case someone else had already asked the same question. My apologies if I missed it. Because of this test, i purchased 3 Woodriver blades of various sizes. Basically, ones that fit the 3, 4 and 6. Because the blades are thicker than the Stanley's, I am finding the screw that attaches the chip breaker to be a little short. I can get it to work if I am very careful. Are there longer chip breaker screws available?
@@WoodByWrightHowTo I only bought the Woodriver iron, not the chip breaker. Do I need to by the chip breaker too? My internet search of "longer stanley chip breaker screw" has not turned up any useful results so far.
You absolute MADLAD. Thank you for all this hard work, James. Besides the hard numbers in the spreadsheet, what is your opinion on the Japanese iron? Is it just a curiosity, or does it have some niche to fill?
Thanks. I really think it is only for the people that believe the Japanese do things better. it is just there for peace of mind. it was right in the middle of the pack and for the price I do not think it was worth it.
Hello, Mr. Wright; Thank you for this, now if someone could please explain it to me? I have issues w/ spreadsheets or rather, the way the data is presented. It makes it difficult for me to find & compare the different data points. I was looking for the degree info & couldn't see it. Then the columns don't seem to respond to selecting. But it is very interesting. Have a GREAT day, Neighbor!
Thank you for doing this - I need to dive into it more, but the most shocking result is "Edge retention versus hardness" My new question for our metallurgy friends out there is then what is the "Factor" or a test to determine edge retention if we negate hardness based on these data?!
@@WoodByWrightHowTo we were "talking" over on NCWW ncwoodworker.net/ and came up with "abrasion resistance" as a "Better" deciding factor as opposed to a hardness test... so that would be an interesting "add-on" to the test data... or information from the manufacturers.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo Further discussion on "What would be a better or additional test to hardness to determine a "good" or "Great" Plane blade. Your data points out that hardness alone is not a determinate, but would hardness along with an abrasion resistance test (or some other test or combination of [hopefully non-destructive, or minimally invasive tests) prove out your results?
As Tay tools is switching out all their irons to the new ones. I still like them for that price point. The plane itself is decent and can do good work. But to be honest, no beginner out there would be able to feel the difference between the old Tay Tools and the PMV11. Though the chart makes them look miles apart it takes a decent amount of experience to feel the difference.
Nevermind. I just read the description of final dullness. Are you sure that there is no error in the 'Final dullness' and 'Average Keenness' with the Caliastro plane iron? Because as it is, the numbers are saying that it gets sharper, the more you're working with it, since you're starting on Average Keenness as 206 ang going to Final dullness 176. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Especially since all the other irons have the Final dullness number higher, than the Average Keenness.
Holy cow, that's amazing. How much wood did you go through? How many boards? I assume it was oak? Did you use different types of wood or stick to the same kind?
it was Hickory all From the same tree. in total it was about 13 board feet turned into shavings. here is the video going into the method if you want to see that. th-cam.com/video/lAqzHLMJ0pU/w-d-xo.html and here si the update with changes to the test. th-cam.com/video/bARPvLAoYG8/w-d-xo.html
Old steel isn't better by any stretch of the imagination but lately I've been seeing people replacing near full length vintage irons with new steel for no real reason. I have a Stanley Type 14 No. 7 with the original iron in it with plenty of length and it works perfectly well. If I ever use up the blade, then I'll replace it but if not, not a chance. Why spend the money when you already have a solid iron? That being said, I have purchased new irons for alternate uses to just swap out the iron to give me a different cut because I don't have a stock of old irons laying around to pilfer.
Found your channel from Rex's videos. Both of you are awesome! You guys should do some videos together, I think with both of you guys working together, I think you guys could create some really amazing stuff for the craft.
rex and I have done a few videos together. we are working on one right now that might be done late this year. and we keep thinking of getting together some time.
I splashed out on the Veritas shooting plane and thought that if I was spending that sort of money I might as well get the PMV11 blade. I am glad that thePMV11 iron didn't suck and turned out as a good choice.
I’m shocked at the IBC results. I have a PMV-11 and an IBC blade in a No. 6, and I think I prefer the IBC! The sharpness might even exceed my Richter chisels, which get seriously sharp. Maybe I got a lucky iron.
I think what's really great to see: Aside from outliers all plane irons, that have been made by reputable manufacturers, or enthusiast makers are good enough for everyone of us. Also the present take on the premium is actually not far off from being the best. Looking forward to the Narex irons. I really like them as a company. WoodRiver.. China. Sorry. No. No matter the quality. The working conditions, the margins they squeeze out of the people living there... I just can't stand behind. The more local I can buy tools, the better (my personal take).
Just saying, I think you're everybody's hero
Legend status achieved
I love it when an inexpensive option does well like this.
You are the Project Farm of woodworking. Thank you for all of the time, effort, and money you put into these videos. You save me a lot of the same!
thanks! that means a lot.
Spectacular, I love the work you've put in and the level of geekiness you've gone to!
got to love my spread sheets!
@@WoodByWrightHowTo So do we!
I knew you were a mater woodworker but had no idea you were a master at spreadsheets, too! I am VERY impressed!
y masters was in technical theater. I had to do a LOT of spreadsheets there. one of my loves!
James - Outstanding work! As an old engineer with almost 45 years in the machine tool industry (and over 25 years in R & D) I'm very impressed with your methodology and the completeness of your data. Interestingly, your data corelates well with my much smaller and more subjective tests. That's why all of my restored Bedrocks use PM-V11 blades along with Veritas chip breakers. (I recommend using Veritas' chip breaker in lieu of the Stanleys- try one and see.) I also use several Wood River planes with the original irons. For a note on the IBC's see my next post.
Would you recommend changing out an original woodriver iron from a woodriver plane for a PM-V11 blade (for better edge retention)?
@@jasonsocquet8555 Since I'm a "hybrid" woodworker, I can't justify the cost of PM-V11 vs Wood River blades for the small gain in time between sharpenings. (There is a big gain vs Stanley's O1 steel.). If I was an all-handtool woodworker and I did a lot of planing I would consider switching to PM-V11 irons in my most used planes.
@@michaelcurry8905 thanks Michael
Wow. That. Was. Amazing! Unbelievable data. Great job!
Wow. Just wow. You are now the Project Farm for woodworkers. Very well done.
Unbelievable test James. I know everyone in the community really appreciates all of your hard work on this. I'm really surprised by the Wood River results and will be buying one of their replacement blades for my #3 Stanley this week. Cheers!
I want to say THANK YOU!!! this is awesome. This really helps me with what is marketing hype to actual working usage. (I hope that makes sense)
I love all the test videos... you're combining two of my most fvourite things... woodworking and spreadsheets :)
two of my favorites!
Obviously, you are just plane crazy (in a good way). Thanks for the deep dive and and all of the past videos. Give the best to the family especially our hero Sarah.
What a ton of work!
Thank you so much!!! Guaranteed, this work will be referenced by thousands!
As you said, really surprising results. Thanks for taking on this huge project! Really refreshing to see numbers backing up certain brand reputations! :)
James, huge props to you for putting this together. Your level of detail and dedication speaks to your love of the craft. Keep up the good work!
Really impressive. Wow, that’s a lot of work. Thank you for doing it. When I look for a replacement blade I’ll be going Woodriver.
Your work answers EVERY question I had (or had not yet even thought of) on plane blades. Thanks for the diligence and the free sharing of the information (which is supposed to be the whole idea of TH-cam and the internet....).
Thanks. It was my pleasure.
Great work! Wow, just cannot say how much value there is in this testing data. 🤠❤️
I have been looking so much forward to this video.
Well done jim you have shown me something that i sort of knew about .here in the uk we have a great company called workshop heaven .
Matthew gets all his planes from the same company that make wood river luban .matthews planes are quensheng and at the factory you set your own standard so his are very very high .i have four of his planes no 6 . No 5.1/2 no 4.1/2. No 62 .my friend has lei neilson and brought his planes to my shop for a side by side test we couldnt beleive that my planes worked as good as his mine may not be as polished but at way under half the price .thank you for your time and hard work on this .
Thank you! This is exactly the kind of analysis that helps us make informed decision about plane blades. Otherwise we are all just left to make assumptions about brands and quality.
Holy moly, James. Thank you, thank you, thank you for doing this! I’ve long had issues getting my #4 to work as well as my #5. I think I’m going to pick up a new Wood River blade and see how that goes.
Thanks for doing this! Nothing beats quantifiable data for evaluating performance. Especially when there are so many variable aspects to consider. I have an anecdotal comparison to add though, for a couple of irons not on your extensive list. One was a Footprint iron, I bought new this year from Home Hardware (in Canada). And the other was a Stanley which had come with a type 20 #5, made in Canada also, best guess circa 1950. That iron was nicked badly so I had acquired the footprint to get the plane usable quickly. Recently I finished restoring the original Stanley iron, and swapped it back into the #5. Both irons were comparable in hardness, and neither were particularly quick or easy to sharpen. The Stanley took a finer edge - shaving sharp all hairs severed vs. the Footprint which would shave some hairs, but that's all. This was with the same methods and jigs - 1000 grit diamond plate, 3000 grit sandpaper on glass, green compound on a strop. Even though the keenness was less, the edge retention of the footprint was quite decent. On the same plane, with the same setup the Footprint could get ~.001" shavings, and the Stanley will take .0005".
The Footprint did not come flat it was bad enough and I ended up putting a back bevel on rather than spend the many hours it would take to get it flat. All that said it only cost ~$12 Canadian so the value wasn't too bad, probably not that different from the results obtained with the Caliastro.
Amazingly valuable work, James. As an engineer i put a lot af value on empirical data. The ability to put your/own ranking on each attributevis inaluable as well. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I will be using this data to guide my choices in replacement blades, tweaking the criteria rankings dependin on use. Hooray for us data geeks! Stu
A good spread sheet is worth it's weight in gold.
James, very helpful tests. Thank you.
Amazing data, unbelievable amount of work. Most appreciative for this, James!!
A couple questions:
1) After 1000 hours of shaving, do you see wood shavings when you close your eyes?
2) How can hardness not correlate to edge retention? Assuming all the blades are at the same angle, what property of the metal could make a softer blade stay sharper longer than a harder one?
Most bladesmiths believe the most important aspect is actually the crystal size and shape of the steel. Each type of steel has very different characteristics with it s crystal structure. It would be fun to test that but to do so would require a destruction of the blade.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo Thanks. Is there a name for the effect crystal size has on metal? If it's not hardness, is it something like "toughness" or "strength"?
Well the crystal structure of steel actually affects all of the measurable attributes of the metal. Even down to conductivity.
I was about to ask this number 2) question
Well done James.
For $20 I'd much rather get a new better blade than spend the hours bringing back an old blade. The woodriver blades seem like an outstanding value.
Seriously awesome. So glad my little bit of patron bucks are going to you!
And thanks for the sport man. We would not be here without you.
Thank you so much for all your work! Really great!
Wow James, thanks a bunch for doing this! This is very useful information.
I admire the amount of work to perform. Thank you for the job!
One (possibly) interesting remark from me: I use a wooden jointer with an old Sheffield iron and I've noticed that the steel doesn't like diamonds at all. Sharpened on softer abrasives, the lifespan of the edge increases dramatically. This phenomenon is known to some degree among the fellow sharpeners, and there are many theories why it happens. Most plausible one states that there is some sort of "work hardening" happening on the microscopic scale it the abrasive crystal lacks the sharp corners. The best results I've got so far were with the translucent Arkansas and no strop. Classic Japanese waterstones work also well, but not as well.
James - once again thank you for all your hard work on this. This is very informative. My first chisels are Narex Richter thanks to your previous test. Thank you also for the PayPal tip link on your website. I don't need a jar of shavings but wanted to contribute to your efforts on this project so that was the perfect way to do so! Rob Cosman will be very happy with your findings!
thanks man. that means a lot! I will keep them comming.
Great job! Very good video. Data beats marketing hype any day of the week!
So it seems that high-end franken-plane (i.e. Lie Nielsen plane - for those who don't like Norris style adjuster - and PMV11 blade) has marginal benefit over standard Lie Nielsen or Veritas custom.
Thanks James, I think that this work will live for decades to come.
Although, I have to mention that my frankenplane is performing very well - LN #4 with 55 degrees frog and PMV-11 blade work exceptionally well on hard grain, especially for a birthday present to myself
In my 20s to just a few years ago I thought my old plane was a "Millers Falls 605" because of the Millers falls logo on the blade and no other manufacturer's name. I had heard that I needed to try a Stanley Bedrock plane, little did I know I had been using one all along.
Great Work. thanks a lot! Keep up the great work!
Very, very impressive work! Super interesting!
Thanks for doing the work for us. And, thanks for saving me the little bit of cash on buying the HF plane. The Calistro looks like a decent budget replacement iron choice for those of us on a tight fixed budget, or those of us making our own planes as a hobby. Kuddos, James.
Topic: narrower irons on a wider plane. Ok or not?
Q. Since my plane's iron isn't common anymore, is it ok to use any narrower blade that would fit the plane?
... or should I strive for the widest possible iron that can fit?
... or should I make it fit?
I got an old Stanley #5 1/2. It is clearly for 2 1/4" irons. It came with a 2 3/8" iron that barely fits, but kind of works (the iron lever cap is 2 1/4" is sort of narrow). 2.25" irons are obtainable, although expensive or limited (specially costly for me due to shipping overseas).
I wonder if I wanted to fit a top scoring iron, or just a cheaper off-the shelf iron, should I go for the 2" or the 2 3/8"? (50 mm or 60 mm).
You can put a narrow iron in a wider plane. It just means that it will not be able to plane the full width. But it will work perfectly.
Great to know the results, I was hoping to see a modern stanley sweetheart blade tested, maybe you can throw it & get rid of the harbor freight iron.
I will probably be doing another test some time, but I might have to add that one!
What a fantastic body of work!
Well done James! I have been eagerly waiting for your results and you didn't disappoint. Phenomenal work sir.
I turned a harbor freight #4 (not 33!) into a scrub but am disappointed by the durability of edge. I have hock blades & chip breakers on my #5 & #7 but I'm not putting that much into a scrub blade! I'll be trying the Caliastro. Thank you!
I am guessing that the PMV 11would mean powder metal 11% vanadium. That would be very similar to the Doug Thompson wood lathe tools. One unmentioned thing about that metal is that you can not get it hot enough when grinding for them to lose the temper. I still wonder why no one has used M42 high speed steel. Another popular wood lathe metal. Again, as with the vanadium tools, you can not get them hot enough on the grinder for them to lose their temper.
HHS is not popular with hand tools as it takes forever to sharpen on traditional stones. But there are a few that have tried it. They just never sell well.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo Well, that makes me wonder about the PMV11 then. If it is like the wood lathe tools, there should be the same issues. I do have diamond lapping plates for sharpening, but did get 2 of the Shapton glass backed stones. For sharpening my lathe tools, I use only the CBN wheels. I did make a chisel out of one blank of M42 I had, and it appears to be really nice. One great debate that seems to surface regularly is about which metals can be made the sharpest. It seems that all can get to that same sharpness level, but some take more effort. With diamond and CBN, not a problem. Carbide on CBN though, can be done, but you really lose a lot of life from your wheel.
Now, I am wondering if the Rockwell hardness is similar or the same. I think most of the PM and M42 are in the 60 to 62 range. Can't remember....
PMV 11 is a little slower to sharpen on traditional whetstones. But still works perfectly fine. If you have diamonds you really can't tell the difference in sharpening speed.
The hardness depends on however it was tempered.
As an engineer and a woodworker, this is heavenly! We'll done sir!
Two comments - first, there's a lot of labor involved here. What would you think about crowd sourcing the work? You could publish a test method and let others help you contribute data. Might be a good way to increase your sample size and get to the harder to find blades (not to mention, easier on your wallet!)
Second comment/question - I picked up a woodcraft blade but it's so thick I can't get it to protrude through my older non-adjustable throat with the frog pulled all the way back. Any suggestions?
If the iron won't go through the mouth with the frog all the way back then the only answer is to file the front of the mouth forward. Sounds aggressive but it's fairly common with a lot of thick irons.
This is a super informative test! Awesome work!
Thank you!
Haha, Caliastro for the surprise, I did not expect that one to do as well as it did. I figured for as cheap as it was for a plane and a spare iron, that it was going to be bad. But that it performed almost dead medium across the board and most everytime you changed what was important to you I was very surprised to see it show up as 4th or 5th recommend. Not bad for el cheapo. I bet your glad this test is over, so how are you planning on spending your vacation
Lol now I'm on to the next glue test. No rest for the wicked.
Veritas blades are pre-flattened on the face side to a flatness tolerance of 0.0005" or better. To me, this is also important. I don't mind paying more to get a flat iron back. Also disappointed with IBC for its price.
I just ordered pm-v11 a couple of weeks ago. Really surprised about IBC and woodriver.
same here!
Thanks so much for all this data! For what it's worth, I absolutely love my high-speed steel tipped iron the most. Mine is an old discontinued type that was made by Titan in Australia. Stanley made them in Australia too, but only Australia it seems. The HSS is brazed onto the business end of the iron with ordinary steel for the rest of the blade. It is a fair bit harder to sharpen, but lasts what feels like five times longer than my ordinary or laminated SW Stanley blades. They are still available here. I would love to see it tested using your methodology!
I'm planning on doing a follow-up test sometime in the future. I'd love to get my hands on one. But so far I've only been able to find them in Australia. Do you have a link to where I can buy them?
@@WoodByWrightHowTo These guys have them, but are in Australia www.thewoodworks.com.au/shop/spares/spares/plane-blades-hss-tipped/blade-plane-bench-hss-tipped-detail
I will keep an eye out for a second hand one and send it your way!
Thank you for doing this it takes a lot of mystery out of blades. Now for my random thoughts.
First off, I love the PM-V11 blades overall and highly recommend them. I am glad these tests confirmed my beliefs.
Secondly, I agree on the Sheffield steel. I recently sold an infill plane that had a Marples blade from about 1890. Fun to sharpen and play with (I loved the thickness), but didn't perform better over modern blades.
The one not tested I am curious about is on the Faithful planes sold in the UK. I own a Faithful #10 plane ($40 + $45 plane and blade shipping to the US - Amazon). I was thinking about getting a Hock blade for it since I am very skeptical of the quality of the blade on a $40 plane , but I don't use it often enough to really rate the current blade's performance. Maybe somebody who uses it more frequently can let me know. After seeing the Hock performance in this video, I am going to hold off a while longer and see what is out there for a #10 blade if my current one proves meddlesome.
Finally, I am a little disappointed the Union did not rate higher. I am excited about the new X planes, and while still planning on purchasing one, I was hoping the blade would be a little higher quality.
Thank you again for the effort you have put into this.
James, for the love of God,,,,take a vacation. You've earned it. Keep on smiling.
We had four vacations canceled this year. That is why I could get this done.
Thanks mr James 👍
Woot woot congrats on first.
I spent 100 bucks on an ibc from woodcraft. Never again
I'm looking to replace a blade for my Stanley #112, and realize I have just as many options. But, would testing scraper blades (#80, #12, #112....etc) be totally different, since you are working off a burr rather than the bevel? Without 600 hours of testing, what do you think the most important characteristics for the iron be? I would venture to guess this would also be important for steel used for card scrapers as well. I was geeking on this test thinking about my favorite smoothing plane, but honestly....I love my scrapers for glassy smooth surfaces.
God bless you James 🙏 thank you
Thank you. Amazing job :)
Can't wait to see the response to this one in a couple of weeks.
Well done!
That's alot of data James! Best Wishes For a Happy NewYear to You and Your Family!
I just bought three Grizzlys on Black Friday sale (no.4 5 & 7). Ranking all categories as 1, other than speed to 300 & final sharpness at 10.... Wood Rivers are basically twice the blade for twice the price. For anything scoring beyond Wood River the law of diminishing returns kicks in. Doubling down again for the Veritas pre-flat might be worth, maybe.
This is really, really great work!! Some expected and some surprising results. Thank you for doing and sharing. Obviously a huge amount of work and thought went into this. As a next step, if you could get microstructure images/sections done, this might explain why blades with relatively equal hardness perform so differently.
I would love to do that. maybe some day!
I really appreciate all the work you put in to this exhaustive study. Was the Lake Erie Toolworks entry done after this video?
yes. I am in the middle of testing a few more. there will be an update video in the next few weeks.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo Sweet! I'm looking forward to it.
Have you ever crossed paths with a laminated Stanley blade. I have a transitional #26, not type I, or 2, no frog adjustment, it has a laminated blade. Any Ideas ? Thanks for your video.
And of course you mention laminated Sheffield 1 minute after I asked the question.
Yes they did use slightly thicker laminated irons for a bit but soon switched to the thinner iron as most woodworkers back then liked them more.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo thank you. when I found the transitional plane, the edge was chipped beyond belief. (I sharpen Japanese knives), The hard laminated steel builds up a carbide layer on the edge, making it extremely chippy until sharpened (it's also VERY difficult to sharpen until the carbide layer is gone). I wonder how many people used a plane once or twice, and set it off, as no good. (my plane was hardly used)
Great info thanks for this!
Congratulations! You did a great job with this test.
I really appreciate all of the hard work that you put into this channel.
Keep up the good work!
Could you please make a video about big diameter wooden threads and threading boxes?
I am having a hard time finding a tap and die set for big threads and I’m not sure how to go about making one.
I have wanted to do that for a wile. you really can not find them for much bigger then a 1 1/2"
Very odd I replaced my woodriver blade with a IBC matched chipbreaker and could immediately tell the difference in performance and sound plus the IBC stayed sharp a lot longer in my experience but great video either way very interesting results.
ya I would like to expand the sample size some day to account of one off irons. But I had a couple that I thought were better. I could "feel" the difference, but after testing I realized my "feel" was not empirical, but governed by the money I put into it. in the end the difference between the best and worst was not as much as the chart makes it out to be. it would take a person years of working with planes daily to feel the difference. I do not think I am to that point yet.
Excellent work! Chisels and planes. What is next?
Who knows!
James - A note on the IBC's. For performance on Stanley planes IBC relies on the matched chip breaker. You might want to test one of the Cosman-designed IBC chip breaker plus iron sets from here: www.ibctools.ca/product/ibc-matched-bladechip-breaker-sets-that-fit-older-stanleyrecord-bench-planes/ . Or, better, grab one on clearance from Woodcraft. Otherwise you might want to try an IBC 0.140in thick standard blade in a Wood River plane. (If you need to borrow a Wood River plane let me know. I'm only an hour away in Delavan, WI.) I realize that you may not want to even think about doing another test anytime soon. But when Narex ( a vendor I really like) comes out with their production product you might want to repeat the IBC test when you look at the new Narex.
I will probably be retesting some time in the future and that is something I want to try.
I'll be making my own irons out of 52100 steel. I made a prototype with only an angle grinder and a Dremel.
I know how long youve been doing this, how much time, effort and money youve put into it, and for that I commend you James, WELL DONE SIR!!! Alas, I am none the wiser when it comes to the numbers and graphs, it all kinda goes over my head tbh :/ 2 of my old Record planes need new irons and I was going to just replace all of my plane irons at the same time with Ray Isles irons, but now I just dont know, I think im more confused than before haha :P I dont want to fork out on PMV11 irons for 5 bench planes, theyre out of stock in nearly all of europe anyways, and cost 55-60 euro a pop too :/ Il wait it out while I think more on where I should spend, I only have 10mm left before the slot on 2 of my irons tho and 1 of em I dont think the steel is even hard that close to the slot :P
Even tho I made no sense of the numbers and graphs..... its not your fault my mind is made of mush right now :P
Thanks for all your work James.......You Legend!!!! :)
Can you put a new iron & chip breaker in an old plane?
sure. all of these are replacements.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo the new chip breakers are flat rather than curved will they still fit?
Yes. They are still hollowed out on the back so they work the same way. Just a different design.
Just going off your rating and not changing the values it looks like hocks high carbon is better than their cryo...am I reading that correctly? I'm looking for a replacement for my Ohio tools 5 1/2 and it's a size that only hock seems to make anymore so I really needed this data to make sure it was worth spending on the hock. Thanks
yes. if it is between those two I would go with High carbon. Most of the cryo steels did not preform as well as the standard carbon steels.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo aren't the cryo steel supposed to be better? Your data would say otherwise. I am finding this data exciting to say the least
Cryo steels did great for chisels, but that is more impact.
Very very very impressive
I have a little doubt i think i heard in one video that you only sharp a primary bevel without secondary bevel. You dont regrind bevel or start with a relative coarse plate?
correct I only do the main bevel. it just takes too much time to do multiple bevels.
I'm no fundi, but AI113 cell in your spreadsheet seems to be incorrect in the spreadsheet version downloaded March 18 2023. Other than that, this is incredible, and thanks to it, I went and resharpened all my irons (ok, I have only 7) to 35deg. And I'll be passing this along. Many thanks for the excellence.
Thanks. What is wrong with the cell? It is an average of only one sample so it is the same as the sample.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo I had believed it was to be an average of 110AG, 111AH, and 112AI - just like the rest of the averages you show. It seems this is intentional. Why not the average of the 3? Tx
really please with how the WR performed. ... since now ive been dubbed 'knight of the woodriver" im kind of a woodriver guy. was very surprized by ibc. really makes me think you got a bad blade, at least i hope so. i dont consider price to be a high mark at all. i believe in the cry once philosophy. im glad that i can continue on with my blades and feel like i have good quality. thanks a ton james
Right on Sir Woodriver!
Go Canada!
First off, incredible work! I'm a data guy so this really speaks to me! Amazing, amazing work! If you want to look into reporting tools, try Tableau, its a phenomenal tool for displaying graphs and charts that work well with spreadsheets, tables etc as your data sources
One minor point - You may want to check the spelling of "tests" in your description.
Question, it seems thickness is important for wood bodied planes, however based on your new steel vs old steel comment, what do you think would be the best irons and important categories for a wood bodied plane? (I'm hoping to build my first wood bodied plane soon)
In my experience thickness does not play an incredibly large part in wooden body planes. It's nice but not really necessary. That is as long as the bed is solidly flat and mates well with the iron. If the bed has imperfections in it then a thicker iron will have a little bit less vibration in it.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo Thank you! that helps!
Wow, super work, thank you. I found it interesting how the performance quickly leveled out. Is it fair to say that taking a blade to extreme sharpness may not be always required? Kinda like a great ice cream, after three licks the wow factor fades to good.
I think the important thing in sharpening is not how sharp you get it but how smooth the tip is. That way it leaves less marks.
Even though many of the tested plane irons are not available in Germany, I would like to thank you for this test and the immense work behind it. Apart from the fact that only one iron of each type was tested, the table allows a lot of conclusions to be drawn.
HSS steel plane irons are also available in Germany. The companies Kunz and Dictum sell such plane irons. Would it be possible to test these as well? Since I assume most here don't know the brand, Dictum planes are supposed to run off the same production lines in China as Woodriver planes.
Now I'm waiting for the video in which Rob Cosman shows a comparison of plane irons with predetermined output, in which he makes the case for why you should buy IBC plane irons, as he did when comparing Narex Richter with Woodriver chisels recently. Needless to say, many of his arguments against the Narex Richter chisels in this test would also speak against the IBC chisels he favors. But this is how good businessmen and politicians argue today. They don't tell untruths, they only present arguments who support their own point of view and leave out all that speak against it.
I would love to test some of your irons. I'm planning on doing another series of tests probably later this year. If you have some that I could try I would be glad to do it. I'm also planning on testing a few others as well as retesting some of the outliers like IBC. It'll be interesting to see.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo I will get a number 4 HSS iron from Dictum for you. As soon as I got it I will contact you so that I can send it to you, but I have to admit that it could take some weeks until I get it.
Amazing work!
The big thing is people believe it will lesson chatter. From most of my testing I have found that to be a myth. But enough people believe it and so there is a demand for it.
Jim, did Hock ever contact you about your less-than-stellar results? Everywhere (else) that I look, I see Hock recommended and can't understand why they rated so low in your tests. I'm at the point of replacing the original blade in my old Stanley #3. I called the local Wood Craft and while they have Wood River blade in stock for me, they also are trying to steer me toward Hock, saying that several of the store employees prefer them over Wood River.
To be honest they didn't rank very low at all. The difference between the top and all but the few lowest is very minuscule. And most people would not notice the difference. But no. I have not been contacted by any of the makers other than one that was sent to me by the maker.
Do you have any impression of the flatness of the backs of these blades? I know LN's and Veritas (maybe Hocks?) are supposed to be real flat, but how cheap can I go before I start to have to spend hours flattening the leading inch of the back?
I don't check flatness on them. It honestly doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. As long as it's smooth across the front and the compression of the chip breaker frog and liver cap provide a good fit. The rest doesn't matter.
I looked through all of the comments before writing this one in case someone else had already asked the same question. My apologies if I missed it. Because of this test, i purchased 3 Woodriver blades of various sizes. Basically, ones that fit the 3, 4 and 6. Because the blades are thicker than the Stanley's, I am finding the screw that attaches the chip breaker to be a little short. I can get it to work if I am very careful. Are there longer chip breaker screws available?
Yes. Normally those come with the chipbraker, but several companies make longer ones for the modern irons.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo I only bought the Woodriver iron, not the chip breaker. Do I need to by the chip breaker too? My internet search of "longer stanley chip breaker screw" has not turned up any useful results so far.
i'd love to see how the E.A.Berg eskilstuna sweden plane irons perform
Ya unfortunately I am not testing anteques irons. There is too much varence in anteque steel to judge them due to one being tested.
You absolute MADLAD. Thank you for all this hard work, James. Besides the hard numbers in the spreadsheet, what is your opinion on the Japanese iron? Is it just a curiosity, or does it have some niche to fill?
Thanks. I really think it is only for the people that believe the Japanese do things better. it is just there for peace of mind. it was right in the middle of the pack and for the price I do not think it was worth it.
Hello, Mr. Wright;
Thank you for this, now if someone could please explain it to me?
I have issues w/ spreadsheets or rather, the way the data is presented.
It makes it difficult for me to find & compare the different data points.
I was looking for the degree info & couldn't see it.
Then the columns don't seem to respond to selecting.
But it is very interesting.
Have a GREAT day, Neighbor!
Thank you for doing this - I need to dive into it more, but the most shocking result is "Edge retention versus hardness" My new question for our metallurgy friends out there is then what is the "Factor" or a test to determine edge retention if we negate hardness based on these data?!
The biggest factor is the crystal size of the steel. Unfortunately that's not something you can test without destroying the iron
@@WoodByWrightHowTo we were "talking" over on NCWW ncwoodworker.net/ and came up with "abrasion resistance" as a "Better" deciding factor as opposed to a hardness test... so that would be an interesting "add-on" to the test data... or information from the manufacturers.
@@WoodByWrightHowTo Further discussion on "What would be a better or additional test to hardness to determine a "good" or "Great" Plane blade. Your data points out that hardness alone is not a determinate, but would hardness along with an abrasion resistance test (or some other test or combination of [hopefully non-destructive, or minimally invasive tests) prove out your results?
James: does the results of your test change or modify your opinion on buying the taytools planes as a good new plane?
As Tay tools is switching out all their irons to the new ones. I still like them for that price point. The plane itself is decent and can do good work. But to be honest, no beginner out there would be able to feel the difference between the old Tay Tools and the PMV11. Though the chart makes them look miles apart it takes a decent amount of experience to feel the difference.
Nevermind. I just read the description of final dullness.
Are you sure that there is no error in the 'Final dullness' and 'Average Keenness' with the Caliastro plane iron? Because as it is, the numbers are saying that it gets sharper, the more you're working with it, since you're starting on Average Keenness as 206 ang going to Final dullness 176. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Especially since all the other irons have the Final dullness number higher, than the Average Keenness.
that number is the final dullness minus the starting sharpness. in other words what was the change in sharpness over the test.
Holy cow, that's amazing. How much wood did you go through? How many boards? I assume it was oak? Did you use different types of wood or stick to the same kind?
it was Hickory all From the same tree. in total it was about 13 board feet turned into shavings. here is the video going into the method if you want to see that. th-cam.com/video/lAqzHLMJ0pU/w-d-xo.html and here si the update with changes to the test. th-cam.com/video/bARPvLAoYG8/w-d-xo.html
@@WoodByWrightHowTo Awesome, thank you!
Old steel isn't better by any stretch of the imagination but lately I've been seeing people replacing near full length vintage irons with new steel for no real reason. I have a Stanley Type 14 No. 7 with the original iron in it with plenty of length and it works perfectly well. If I ever use up the blade, then I'll replace it but if not, not a chance. Why spend the money when you already have a solid iron?
That being said, I have purchased new irons for alternate uses to just swap out the iron to give me a different cut because I don't have a stock of old irons laying around to pilfer.
Found your channel from Rex's videos. Both of you are awesome!
You guys should do some videos together, I think with both of you guys working together, I think you guys could create some really amazing stuff for the craft.
rex and I have done a few videos together. we are working on one right now that might be done late this year. and we keep thinking of getting together some time.
I splashed out on the Veritas shooting plane and thought that if I was spending that sort of money I might as well get the PMV11 blade. I am glad that thePMV11 iron didn't suck and turned out as a good choice.
In the video description it says “all the iron testes” hahahah nice.
Someone has some balls of steel
How I really test sharpness lol
I’m shocked at the IBC results. I have a PMV-11 and an IBC blade in a No. 6, and I think I prefer the IBC! The sharpness might even exceed my Richter chisels, which get seriously sharp. Maybe I got a lucky iron.
I think what's really great to see: Aside from outliers all plane irons, that have been made by reputable manufacturers, or enthusiast makers are good enough for everyone of us. Also the present take on the premium is actually not far off from being the best. Looking forward to the Narex irons. I really like them as a company. WoodRiver.. China. Sorry. No. No matter the quality. The working conditions, the margins they squeeze out of the people living there... I just can't stand behind. The more local I can buy tools, the better (my personal take).
Number one takeaway for me is that the super steels, aren't really worth the premium and super hard is more work than it's worth.
Ooooooooo DATA and SPREADSHEETS!
my favorite!